19-10-2004 22:56									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But Kant said.....

	19-10-2004 22:57									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

the good of yourself has value to even a nihilist...

	19-10-2004 22:57									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake Moral relativity does not mean there couldn't be any things that invalid, it only means that there could be more than one valid moral system.

It actually proposes that all moral systems are equally valid.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 22:58									#124
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Certainly. But there isn't an actual objective good and bad.

Ok. Let me ask this. Do you believe that simply because there are multiple codes or is there some other more valid reason?

quote: I'd also like to congratulate everyone in this thread in not mentioning Kant yet.

	19-10-2004 22:59									#125
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer the good of yourself has value to even a nihilist...

Yet there is no logical, objective reason to propose the good of the self is more important than the good of another.

As best I am aware there are selfish, emotional reasons to do so, but no logical ones.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 23:00									#126
	Tired of ads?

logical ones? there are biological ones... survival as the first instinct.

	19-10-2004 23:00									#127
	Remove this text

Hmmm that does make me think ... Although I do doubt what we have to judge the other moral systems ...

	19-10-2004 23:02									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake Moral relativity does not mean there couldn't be any things that invalid, it only means that there could be more than one valid moral system.

Looking at specific issues it claims that you can have multiple valid moral systems, simply depending on the way people believe. So how does the way people believe determine what is good or bad?

	19-10-2004 23:02									#129
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer logical ones? there are biological ones... survival as the first instinct.

That's an instictive reason for someone to behave in a certain way. That's an explanation of behavior.

That is not a reason to encourage that sort of behavior. That is not a reason to advocate that kind of behavior as good.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 23:03									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

what i find odd is that drachasor is a moral absolutist

i wouldve expected Ben Kenobi to show up and argue that side.

	19-10-2004 23:05									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Ok. Let me ask this. Do you believe that simply because there are multiple codes or is there some other more valid reason?

There is no way to derive an absolute good and bad from logic, is there? We are self-replicating squishy sacks of watered down protein. All the universal truths that apply to us merely apply to our bodies. There is no physical basis for any absolute good or bad. There is no logical way to derive absolute good or bad. There is no empirical way to derive an absolute good or bad. What's left?

	19-10-2004 23:05									#132
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: That's an instictive reason for someone to behave in a certain way. That's an explanation of behavior. That is not a reason to encourage that sort of behavior. That is not a reason to advocate that kind of behavior as good.

sure it is. just as if one says the supreme end is happiness, one would advocate whatever it takes to ensure happines, if the supreme end to any of our actions is survival (which is our biological impetus to do whatever we do) a man should advocate anything and everything to ensure survival.

	19-10-2004 23:05									#133
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think survival of the fittest is an ethical code, similar to utilitarianism, if not the same.

	19-10-2004 23:06									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I think survival of the fittest is an ethical code, similar to utilitarianism, if not the same.

Survival of the Fittest can be the label of an ethical code, but the Darwinian process of that name has nothing to do with ethics if we assume human beings have free will.

	19-10-2004 23:07									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer what i find odd is that drachasor is a moral absolutist i wouldve expected Ben Kenobi to show up and argue that side.

Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I can't have a strong, highly developed sense of right and wrong.

Ethical Atheists:

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 23:08									#136
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I think survival of the fittest is an ethical code, similar to utilitarianism, if not the same.

very different... utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest utility for the greatest number. it's democratic and operates on the societal level. survival of the fittest is egoism. it's individualist and operates on the individual's level.

	19-10-2004 23:09									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat There is no way to derive an absolute good and bad from logic, is there? We are self-replicating squishy sacks of watered down protein. All the universal truths that apply to us merely apply to our bodies. There is no physical basis for any absolute good or bad. There is no logical way to derive absolute good or bad. There is no empirical way to derive an absolute good or bad. What's left?

There is no way to prove that there isn't absolute good and bad either. So you are left with either believing that there is or isn't, based on your bias (if you are biased) or something else. The question is, if you don't base your opinion on your bias, what is 'something else.'

	19-10-2004 23:12									#138
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer very different... utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest utility for the greatest number. it's democratic and operates on the societal level. survival of the fittest is egoism. it's individualist and operates on the individual's level.

Utiliarianism is not inherently democratic though. If the human race continues on forever, that would make for the greatest happiness regardless of how many people suffer in the short run, even if a majority.

	19-10-2004 23:12									#139
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Survival of the Fittest can be the label of an ethical code, but the Darwinian process of that name has nothing to do with ethics if we assume human beings have free will.

Or even if we don't.

Ethical Atheists that don't believe in free will:

Survival of the fittest is inherently a description of how things reproduce and species survive/change.

However, it really doesn't go over how intelligent, reasoning entities should act to promote the good of the species. So while evolution might label something is more likely to propogate in a particular environment, that doesn't really tell you what sort of environment is desireable. (and ethical systems in the form of social conventions are a large part of the environment).

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 23:13									#140
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of.

If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

	19-10-2004 23:14									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Utiliarianism is not inherently democratic though. If the human race continues on forever, that would make for the greatest happiness regardless of how many people suffer in the short run, even if a majority.

Easy ways around the problem include the fact that we don't know when the human race will end. It could happen tomorrow.

Additionally, short-term *planned* suffering of individuals can lead to long term unhappiness issues. To say nothing of the difficulty in predicting wether or not the planned suffering would otherwise produce a sufficient benefit to justify it, as opposed to other methods at one's disposal.

-Drachasor

	19-10-2004 23:16									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

IW:

i was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

	19-10-2004 23:17									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Survival of the fittest is inherently a description of how things reproduce and species survive/change. However, it really doesn't go over how intelligent, reasoning entities should act to promote the good of the species. So while evolution might label something is more likely to propogate in a particular environment, that doesn't really tell you what sort of environment is desireable. (and ethical systems in the form of social conventions are a large part of the environment).

In theory, we should all be doing immensely complex calculations to determine how our actions increase our chances of gene propogation in relation to the hindering effect they may have on other individuals, in proportion to how related they are to us. i.e. Self-sacrifice to save two brothers, or sixteen cousins, or three hundred people in your country, or a thousand from another country, or whatever. But then on a smaller scale, if I have a child, will that prevent my mother having two more children, could I better spend the money on raising a child sponsering two hundred african babies, or would that just further the overpopulation crisis in the long-run, causing a low of gene-material... etc etc.

I think philosophy arrived at about the time societies got too complex for us to do those sums.

	19-10-2004 23:17									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

My point is that a utilitarian could just as well believe in survival of the fittest. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think in fact they are mostly inclusive.

	19-10-2004 23:20									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of. If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

While it might be somewhat non-trivial to label a particular act as good or bad*, that doesn't mean you can't have an overall system of advised behavior that is superior to another system of adviced behavior. "Better" in the sense of promoting the good of society/people (well-being, etc). Good is inherently linked to well-being, which I think some people might forget. When you say something is "good for someone" you mean that person's well-being benefits (or relatively benefits) from it in some way (wether long-term or short-term).

-Drachasor

*Here's a try though: The killing of someone that neither benefits nor relatively benefits anyone.

	19-10-2004 23:20									#146
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer I was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

I thought we were discussing the relative merits of moral relativism with the usual degree of tangential asides that debating on internet forums always brings. Threads always start off with an easy question, which rapidly recurses into infinite open brackets of argument. The trouble is that nobody ever seems to allow them to close.

	19-10-2004 23:21									#147
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat If there is no way to prove an absolute good and bad, then there is no reason to suppose there is one. cf God. At the risk of sounding like Kuci, absolute good/bad is an unecessary plurality that a certain razor-wielding resident of Ockham would disapprove of. If the whole thing boils down to faith, then nobody will know even if you do stumble upon the absolute good/bad. And in that case, what does it matter? How is it different to any other moral code? It's not. And when the absolute good/evil becomes just like any other, it isn't absolute. It's relative again.

Absolute good doesn't have to assume a God. Don't you think that we would all believe in the same ethical code if we didn't know anyting about ourselves, people like us, our culture, or our nation. If not, why?

	19-10-2004 23:22									#148
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat In theory, we should all be doing immensely complex calculations to determine how our actions increase our chances of gene propogation in relation to the hindering effect they may have on other individuals, in proportion to how related they are to us. i.e. Self-sacrifice to save two brothers, or sixteen cousins, or three hundred people in your country, or a thousand from another country, or whatever. But then on a smaller scale, if I have a child, will that prevent my mother having two more children, could I better spend the money on raising a child sponsering two hundred african babies, or would that just further the overpopulation crisis in the long-run, causing a low of gene-material... etc etc. I think philosophy arrived at about the time societies got too complex for us to do those sums.

As far utilitarianism goes, it advocates other methods that promote the good in such circumstances. Clearly sometimes you must make your "best guess" on what is for the good, based on past evidence and data, otherwise you let relative or actual bad happen while you waste time calculating endlessly.

	19-10-2004 23:23									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer IW: i was under the impression this debate wasn't about if there are moral truths but if one should view his morality as being a moral truth.

Hmmm.. That's not what the debate is working out as.

	19-10-2004 23:26									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Good is inherently linked to well-being, which I think some people might forget. When you say something is "good for someone" you mean that person's well-being benefits (or relatively benefits) from it in some way (wether long-term or short-term).

That's an opinion. Good is different according to the ethical code.