19-10-2004 23:30									#151
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor 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).

I agree: a perfect Utilitarian society would be good. But only because your moral code pre-assumes that the welfare of society is good. So within your boundaries, you have a superior morality, but the boundaries are set by the morality itself.

Alternative argument: Different societies will have very different views on how to implement what is best for them. Realistically, nobody bases their ethical code on what they believe is worst for their society, (if they did, the society wouldn't last long enough for the moral code to survive), but everyone comes to a different model of their moral utopia.

	19-10-2004 23:33									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Absolute good doesn't have to assume a God.

I didn't say it did. I just suggested it was analagous to a God as regards its provability, and therefore reason for existence.

quote: 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?

I don't understand. Could you rephrase it with less negatives?

	19-10-2004 23:36									#153
	Full PM-box? Change here!

He means dont you think that the moral codes we believe in are products of our knowledge, whether personal experiences or cultural experiences that are indoctrinated into us and if we had the same experiences, we'd have the same moral code. if you dont believe that, why not?

	19-10-2004 23:36									#154
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat I don't understand. Could you rephrase it with less negatives?

Do you think we would believe in alternative ethical codes, if we were completely ingnorant of ourselves? Why?

And I think you are confusing nationalism with utilitarianism.

	19-10-2004 23:38									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Your'e much more articulate than I AS. I'm a bit jealous.

	19-10-2004 23:40									#156
	Support Apolyton

wow kidicious... over the past two days, you've been constantly fawning over me...

	19-10-2004 23:43									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

AS managed to rephrase it with just as many negatives, actually. So I'm going to use yours.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Do you think we would believe in alternative ethical codes, if we were completely ingnorant of ourselves? Why?

Yes. There is no chance our ethical codes would remain identical in a different environment. They may not change substantially, but they would change. Since it's not possible to raise a human entirely outside a culture, they will inevitably adopt some of the views of the society they live in, until exposed to others, or without a really really long sit-down and a think about possible other societies. Since 99.99% of people never do this, I think it's safe to rule out.

If you could conceive a hypothetical human without all culture then would they need morality at all? They'd have no other humans to interact with.

	20-10-2004 00:40									#158
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat AS managed to rephrase it with just as many negatives, actually. So I'm going to use yours.

I'm SO done fawning over him.

quote: Yes. There is no chance our ethical codes would remain identical in a different environment.

But that doesn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it. Would we all have the save ethical code if all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code?

	20-10-2004 00:43									#159
	Remove this text

Oh I see. Right. Yes, except for the 0.01 percente I mentioned above, who sit down to work things out for themselves. And after they have done so, the system becomes chaotic, breaking the cultural indoctrination becomes much easier for the unthinking majority.

	20-10-2004 01:02									#160
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Oh I see. Right. Yes, except for the 0.01 percente I mentioned above, who sit down to work things out for themselves. And after they have done so, the system becomes chaotic, breaking the cultural indoctrination becomes much easier for the unthinking majority.

Huh? I'm not really following this idea of calculating the greatest good for the greatest number, because this really isn't about utilitarianism. Can you explain more how this is relevent? And are you saying that thinking people are easier to indoctrinate, or is that a typo?

It seems like your just trying to make things difficult for me, but I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

	20-10-2004 01:22									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Eh? No. I'm saying that most people don't put any thought into their system of moral beliefs. If all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code, then yes: all our moral codes would start off the same. Most people just go with the flow, with what they've been taught, consciously and subconsciously by society to be "right" and "wrong".

Except that a few people will take the time to think about what they personally believe to be right and wrong. If they come up with a different answer to that which society by default provides, then they will presumably make their thoughts known, and then moral backgrounds will begin to differ. People will then be categorized as "people who have heard about new moral code x" and "people who haven't heard about moral code x". As soon as that happens, then moral codes will begin to diverge.

	20-10-2004 01:25									#162
	Remove this text

most morality is relative...

	20-10-2004 01:59									#163
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Logical validity is DEFINED in terms of contradiction, so those are tautological statements with no need of an asterisk. No, I need to define it. It's an axiom that I need to establish before saying anything else about logical validity. There's no mystical being that defines logical validity for me.

Stop being an ass.

Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological.

To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term. Just like the equation x = x does not restrict the domain of x, the statement "a statement that is contradictory is invalid" does not give any new insights or meaning of either term, it is a tautology.

Moral statements, on the other hand, are NOT tautological; they DO make a connection between terms that goes beyond their respective definitions. The only source by which one can make such statements is experience, and morality clearly cannot be observed in some scientific experiment. Therefore, they are dogmatic.

	20-10-2004 02:00									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Of course not. It isn't even a ethical code, so who cares about it's consistency.

The scientific method isn't an ethical code, so who cares about its consistancy?

Most arguments aren't moral codes, so who cares about their consistancy?

	20-10-2004 02:02									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all.

So? Personal preference. Doesn't prove anything, except you happen to like moral codes.

quote: Moral codes aren't absurd. They make sense. Not having one makes no sense at all. If you can't call actions good or bad then you can't really participate in the debate. All you can do is say that everyone is wrong, but you can't even be right yourself.

By your logic, not believing in God is absurd, because it means one cannot participate in theological debates.

	20-10-2004 02:03									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Moral relativism is a valid theory about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of cultural morality worldviews: morals cannot be based on some transcendental "truth". But given that there is no transcendental truth, there is no "objective" "good" or objective "bad", so we're quite at liberty to make up our own "good" and "bad" and impose them as we see fit, provided that said imposition is justified by our own moral code.

We're already at "liberty" to make up our own good and bad and impose them, inasmuch as we are physically capable of doing so.

	20-10-2004 02:05									#167
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Relativism has its merits to refute intolerant, dogmatic positions. But it fails (which was even admitted in this thread) completely when it comes to the justification of moral standards or norms, because then you have to go through a decision-making process where you have to find reasons for specific positions. But then you cannot think all possible positions are equally valid.

That's like saying a microwave is good for cooking things, but fails when you are trying to fly to a different city. It's a nonsensical statement. Relativism isn't a morality; it is not a failure of relativism that it does not provide moral statements, any more than it's a failure of mathematics that it does not provide moral statements.

	20-10-2004 02:06									#168
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Not exactly. But close Maybe I didn't explain it properly. Read more here if you wish http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...relativism.html They explain my main beef with CR pretty well: quote: This strength of cultural relativism, however, is also its weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems inappropriate, but it also renders us powerless to judge the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems necessary. Faced with a culture that deems slavery morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to judge that society to be morally inferior to our own. Faced with a culture that deems ethnic cleansing morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to condemn that society as morally abhorrent.

That's an internally inconsistant definition of relativism, and isn't what's being discussed. That relativism is actually a moral system.

	20-10-2004 02:09									#169
	Suffering from ads?

Choose:

A) I think you should all drown in a large body of water. I hold this believe. Thus, it is the best belief and one that I should enforce on everyone else.

B) I think that all beliefs have equal merit. Thus, because its not immoral per se to kill someone, I'll let everyone drown in a large body of water.

C) I think that there are some things that should not be violated (murder, etc), however many other things are relative. I will save those people from drowning in a large body of water, but I'll still let the people next door eat a cat.

A and B
C
Black and white thinking

	20-10-2004 02:11									#170
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor I would note that moral/ethical behave is about what is *good*. In particular, a human ethical system is about what is good for humans to do (and what is bad for them to do). "Good" in its simplist sense, is about what is desirable/beneficial to those concerned. Evaluating wether a particular ethical system for humans actually produces good ends is a perfectly valid question. In other words, ethics are about desirable behavior for humans to have; what behavior they should have to promote the good. Some ethical system simply do this better than others.

You're falling into the trap of the flawed relativism: that there is an absolute morality based on individual beliefs. That is, you are saying that it is absolutely right for an individual to pursue what that individual believes is right.

What relativism states is that, if one assumes for the sake of argument that a particular individual's moral system is absolutely correct, then those actions of that individual which are consistant with his moral system are, in fact, morally right. That statement is a tautology. It says nothing about whether or not that individual's moral system is ACTUALLY correct.

	20-10-2004 02:20									#171
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Stop being an ass.

Calling someone an ass when you're losing badly in an argument doesn't help it any.

quote: Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological. To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term.

No, that's just how you happen to define your system of logic. Like any other mathematical system, it can be arbitrarily constructed.

I define logical validity to mean noncontradiction. That doesn't make it so, absolutuely.

Just as if I defined morality to be a certain system, doesn't make it so absolutely.

	20-10-2004 02:21									#172
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Absolute nonsense. If you don't believe in bad or good you are just a pleasure seeker. What kind of universal sense does that make, or do you just claim that that also makes no sense, which would be contradicting yourself.

That was absolute nonsense.

Every individual happens to act in his or her perceived self-interest, that is, towards the end with which they are happiest/most content. We, rather arbitrarily, divide self-interest into two categories: selfishness and altruism. The division tends to be something like this: selfishness contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to others' self-interests, and altruism contains all acts that are in one's self-interest without regard to one's own self-interest (that is, based wholly on how it will benefit others). We also have a third category, enlightened self-interest, that contains all actions that are partially based upon others' self-interests (for example, buying something from someone as opposed to stealing from them). We tend to look at this category as something of a gradiant; there are some actions more "enlightened" and others less "enlightened" (a company donating money to cancer research, with the main goal to help cancer victims, but with a limited desire to gain popularity, would be more enlighted, while someone who pays a prostitute for sex rather than raping here would be less enlightened). An individual's morality is generally thought of as the rules governing his altruistic acts, whereas an individual's preferences are generally thought of as the rules governing his selfish acts, with a mix of the two governing his enlightened self-interest. However, these are arbitrary definitions, and when relativism states that there is no absolute morality, it also states that there are no absolute preferences. It doesn't prevent an individual from acting on his morality OR his preferences.

EDIT: btw, when I talk about "better for another person", I mean "what the individual thinks is better for that person".

	20-10-2004 02:26									#173
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Saying that someone ought to perform some action makes a statement that is not tautological. To be logically valid MEANS to be without contradiction - they are the same term. No, that's just how you happen to define your system of logic. Like any other mathematical system, it can be arbitrarily constructed. I define logical validity to mean noncontradiction. That doesn't make it so, absolutuely. Just as if I defined morality to be a certain system, doesn't make it so absolutely.

When I use the words "valid" and "contradiction", there is a certain meaning attached to those words. That you may have a different dictionary does not invalidate MY argument - just like I couldn't walk into some forum where people speak German and say "you're all wrong, because you can't even construct propoer sentences".

	20-10-2004 02:28									#174
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You have to assume English definitions before evaluating a sentence in the English language. Just as you'd have to assume German definitions before evaluating a sentence in the German language.

	20-10-2004 02:32									#175
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

When those of us who were part of the debate used terms such as validity and contradiction, we were all using the same meaning. It says nothing about our arguments that you jump in and say "hey! I mean something differen when I use those terms!"

	20-10-2004 02:36									#176
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I didn't use something different, I used the standard definitions. And you didn't post anything in the thread before I did, hell I wasn't even arguing with anyone.

I was clearly pointing out the non-absolute nature of my own statements.

	20-10-2004 02:39									#177
	Put an end to popups!

The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't making a tautology, they are making a bridge between two concepts beyond what is inherent in those concepts.

	20-10-2004 02:51									#178
	Inflate your Upload Space

No, they're just the words. As far as I know, no mathematician has formalized the logic of signals in your brain.

	20-10-2004 02:56									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Eh? No. I'm saying that most people don't put any thought into their system of moral beliefs. If all our experience was the same, we were subject to the same culture/indoctrination, and had identical personal consequences for that ethical code, then yes: all our moral codes would start off the same. Most people just go with the flow, with what they've been taught, consciously and subconsciously by society to be "right" and "wrong". Except that a few people will take the time to think about what they personally believe to be right and wrong. If they come up with a different answer to that which society by default provides, then they will presumably make their thoughts known, and then moral backgrounds will begin to differ. People will then be categorized as "people who have heard about new moral code x" and "people who haven't heard about moral code x". As soon as that happens, then moral codes will begin to diverge.

Ok. This isn't what I'm getting at. You started with the culture, and I was trying to explain myself in a way that you would understand.

Please consider that there is no cultural indoctrination at all. All people are ingorant of themselves. They don't know what nation they are a part of, what race, sex, socioeconomic status etc. they are. Do you agree that they will develope similar ethical codes.

	20-10-2004 02:56									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: The point is that those statements ARE absolute, because they aren't the words, they're the meaning behind the words. x = x is absolutely true, because it isn't the string "x = x", it's what I meant by that statement, and what I meant by that statement happens to be a tautology. When someone makes a moral statement, they aren't

Let's suppose that you are correct.

I'll say "killing is immoral." What I really mean is "using my moral basis, assuming standard logic, killing is immoral." That is true. Therefore, "killing is immoral" is an absolutely true statement. Therefore, morality is absolute.

See, your logic is contradictory.