 |
| |
|
|
Bill3000
|
 |
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
<-- Moral relativist. Actually, that's really hard for me to say. I believe in the concept that moral relativity is true. However, at the same time, I realize that I am human and I can never actually "believe" in moral relativity. Why? Because it's a non-anthropocentric reasoning: While it may be true, it's hard to actually innately comprehend, because it's meant to not be able to innately comprehend. As an example - Quantum mechanics is probably the quintessence of non-anthropocentric reasoning; while someone can realize that it is true, as someone once said (forgot who), "No one can understand Quantum Mechanics." Moral relativity is meant to be a tool, not an inherit belief.
To explain this further - I have created my own personal belief system based on the fact that moral relativity is true. If this is all that there was, then it would be extremely hard to justify literally anything. But this is meant to be on a closed-system basis (e.g. the universe). Add a belief of est quis es - "be who you are", e.g. stay to your own inner self (What I call quintessential distribution), and moral relativity makes a lot more sense. A justification for bias is allowed while having a form of "evil" in the sense of hypocrisy or corruption - something analagous to a sin while allowing there to be moral relativity.
Thus, what effect does this have for me? It means that I should try to act like what I am, innately, without actually having to believe in moral relativity in its ultimate sense. But at the same time, moral relativity is realized by myself to be true, and is a useful tool when comparing to other people - especially different civilizations. Moral relativity is most useful when trying to understand other civilizations' cultures. (Actually, was that the original purpose for moral relativity, anyway?) For a simple example: Japan. Need I say more? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grumbler
|
 |
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all 'resolution' of a moral problem is not necessarily the desired outcome. One can resolve the problem of pain by killing oneself, which is a resolution, but not necessarily the best option. |
The purpose of moral reasoning is to resolve moral dilemmas. If one were faced by a "pain dilemma" (as in the case of, let's say, cancer victims whose pain cannot be relieved by anything but death) then one's reasoning could easily result in the decision to take one's life. If one's ONLY conceivable outcome of the dilemma was ending one's life, then one's "pain resolution reasonng" might be flawed. However, resolutioin is ALWAYS the desired outcome to any dilemma.
quote:
As for a convergence, even if everyone made the same decision at the same time, that does not necessarily mean that it is the highest good, or the right choice. |
No, it would not. However, that is not the point. The point is that a convergence appears to be implied by the research. Remember that the research shows that moral reasoning follows stages, that everyone follows the same stages in the same order, and that one does not revert to a previous stage. The higher the stage of moral reasoning, the more like other people at the same stage (regardless of gender, nationality/ethnicity, etc) one's own moral reasoning is. Thus, if everyone were to make the same decision because they were all at the same stage of moral reasoning, they would be at a very high level of moral reasoning, one capable of resolving the most moral dilemmas (i.e. ones that could not be resolved at a lower stage).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Or to put it more simply, an approximation. |
No, that's something much different. An approximation is something that claims to be a useful tool but not fully descriptive and generally applying only to a limited set of cases while providing an inexact answer. Physics is an approximation, but the significant fact is not that it's inexact but that it makes no claim to describe how the world actually works but merely to be able to predict what will occur. Even if our physics was perfect, it would still be only a useful tool.
However, these models, even incomplete, are holding their water very well in their appropriate sircumstances, and thus they are more correct than other models. It's even possible that one model is simpler to understand, and easier for scientists to work with, but is less correct, and thus we must always remember that it is an approximation of a better, stronger model, almost an immensly strong "rule of thumb".
Now, let's carry back the discussion to ethics and morals:
One could claim that we haven't reached the end of ethical discussion, and/or haven't reached the complete truth about it. One could even claim that to reach such a truth is impossible: still, our best models are to be followed when we make decisions on ethical questions. We shouldn't descend into the ethical equivalent of the amish just because we don't find the perfect answers.[/q]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, because of the argument in the above post:
"
Subjectivism. The difference, in other words, between "I", and "is". I have an emotive repugnance to, say, murder. I can say that I find murder immoral, which is to say that my logic and emotions find it wrong, but that does not necessitate my consequent claim that "murder is wrong". Put simply, one can make statements about oneself that apply for oneself, but you accept that they needn't necessarily apply to others, thus no absolutism, thus relativism.
Kant would call it a hypothetical imperative, as opposed to the categorical imperative.
All of this renders morality as the same level as ones emotions like anger or love, or art... as if to say "this is moral", "I like Dali", but then that's part of the existential beauty of relativism imo. There are few concepts who's very logical form can be described as "beautiful".... evolution is one, relativity and relativism are others."
|
I don't have much more time for this. This is why moral relativism doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Deciding whether a claim or act is morally correct or not is not like deciding whether to have fries with your Big Mac. I think that's pretty obvious and common sense. There's a lot of reasons for it. I'll just say that one reason is that no one cares if you have fries with your Big Mac except for Ronald maybe. Whether or no you are moral or not is of concern to society however, because it's important to moral people to have a civilized society.
I'm not suprised that people would want to compare moral decisions to decisions about taste though. But you don't get to have your own little correct morality that suits you. Morality is concern for others besides yourself. People don't just act morally because they have a taste to do so. They do so for morality's sake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grumbler
|
|
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy But only as an economic principle which itself admits moral relativism, since morality would be relative to the existence (and morality) of other people. You could call it consequent morality which is a piss-poor attempt at an absolute holism. |
You have lost me here. Moral reasoning is not an economic principal, and moral reasoning dopes not always even acknowledge the existance of other people (in Stage One morality, for instance). I have no idea even what color an absolute holism is, so i cannot say whether moral reasoning is a piss-poor attempt at one or not.
quote:
It's a science only upon certain conditions since conceptual relationships in the humanities are often mitigated by other factors making observation inherently subjective. Unlike our minds however, the real:WORLDTM is governed by physical laws that are quantifiable and transparent so physical laws while still dependent upon context (and thus scientific method and progress can occur), are not internally fallible once they are verified. With "morality", that is not the case. |
I have no idea what you are talking about here, since your "real:WORLDTM" is only observable via subjective senses. The scientific principal is a tool, no more limited to examining the physical laws than Sherlock Holme's magnifying glass was limited to looking at footprints.
It is possible, I suppose, that you simply do not understand behavioral science, and so have confused it with psychiatry (I am guesing this based on your refence to "our minds"). Otherwise, your attempts to distinguish between the "quantification' and "transparency" of behavioral science and other sciences make no sense. Behavioral science is very "real world(TM)." It is simply less precise - it is not less accurate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grumbler
|
|
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker Everone acts as they would prefer. Else preference has no meaning. |
I would say rather that everyone acts in the way they think will least discomfort themselves. Maybe this is what you mean by "preference."
quote:
Everyone is, in the end, a machine that asks the question "what should I do next", assigns a value ot each possible action, and chooses the one with the highest value. |
Only in theory. In practice, most behavior is a result of merely satisficing, rather than optimising (in other words, people seldom look beyond the first action they think of that satisfies their minimum criteria, rather than loking at all possible actions, weighing them, and choosing the best). That is why politicians can even exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grumbler
|
|
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
First off, morality is no more a science than math. Both are structures of logic, not dependent on any empirical observations. Morality is a system of categorizing social behavior (as preferable or not), not predicting social behavior. Moral systems are in no way "disprovable" (whatever that means). |
Yes, we are bound up in meaningless noises like "morality." Morality is, at best, a philisophical concept. Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is a behavior and can be studied, measured, and categorized. "Moral systems" (whatever that means) are not disprovable, but scientific theories of the development of moral reasoning certainly are disprovable and have been disproven.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Yes, we are bound up in meaningless noises like "morality." Morality is, at best, a philisophical concept. Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is a behavior and can be studied, measured, and categorized. "Moral systems" (whatever that means) are not disprovable, but scientific theories of the development of moral reasoning certainly are disprovable and have been disproven. |
Moral system = system of morality. An ethic. I use system of morality since using two words for basically the same concept strikes my as inane.
Assuming that "moral development" theories are accurate, why is moral development relevant? IOW, why is the morality of an older person superior to the morality of a younger person.
quote:
I don't think you ever know for sure if something is moral. Finding out what is moral is a life's journey. If you claim to know what is moral then you stop searching for true morality. That happens to most people. They just accept what they are taught or just take whatever course suits them personally. |
My point is, how can you possibly know what is moral or immoral, absolutely? How does this process work? Why is eating meat ok? Why is killing wrong? If morality is absolute, surely you can justify this on absolute grounds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
Edit. this was for grumbler:
quote:
Yes, we are bound up in meaningless noises like "morality." Morality is, at best, a philisophical concept. Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is a behavior and can be studied, measured, and categorized. "Moral systems" (whatever that means) are not disprovable, but scientific theories of the development of moral reasoning certainly are disprovable and have been disproven. |
Wouldn't the relativist ask at this point how you can say something about moral reasoning when relativism is true? I mean - are different solutions to a certain moral dilemma results of different people behaving "more" or "less" moral, or do they simply hold different views on morality, which a relativist would (if I understood it correctly) see all as basically equal. I mean - if we conclude something would be "more" or "less" moral - wouldn't we need a certain standard to determine what is moral? But if I understood them correctly here the relativists would simpy say we can't have such a standard....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I don't have much more time for this. This is why moral relativism doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Deciding whether a claim or act is morally correct or not is not like deciding whether to have fries with your Big Mac. I think that's pretty obvious and common sense. There's a lot of reasons for it. I'll just say that one reason is that no one cares if you have fries with your Big Mac except for Ronald maybe.
|
You cannot simply repeat your statement and expect it to have any gravitas with the points raised to counter it originally!  As people have pointed out, it quite simply *is* like deciding whether or not to have fries with your big mac, and you pwn yourself later on by saying "no-one cares if you have fries with your Big Mac". You're saying there that validity of personal morality is relative to other people, hence social morality, etiquette, and law... whereupon the moral crime of killing someone is only such if it occurs in a society with that given morality. Whether or not the beholder has that morality is incidental and subjective, which brings us back to emotivism.
quote:
Whether or no you are moral or not is of concern to society however, because it's important to moral people to have a civilized society.
|
You're confusing morality and civilisation, which will send your argument into a flurry of circular logic. Your first sentence of course is just plain wrong, since societies ask for compliance in one form or another, and that one should comply with the dictat "do not kill" for instance, is part of that compliance. Put simply, social morality only applies when other people are there... you can't have a society of one where the notion of "do not kill" would be meaningless.
quote:
But you don't get to have your own little correct morality that suits you. Morality is concern for others besides yourself. People don't just act morally because they have a taste to do so. They do so for morality's sake.
|
That assumes altruism and that moral acts are essentially altruistic and not merely apparently so. We know each other's positions on this, but the topic itself is not relevant unless you're saying our intent is always and ever altruistic, which leaves you with utilitarianism as your only guise of morality, which takes you back to my point about social morality.
Your main problem there is the statement "morality is a concern for others besides yourself", whereas all that can be taken from the statement; "I think that person's actions are morally wrong", is that "I would not do that if I were in his shoes", and it is a fallacy to assume that this necessarily implies an objective moral statement. This is a perfect illustration of Hume's Is-Ought gap and how the idiocy of communism is constructed right in the middle  .
quote:
Moral reasoning is not an economic principal, and moral reasoning dopes not always even acknowledge the existance of other people (in Stage One morality, for instance). I have no idea even what color an absolute holism is, so i cannot say whether moral reasoning is a piss-poor attempt at one or not.
|
Holism means a system, or attempt at systematic thought given some premise(s). My point there is that all you are doing is consequentialism, which is to say that something should be judged whether or not it is moral if it's consequences are good (typical needs of the many outweigh needs of the few stuff). It's an economic principle in as much as society is based upon economic grounds, which I know Kidicious will have a problem with .
quote:
It is possible, I suppose, that you simply do not understand behavioral science, and so have confused it with psychiatry (I am guesing this based on your refence to "our minds"). Otherwise, your attempts to distinguish between the "quantification' and "transparency" of behavioral science and other sciences make no sense. Behavioral science is very "real world(TM)." It is simply less precise - it is not less accurate.
|
No I fully understand, but I still place it as a humanities field because it is based upon variant and conceptual assumptions... physics is based only upon mathematics and the idea of that 1cm on a ruler = 1cm IRL. In that sense it has more in common with economics. All of this means that to scientifically assertain group morality is simply to understand how the group effects the constituent individuals' motivations, morality remains subjective and emotive. That they would correlate under given situations requires a more psychological answer than philosophical.
quote:
Moral systems are in no way "disprovable" (whatever that means).
|
 And thus in no way verifiable by the same means, so cannot make the same claim to objectivity that physics can.
quote:
I don't think you ever know for sure if something is moral. Finding out what is moral is a life's journey. If you claim to know what is moral then you stop searching for true morality. That happens to most people. They just accept what they are taught or just take whatever course suits them personally.
|
So your entire argument comes down to this search for perfection / utopia / el dorado / my money... concepts that would be very nice if they existed, but the question of whether or not morality can logically exist is different to whether or not it can... like asking the question "can a water lilly grow in a desert?". I could calculate Pi with your argument for nary a more perfect circle was ever found.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-04-2005 03:00
|