 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Just because the de facto moral system might change as time passes does not mean that all moral systems are equally valid.
The same arguement would state that all theories of science are equally valid.
Our understanding of what is right and wrong grows over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world grows. |
Why do you think we are more right today? It seems like you WANT to believe that we are progressing in morality. Unlike science, morality is not testable. You cannot measure morality with an electron microscope. It is a subjective art. |
I already proposed the standard that exists by the very definition of morality and ethics.
The well-being of human beings is the standard of good for an ethical-system regarding human beings.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snowflake
|
 |
falling, once again
Apr 2003
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Wrong, as I pointed out there are clear things that are bad.
This isn't some fantasy world of "good" and "evil." "Good" for a thing simply means that which benefits the welfare of a thing. "Bad" means that which hinders the welfare. That's simply what the words mean.
Some things are clearly harmful to people, such as nuking the planet into oblivion (also harmful to almost all life on the planet). These things are bad by definition. Any ethical system that proposed otherwise would have to give various reasons as to why it is so. Saying something like "it is always good to cause harm to everything" is false statement, because harming everything is tautologically bad.
With a little more effort, you can work your way up to concluding that other things are bad.
-Drachasor |
It's not this simple Drachasor. Not everything can be judged by whether it is beneficial to the welfare of people. In addition, this criteria itself may be problematic. Sometimes some people are concerned about the welfare of something other than people (animals, for example). Some of their beliefs can be eventually justified by saying it is ultimately beneficial to the human kind, but others may not.
Also, different group of people may have different belief and understanding about what would benefit the human kind. People see different facts today than yesterday, and they will see different facts tomorrow than today. The moral standard will be evolving. Only if most people agree that something is good or bad today, does not warrants that it is not relative and will not be changed tomorrow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snowflake
It's not this simple Drachasor. Not everything can be judged by whether it is beneficial to the welfare of people. In addition, this criteria itself may be problematic. Sometimes some people are concerned about the welfare of something other than people (animals, for example). Some of their beliefs can be eventually justified by saying it is ultimately beneficial to the human kind, but others may not.
Also, different group of people may have different belief and understanding about what would benefit the human kind. People see different facts today than yesterday, and they will see different facts tomorrow than today. The moral standard will be evolving. Only if most people agree that something is good or bad today, does not warrants that it is not relative and will not be changed tomorrow. |
Yes, the moral standard does evolve as we learn more. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the moral standard today is just as good as the one we had 1000 years ago though.
And beliefs can be wrong, just because someone might be unhappy their belief is wrong doesn't mean that belief has equal moral validity with another belief.
Yes, there are also various issues such as animal rights and so forth to deal with. Yes, it isn't easy. But saying that "oh, this is difficult, I'll just say they are all the same" is not a path to greater understanding or knowledge. It is a path that closes understanding and knowledge.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
The well-being of human beings is the standard of good for an ethical-system regarding human beings. |
I'd argue that that is simply your opinion and there is no proof that well-being of most humans (which is what I think you are saying) is better determination of 'good' than the well-being of a few humans or even one human.
It's a society bias which makes you (and I to some extent) believe that the well-being of most humans should be the standard for good in an ethical system. In the East, before colonization, they surely did not believe in that.
And in certain contexts in the West we think what is better for the well being of the minority is more 'good'. |
Citing that people believe or believed wrong things does not justify the belief.
When you are considering human beings and what is good for them; their well-being, you must treat the good of each as equally important. Ethics has a fundamental group perspective in groups because it is about how humans should behave to acheive well-being. To propose that one human's well-being is more important than another's requires more than mere assertion, it requires proof;
1. An ethical system is a system of rules to follow to acheive good for those involved.
2. Good is well-being, by definition.
You cannot logically follow that with the proposal that a particular person's well-being is more important than anothers without some sort of reasoning.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
D: You make the mistake thinking that relativism is just saying "that's difficult, I'll just say they are the same". Read Nietzsche to see that it is much more rigorous that that.
Though I also want to know why you think the moral standard is evolving. |
Moral standards are generally evolving because the well-being of humans *overall* is being met better by following those standards.
As for Nietzsche, you will either have to state his arguement or give me the relevent passages. Merely saying "this guy makes a good arguement" does not give you a good arguement. (and I'd like this discussion to progress). My understanding from my initial browsings, however, is that Nietzsche wasn't actually a Moral Relativist, and in fact adopted a position of Moral Nihilism (no moral belief is valid). Which is the advocation that things like the torture of children and other horrible acts are not wrong, because nothing is right or wrong.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
Drachasor:
quote:
My understanding from my initial browsings, however, is that Nietzsche wasn't actually a Moral Relativist, and in fact adopted a position of Moral Nihilism (no moral belief is valid). Which is the advocation that things like the torture of children and other horrible acts are not wrong, because nothing is right or wrong. |
it's just the opposite. Nietzsche, as well as other existentialists, saw nihilism as a fact. It wasn't something he wanted or saw as an ideal; it just was. He saw the will to power, also a natural force, a mere fact, and the possibility of the superman as a means of transcending nihilism and being a 'hero' of this modern nihilistic age (the uncommon man, the superman, etc.)
Nietzsche went on to create a moral code (simplified as the dominance of the strong based upon this fact of the will to power as a means to survive in the age of nihilism). This moral code may not seem pleasant as it says explicitly that the strong shall dominate the weak, but it is a moral code
so yeah nietzsche did contradict himself by saying there are no truths as a matter of fact but then went on to arbritarily create a moral system in which the strong dominated; in which the strong may very well wish to operate with christian compassion as opposed to nietzsche's morality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Citing that people believe or believed wrong things does not justify the belief. |
It is your opinion they are wrong. I can easily say that your beliefs are wrong and you have not justifed them to my liking.
quote:
To propose that one human's well-being is more important than another's requires more than mere assertion, it requires proof |
And to propose that one human's well-being is equal to anothers also requires proof because history has shown us that equallity of humans is relatively NEW thing that society has adopted and made it its bias. I need reasoning as to why you think that each person should be treated equally. And ethical system is simply a system as to how people should live; it doesn't follow that the system of rules much achieve good for ALL those involved. The system may be deemed 'good' because it creates order or balance or whatever and that may require heirarchy and non-equal standing.
Why is your opinion more valid? Simply claiming yours is default and everyone else who disagrees must validate their difference from you is very arrogant. |
Yes, yes, just like history has shown that mathematicians did not always believe irrational numbers existed? Just like history shows that the theory of relativity was not always true.
Changing beliefs does not mean any universal truths are suddenly untrue. It means our understanding of them is changing.
The term "good" fundamentally refers to the well-being of something. Moral/Ethical systems are merely sets of rules or evaluation protocols for deciding on how to procede with that in mind.
Now, if you acknowledge that the good of anyone has value, then you must propose why the good of that one has value and the good of others does not. Indeed, you would have to propose why the good of everyone does not have equal value if you do not think it does.
If you propose that the good of the one has no value, then you are a Moral Nihilist, and believe that there is nothing morally good or bad.
Granted the good of the one having value is an axiom, but unless you can propose other sensible axioms then you cannot show that his good has value and others do not (or his good has more value than others).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-10-2004 22:22
|