Shinobi Legends Forum - Shinobi Legends Game Site

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New members: you need admin approval, please petition *in game* if you made an account. :)

Author Topic: Philosophy Corner: Morality.  (Read 2315 times)

Uchiha Madara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +9/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« on: July 28, 2015, 06:24:14 PM »

What are your thoughts? Is morality absolute or relative? Are any value systems justified by an objective measure, or by subjective opinion?

My favorite philosophy topic, it gets folks to actually think about what they believe. Like with the Free Will topic, I will play the devil's advocate for both sides offering different perspectives.
Logged
_________________________________________________________________________________


Eric

  • Roleplay Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +101/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3504
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2015, 07:21:37 PM »

Morality itself is absolute. It is the set of "rights" and "wrongs" that improve the survival chances of a person or group of people. What that entails specifically differs with environment, upbringing, and circumstances in general.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.

KayentaMoenkopi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +87/-94
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2280
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2015, 09:27:09 PM »

Morals are not absolute. Not all people follow the same strictures, nor does every person even follow their own set of morals in all instances at all times.

Take the moral issue of one wife. Some say it is ok to have numerous wives, some say it is not. That only one wife is permitted. And yet, both viewpoints still see those who hold to this standard of morality, still having relations outside of wedlock.

Is it wrong to have more than one wife? This is not something that is universally accepted. It is an absolute for those who do, even though they may not hold to that level of behavior, hence guilt and wrong doing exists for those who live outside their own set of morals. Or claims of being shameless.

I feel that morality is not subjective though, people tend toward setting barriers across which they feel to tread is wrong. The tenets of morality are diverse, but most people have some level of morality they adhere to, even though those differ from person to person, and society to society.
Logged

Uchiha Madara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +9/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2015, 05:39:30 PM »

Morals are not absolute. Not all people follow the same strictures, nor does every person even follow their own set of morals in all instances at all times.

Take the moral issue of one wife. Some say it is ok to have numerous wives, some say it is not. That only one wife is permitted. And yet, both viewpoints still see those who hold to this standard of morality, still having relations outside of wedlock.

Is it wrong to have more than one wife? This is not something that is universally accepted. It is an absolute for those who do, even though they may not hold to that level of behavior, hence guilt and wrong doing exists for those who live outside their own set of morals. Or claims of being shameless.

I feel that morality is not subjective though, people tend toward setting barriers across which they feel to tread is wrong. The tenets of morality are diverse, but most people have some level of morality they adhere to, even though those differ from person to person, and society to society.

Kinda confused on this one. You yourself had said that the "one wife" rule, is not universally accepted, but yet is only a matter of individual feelings. Then your last statement you say that morality is not subjective, but yet gave an example of how it is.

Lets look at history, most of the world at one point believed slavery to be an okay practice. In this example, you have most people who believe such a thing is morally acceptable. This is an example of a cultural shift that swept alot of portions of the world, but this means a few things:

1. Slavery was always wrong, despite the fact the majority of people thought the opposite, meaning it is an objective fact, not an opinion.


 Or

2. Slavery was only really wrong when the majority of the world deemed it so, meaning this is a morally subjective thing.

But perhaps I should have been clearer with the question:

Are moral rules absolute or subjective?

I agree with Eric on the fact morals themselves are absolute in the fact that everyone has their own and are ultimately ruled by them. But suppose Nazi Germany won World War II and convinced 99% percent of the world that what they did was right. Would the 1% who think them morally corrupt actually be correct?


« Last Edit: August 02, 2015, 05:40:32 PM by Uchiha Madara »
Logged
_________________________________________________________________________________


Eric

  • Roleplay Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +101/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3504
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2015, 07:24:53 PM »


... Lets look at history, most of the world at one point believed slavery to be an okay practice. In this example, you have most people who believe such a thing is morally acceptable. This is an example of a cultural shift that swept alot of portions of the world, but this means a few things:

1. Slavery was always wrong, despite the fact the majority of people thought the opposite, meaning it is an objective fact, not an opinion.


 Or

2. Slavery was only really wrong when the majority of the world deemed it so, meaning this is a morally subjective thing.

But perhaps I should have been clearer with the question:

Are moral rules absolute or subjective?

I agree with Eric on the fact morals themselves are absolute in the fact that everyone has their own and are ultimately ruled by them. But suppose Nazi Germany won World War II and convinced 99% percent of the world that what they did was right. Would the 1% who think them morally corrupt actually be correct?

Slavery as it once was began to wane in part because of social/cultural revolutions and because a less "evil" looking version had come to pass. It became cheaper to have a laborer who could toil for barely living wages, only causing you expense for a salary that the head honcho set than it was to have a slave (who you had to personally feed, house, and in general give some level of care to if you wanted productivity out of said slave, much like livestock).

Not everything was peachy brandy cause no horse is going to stage a horse revolt, nor do many see it as having the intelligence to long for a greater condition entirely of its own choosing out of bondage, but in principle (similar to communism) it really does not sound like a bad deal. Enter the human element and crap hits the fan with principle.

Your answer choices omitted the possibility that slavery could be right as an objective fact that people came to oppose, but to keep us on track, I would have to choose number 2: slavery was deemed wrong when enough people deemed it wrong because of how it evolved. The way the Romans did slavery, in my opinion, was better than how the Spanish or Americans did slavery.

As for your second question, depending on the conditions of the world at the time of the question's posing and juncture, then it could go either way. If humanity is literally destroying itself in order to get purer, arguably the 1% would be correct as it would lead to the end of the human race in a relatively short order (cause perfection is one of those darn pursuits of madness) but if a dramatic reduction in certain populations increased general survivability, then the 1% who think it wrong would be wrong.

However, to judge whether a decision is right or wrong in that context requires seeing, or attempting to foresee rather, the effects that it would have on human existence, which is often better in hindsight than foresight.

"Actually correct" is a bit misleading, as in such a hypothetical it is really hard to determine what would actually happen, especially since it is really dependent on HOW Germany won WW II. If it would have been able to keep its possessions, would Italy have remained fascist under its own banner? Or would Germany have gobbled it too? Just how much of the world would be left in a condition where Nazi Germany won the war of wills and ideology? Are the 99% only Nazi occupied Europe, with a nuclear holocaust of a world soon leading them to doomsday along with pockets of allied resistance? Could humanity have survived a nuclear holocaust with mutually assured destruction a non-factor in a war like WW II?

It's in the genes on this one. If you're out to destroy your species' chance at survival, then in order for a species to keep going (its main objective, humanity or no humanity) then you have got to be eliminated. Question is, going back to the issue of clarity of who "you" is, who's decisions, ideology, is really going to end the species?
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.

Uchiha Madara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +9/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2015, 10:16:20 PM »

Hmm, i disagree there. Slavery in Great Britain and America was largely ended because of abolitionist who viewed "Human Rights" as an objective fact (not that the other factors weren't important, but those alone wouldn't have caused much change IMO). The type of slavery you mentioned had existed long before and during the times of enforced mass human slavery.

Animals have shown this on many occasions, sometimes we view it as a "mistake" on the animal's part. Like when a dog runs away from her owner. The dog is completely aware of the fact that they escaped set boundaries, and whether or not they come back, depends on the animal and how they feel. Why would the owner not simply let her dog go and be free? Why go hunt her down just to put more boundaries on her life again? Well the owner can justify it and say, "well, I can make her just as happy by keeping her as my pet if I condition her to like it." A slave owner would almost be able to give the exact same reasons for keeping a slave as an owner does for a pet.

You're right, my choices did omit the possibility of slavery being objectively right, but that was simply because I was going off a cultural standpoint that alot of people considering it "wrong". The choices were meant to do one of two things:

1. Support the stance that morality is subjective

2. Try to get someone to take an objective stance

I understand the multiple factors that might come into play when taking in hypotheticals. To narrow down an answer, I meant it more of a parallel scenario. You know how we as a society are conditioned to treat Hitler has an evil man and Nazi Germany as a bad thing all around, due to all sorts of propaganda, songs, books, movies, tradition, social media, etc. My scenario is these things are reversed and society was conditioned to love the Holocaust while there is a small percentage who hated it and think it was bad (think the "good" equivalent to the Neo Nazis).

There is one condition I noticed in your statement:

"As for your second question, depending on the conditions of the world at the time of the question's posing and juncture, then it could go either way. If humanity is literally destroying itself in order to get purer, arguably the 1% would be correct If humanity is literally destroying itself in order to get purer, arguably the 1% would be correct as it would lead to the end of the human race in a relatively short order (cause perfection is one of those darn pursuits of madness) but if a dramatic reduction in certain populations increased general survivability, then the 1% who think it wrong would be wrong.

Why is survivability objectively "good"? Sure its what organisms do, but organisms also eliminate their own kind to make room for themselves on the microbial scale and macro levels. I had a conversation with a guy once about survival, but in the end it totally became meaningless because of the various scenarios and perspectives that result in an increased survival of the individual, rather than the group.

Our example was a king who oppressed the peasants (with "oppression" being presumed to be objectively bad). But he had enough wealth to buy him what he wanted, power enough to squash any rebellion, drugs and propaganda to keep them compliant, a harmen, workers etc. There is no rational reason as to why the King shouldn't oppress the peasants because he has the ability to stop any backlash from them, especially if it makes him happy in the end.
Logged
_________________________________________________________________________________


Eric

  • Roleplay Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +101/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3504
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2015, 01:17:16 AM »


... Why is survivability objectively "good"? Sure its what organisms do, but organisms also eliminate their own kind to make room for themselves on the microbial scale and macro levels...

That doesn't really clear up why you're confused on why survivability is objectively "good". The purpose of life, stripping away all else, is the continuation of the species or kind, if not of life itself. If one organism is able to push another out of the way to better its own survival, then it may have better genes to survive, making it optimal for it to survive.

 If it destroys the ability to pass these on, however, then it becomes a futile effort, and in many organisms, this can lead to depression, loneliness, etc. Thus, at the end of the day, being too self-centered is against survival of the kind, and is thus largely discouraged in social creatures.

If certain selfish habits helps pass on the genes, then the behavior can very well be encouraged (I.E, your holocaust example) and even optimized.

Regarding your Holocaust hypothetical, if we are talking parallels, concentration camps would probably be a regular way of getting rid of undesirables. For that to happen, Darwinism to an extreme would have to be prioritized over equality.  But determining the best might would destroy creative thought and variability, and if taken to a great enough extreme, would literally lead to only a single breed with very little genetic variability. Then like the dinosaurs, all it would take is another Black Plague and a meteor and poof, there goes mankind.

But that's speculation. Maybe instead it would lead to where the worst of the worst are eliminated, the criminals and the terroists and the religious extremists. Maybe it could be better for society to have the stomach to mass kill off any who don't fit a certain mantra.

I suppose in a way I havne't really elaborated much on my point, merely restated it with your more focused question. But then again, my answer for that really hasn't changed either, it could go either way. But knowing human nature, more likely than not, the 1% would probably be right, because those in charge would skew the lines, be bought and paid for by those not wanting to face camps (or, French Revolution style, good and evil loses their heads!) and turn the system into a new type of royalty where if you are born with a truly arbitrary trait or happen to have wealth, then regardless of the benefits or detriments of keeping you around, you stick around to reproduce while some of the best may die.

Abolitionists were loud to outcry slavery by name, but the Industrial Revolution (and even somewhat prior) had waged slaves of its own. The idea of human rights, to set a man free of his chains merely to give him cleaner, less gritty ones, the man is still in chains. To work to live in filthy conditions, to be told that you are equal under the law, but still treated like you are an animal fresh off the wooden slave ship, regardless of skin color at times. To be treated as a dispenable worker, is that not in its own way as inhumane as slavery, if not even moreso in some contexts? Is it not in its own way slavery?

I find it to be so, with only gradual changes in laws (and enforcement) increasing wages and living conditions. But then, it became too expensive for the big whigs to make anything, so they moved elsewhere to make the same and greater profits. Then the greater wages are for naught because no one can get a job, and the population is now back to where it started, bar that changing times have not improved what the bottom bar is for the people. Where consumers go after the absolute cheapest, not the best, high, uncompetitive wages end up doing more harm than good.

Slavery in one form traded for another. If men are sheep and their leaders canines, then which are the wolves and which are the shepherds? We are trained that the wolf leading the sheep is bad, but he is fed in exchange for protection; the shepherd eventually has to give to another from the herd just to keep the size maintainable.

The problem with your example is, why is "oppression" considered objectively bad here? Some people (and animals) have to be oppressed for their own and the general populace's well-being. You would not let an angry bull roam the streets of New York would you? You would not allow dumb peasasnts to squander the wealth of the educated king on the very propoganda and drugs that could once control them would you? They are better put to the whip as to produce. If the King were to teach them to be his equals, if such were possible that is as it is not always feasible, then and only then would it make rational sense to give them more than oppression.

If the peasants were already his equals in mind and/or body, and their benefits squandered by the oppression rather than brought out by it, then I can see oppression as being objectively "bad". Otherwise, oppression can actually be "good", despite the connotation of the word nowadays.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.

Uchiha Madara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +9/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2015, 04:23:46 PM »

Well, that is because i'm looking at this purely from a purely naturalistic perspective. There is no "purpose" when it comes to morality (or life for that matter it was an "accident" as some may say), thus any reason for picking one over the other would be a personal choice that has no real support other than subjective feelings. The universe doesn't have a sign that says, "It is objectively good for organisms to survive." Millions of species have died but their death doesn't mean anything other than that they died. If raptors were still around today in large populations in my area, I'd say I would be one unhappy camper. One could view it either way, but what I saying is that there is no "measure" to make them correct, because it wouldn't exist. There is no "good" or "bad" difference between a Mother Theresa and an Adolf Hitler. Consequences, which seems to be your point, are also subjective in how one sees it and have no merit of themselves but how one feels about it.

Suppose Mike and John are co-workers, Mike gets into a car accident and dies. Mike's family is grieving and they have lost much a father, a brother, son, a husband, a friend etc. But on the flip side, John is happy. Mike was a jerk to him and now that he is dead, John is next in line for his spot at work. It gets better pay, a better office, etc, making HIS family better off.

Morality has alot of times not been what is convenient, and mostly is the opposite. True altruism doesn't help the individual and may even destroy them. A bus is coming for a old lady and a 10 year old kid sees it coming. He decides that it is right for him to give up his life for a stranger, so he pushes her out the way only to get run over himself.

Mary: The kid should have let the old lady get hit, he could have passed on his genes in the future or become a great scientist to revolutionize the world. He had so much more to live for.

Lisa: The old lady was the wife of the prime minister and the kid belonged to a rivaling nation. Tensions were hard between us but seeing his sacrifice for someone other than his own kind has restored peace between us.

Mary: Yeah, but extremists are using his death to try to spark an internal revolution and their numbers are growing rapidly.


Like I said before, destruction of humanity or any species doesn't matter, life has no purpose, only what it simply does. Some people think the Earth is better off without humanity because of the wide destruction we cause to virtually every species including ourselves. Some might think we are overpopulating and to get numbers to a more steady balance and make sure resources aren't used up to quickly, they generate wars that will get people to jumpstart economies, wipe out undesirables, brainwash to generate a new wave of thought etc.

X and Y are bad! Exterminate X and Y to help humanity flourish! It is for the greater good!

But like you said with my example, it could go either way. Maybe the opposite happens and creative thought is on an uprise because X and Y think they are the superior. Their minds whiz to create new inventions because they will usher in a new dawn for their race/culture/nation etc. Since X and Y are viewed as sub-human, or just plain inferior, experimentation could be brought to levels that silly "ethics" held us back from. We can have far more accurate trials on humans with drugs, various chemicals, inventions, psychological tests etc.

Maybe they think of this ahead of time and keep a good portion enslaved for breeding purposes, or what if their new ways of thought help human development by coming up with very advanced genetic engineering, eventually making the human race similar to that of a whiptail lizard and produce exact copies. Once and for all exterminating racism, better ways of human reproduction, same goals, same lifestyles etc.

Speculation aside, again, its subjective. The prerequisite you place for morality has no bearing, it leads to most often circular thoughts and no real conclusions.

Kyle: You ought to be unselfish.

Ted: Why?

Kyle: Because it is for the good of society.

Ted: Why should I care what is good for society unless it pays me personally?

Kyle: Because you ought to be unselfish...

There is always an "ought" snuck in somewhere somehow when people bring examples of morality. We "ought" to care about human survival rather than our own interests, we "ought" to say actions have objective merit, when this "ought" is simply a non-existent parameter. Who are you to say the "criminals", "terrorists", and "religious extremists" are the worst of the worst? To themselves they are folks trying to survive, freedom fighters, and truth sayers. I think if you compare it like that, you get the gist of my point.


I think here is where we differ and is usually a dead end. You base what is "good" or "right" on results you believe to be objectively good, because you already deem human flourishing as objectively good. The question is not what works, but what is true despite opinion. I flourish just fine if all my enemies are either dead brainwashed to support me. Here is an extreme example:

Think of the most heinous thing you can think of. Whatever act you believe to be the most deplorable thing a human being can do, and imagine it done to a child or infant. For example's sake, lets say the only way for most of the masses to flourish is for that act to be done on that child or infant. Would it be morally right to still do it?

Thats why I said it is "presumed to be bad". The suffering of the many doesn't matter if it benefits the one. It was to show that flourishing of the masses is itself subjective as to whether it is "good" or "bad". There is always the possibility that if the King loosens his reign of control, and the peasants think themselves his equal, they too will want power. If he teaches them very little and brainwashes them to obey, there is very little chance he will live to regret his decision. Even if they somehow find a way to overpower him and they sentence him to death or torture, the pleasure of his reign can outweigh the torture he felt or even his death.

But in the end I guess hypothetical are useless because of the seemingly infinite chain of events that can change the outcome. So the only thing that would matter is the here and now, not what may be to come.
Logged
_________________________________________________________________________________


Eric

  • Roleplay Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +101/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3504
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2015, 09:13:03 PM »


 ...The universe doesn't have a sign that says, "It is objectively good for organisms to survive."...

The universe does not determine morality, however, so naturally it has no direction upon it.

Living things determine morality, or more to the point, we know for sure that people determine morality. To say that "the universe" this or that is ridiculous, because the universe is an inanimate object that does not have morals, does not have thoughts or feelings, or even, as you say, a purpose (that we know of). Personification of an abiotic entity as great in scale as the universe is a ludicrious way to insist that life does not wish to flourish.

If anything, the universe is out to get destroy life as we know it. There is a reason Earth is one of the few planets suitable for life, and the only one discovered so far that definitely has life on it. Against all odds life in general has flourished here, even if it has had its downpeaks. Mammals would have never risen to the top without the removal of the dinosaurs; yet, no button was pressed, no decision to make war was made, it just happened. Would morality cause the survivors to destroy themselves also because they feel they have no purpose, no meaning now that their previous rulers have gone extinct?

I would like to think not considering where we are today.


Quote
... There is no "purpose" when it comes to morality...

I completely disagree with this statement, in case you haven't picked up on that already. Morality has a purpose, especially in human endeavors. IF it had no purpose it would not have survived in so many cultures for so long; what one considers right or wrong is quintessential to development, perception, and almost all things related to decision-making once established. Before the concept of right and wrong, pleasure and sustenance are guides, and in their own way, are the only rights, and displeasure and self-destruction the only wrongs, until society (or other factors) cause a blurring of the lines.

Quote
...One could view it either way, but what I saying is that there is no "measure" to make them correct, because it wouldn't exist...

History is written by the victor. Naturally, the "victor" would determine the measure on an objective level, but on an absolute level, the measure is set by a combination of chance (uncontrollable, relatively unpredictable things in the universe, especially luck) and determinations (controlled, comparatively predictable things in the universe, such as implementation of a policy). Together, chance and determinations show the measure of which success, however, coined and however determined, was best of the outcomes.

Quote
Speculation aside, again, its subjective. The prerequisite you place for morality has no bearing, it leads to most often circular thoughts and no real conclusions.

Kyle: You ought to be unselfish.

Ted: Why?

Kyle: Because it is for the good of society.

Ted: Why should I care what is good for society unless it pays me personally?

Kyle: Because you ought to be unselfish...

Kyle: You ought to be unselfish

Ted: Why?

Kyle: Because it is for the good of our society.

Ted: Why should I care what is good for society unless it pays me personally?

Kyle: Because a good deed for our society pays you personally.

Ted: Moreso that a good deed does not go unpunished. How so does a good deed for our society pay me personally?

Kylel: A good deed for our society will lead to a better society, which will lead to a better environment for you, which will pay you more than doing evil for our society, which will lead to a worse environment for you.

----

Religions, schools of thought, etc. have all filled in their idea of an answer, but they all generally come down to improving society so that society will improve the environment.


Quote
Even if they somehow find a way to overpower him and they sentence him to death or torture, the pleasure of his reign can outweigh the torture he felt or even his death.

Then his good is personal pleasure. If that is projected to the peasants, then their suffering will be seen as evil, and thus what he ultimately does to suffer to them is evil. If pleasure and pleasure alone is good, then to cause more suffering than pleasure is evil, even by the king's definition.

Quote
Suppose Mike and John are co-workers, Mike gets into a car accident and dies. Mike's family is grieving and they have lost much a father, a brother, son, a husband, a friend etc. But on the flip side, John is happy. Mike was a jerk to him and now that he is dead, John is next in line for his spot at work. It gets better pay, a better office, etc, making HIS family better off.

What is the moral delimma here?  The situation, without further details on the accident, can be neither evil nor good, because it was just that; an accident. If John murdered Mike, then one could make a judgement on whether it is good or evil.

Quote
ike I said before, destruction of humanity or any species doesn't matter, life has no purpose, only what it simply does.

For a human, the destruction of humanity does matter, much like for a bee the destruction of the hive matters considerably. There is no aught to, because a non-fictional character, even if he/she wants to see the world burn, there is a reason to it. Whether he/she realizes it or not, there is an ultimate reason to have the world burn.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.

Uchiha Madara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +9/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2015, 01:20:29 AM »


 ...The universe doesn't have a sign that says, "It is objectively good for organisms to survive."...

The universe does not determine morality, however, so naturally it has no direction upon it.

Living things determine morality, or more to the point, we know for sure that people determine morality. To say that "the universe" this or that is ridiculous, because the universe is an inanimate object that does not have morals, does not have thoughts or feelings, or even, as you say, a purpose (that we know of). Personification of an abiotic entity as great in scale as the universe is a ludicrious way to insist that life does not wish to flourish. 

I think you missed my point. I didn't say life does not wish to flourish (and to be more critical most life do not "wish" to flourish, to desire is for beings of emotion, most life has no emotions but express an instinct, not a morally superior drive) but to say so is to say my white blood cells "want" to protect my body. They don't "want" to do anything, thats just what they do. My point of bringing that up was to say morals were not absolute because they are a human invention (naturally speaking) humans share alot of the same desires, but that means nothing in the context i'm speaking of. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 even if everyone thought it was 5 or were gone.

You can build a plane, a building, car, etc if mathematical axioms are absolute. They don't stay the same on Monday but change up on Tuesday, unlike the ethics of the majority.

I think we need to get some things defined first before we continue. How do you define objective? Because even your "history is written by the victor" doesn't fit the definition of objective i'm thinking of.   

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The harm caused by an action is an objective fact, the value that one ought not cause harm is subjective. Philosopher Mihailo Markovic once said, "It remains quite unclear where this 'ought' comes from. It is one thing to describe a variety of actual historical patterns of conduct and moral habits. It is a completely different thing to make a choice among them and say we 'ought' to observe some of them. Why some and not others?"
« Last Edit: August 04, 2015, 01:21:15 AM by Uchiha Madara »
Logged
_________________________________________________________________________________


Eric

  • Roleplay Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +101/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3504
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy Corner: Morality.
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2015, 01:42:49 PM »


 ...The universe doesn't have a sign that says, "It is objectively good for organisms to survive."...

The universe does not determine morality, however, so naturally it has no direction upon it.

Living things determine morality, or more to the point, we know for sure that people determine morality. To say that "the universe" this or that is ridiculous, because the universe is an inanimate object that does not have morals, does not have thoughts or feelings, or even, as you say, a purpose (that we know of). Personification of an abiotic entity as great in scale as the universe is a ludicrious way to insist that life does not wish to flourish. 

I think you missed my point. I didn't say life does not wish to flourish (and to be more critical most life do not "wish" to flourish, to desire is for beings of emotion, most life has no emotions but express an instinct, not a morally superior drive) but to say so is to say my white blood cells "want" to protect my body. They don't "want" to do anything, thats just what they do. My point of bringing that up was to say morals were not absolute because they are a human invention (naturally speaking) humans share alot of the same desires, but that means nothing in the context i'm speaking of. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 even if everyone thought it was 5 or were gone.

You can build a plane, a building, car, etc if mathematical axioms are absolute. They don't stay the same on Monday but change up on Tuesday, unlike the ethics of the majority.

I think we need to get some things defined first before we continue. How do you define objective? Because even your "history is written by the victor" doesn't fit the definition of objective i'm thinking of.   

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts...


"History is written by the victor" itself is relative. As I said, the absolute is set by chance and determination, both of which occur and, in the moment in time that they occur, are not changed.

Quote
2 plus 2 will always equal 4 even if everyone thought it was 5 or were gone.

That is not a matter of morality. And even so, by changing the definition and/or value of 2, the operation of plus, and even the value/defintiion of 4 or 5, such a statement can indeed be true. Indeed, if you attach inconsistent units to the numbers, then 2 + 2 may not necessarily = 4, such as 2 atoms + 2 atoms != 4 molecules, but rather, 2 atoms + 2 atoms = 4 atoms combined into possibly 1 molecule.

I return to my original answer to the original question:

Quote
Morality itself is absolute. It is the set of "rights" and "wrongs" that improve the survival chances of a person or group of people.

Whether you want to do the right thing or not is unimportant in establishing that it is indeed the right thing. What is important in establishing whether it is the right thing or not are a myraid of other factors that all eventually boil down to what is seen as being beneficial.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.
 

Page created in 1.049 seconds with 19 queries.