25-04-2005 23:59									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Whaleboy,

Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

	26-04-2005 00:05									#182
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: No. That's similar to saying that something doesn't exist, because you haven't proven it to exist. I don't find that to be good logic. I'm asking you to justify your ideas of absolute morality. In some way. Any way. I've already justified relative morality: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED.

Did we cross post? I think people's brains work that same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity.

	26-04-2005 00:11									#183
	Support Apolyton

Moral relativism seems right to me philosophically, and scientifically, but it seems like one of those things that you just can't believe, lest it torture your conscience. For example, according to the moral relativist would defend female genital mutilation and other opressive acts we westerners would call barbaric because stoping it would be imposing western values on another society.

	26-04-2005 00:13									#184
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Which comes down to saying "the rules are internal to the practice".

quote: It can only be answered by looking at what people actually do. The problem is that people are putting the bar for moral justification as high, or higher than the bar for regular epistemological justification.

Spot-on.

	26-04-2005 00:18									#185
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

Ummm... unless you believe that the functioning of anything can be described outside of causality, you've pretty much pwn3d yourself.

	26-04-2005 00:20									#186
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Was this for me?

Yeah, but I misread what you were writing, so I guess it's for Kid.

quote: Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

I've never asserted that (I don't even know what that means).

quote: I think people's brains work that same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity.

On what basis do you say that they mostly work the same? How do you quantify this similarity?

And if morality is independent of feelings, where does it come from?

	26-04-2005 00:43									#187
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time. I've never asserted that (I don't even know what that means).

This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me.

quote: quote: I think people's brains work the same, except that feelings differ a little from place to place. I don't think that moral reasoning is dependant on our feelings though, except where some people have limited capacity. On what basis do you say that they mostly work the same?

Frankly I don't see any differences. If you don't have the capacity to do math you will fail Calculus and if you don't have the capacity to do Science you will fail Science. It follows that if you don't have the capacity to reason on moral issues that you will fail that.

quote: How do you quantify this similarity?

You know that I can't quantify it if I don't know what I am quantifying. It goes back to the question of whether or not something can be true if you can't prove that it is, and we disagree on the grounds of definitions it seems.

quote: And if morality is independent of feelings, where does it come from?

Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral.

	26-04-2005 00:53									#188
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me.

It's really simple. As I said earler: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED. You can have your subjective morality. Everyone does. That's how we make judgements. But there's nothing that makes your morality absolutely better or worse than another.

quote: Frankly I don't see any differences.

You believe that revenge is moral, I don't. There's a difference, for instance.

quote: Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral.

You need to study more math. Math is a system where conclusions follow from its axioms. Change the axioms, and you can get a totally different mathematical structures. When you take a calculus test, you take for granted the axioms that Cauchy et al. developed when creating analysis. But Cauchy's axioms aren't magical, and you change them to develop a different sort of mathematics.

	26-04-2005 00:59									#189
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

And reason ain't an answer. What's the rational reason for killing to be wrong? What's the rational reason for people to be happy? The answer is that there ain't, a priori. You need to impose a value system to get those conclusions, and those values come from your emotions.

	26-04-2005 01:00									#190
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: This is what I'm getting as implied. I'm trying to get someone to explain how you guys aren't saying this in a way that makes sense. Whaleboy tried, but it didn't make sense to me. It's really simple. As I said earler: a moral system is an abstract logical structure, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. QED. You can have your subjective morality. Everyone does. That's how we make judgements. But there's nothing that makes your morality absolutely better or worse than another.

That is not answering my question. Your believe is either true or not. Explain to me how it can be both.

quote: quote: Frankly I don't see any differences. You believe that revenge is moral, I don't. There's a difference, for instance.

Now tell me why that is the result of our brains working differently as opposed to us having different capacities. Perhaps you were raised to believe that revenge was not ok, and I was raised to believe that it was ok. That would affect our relative capacities. There are other things as well that will affect our capacities.

quote: quote: Reason. If I get a math problem wrong on the test I feel like it was correct, but that doesn't make it correct. I may feel like stealing is moral so that I can do it guilt free, but that doesn't make it moral. You need to study more math. Math is a system where conclusions follow from its axioms. Change the axioms, and you can get a totally different mathematical structures. When you take a calculus test, you take for granted the axioms that Cauchy et al. developed when creating analysis. But Cauchy's axioms aren't magical, and you change them to develop a different sort of mathematics.

We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact.

	26-04-2005 01:03									#191
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo And reason ain't an answer. What's the rational reason for killing to be wrong? What's the rational reason for people to be happy? The answer is that there ain't, a priori. You need to impose a value system to get those conclusions, and those values come from your emotions.

I meant "reason" the verb, not the noun.

edit: I don't believe that values come from your emotions. I don't think that you refrain from hurting someone because you love them, or because you will feel guilt if you do hurt them. I think you reason that hurting them is immoral. At least it's that way for some people.

	26-04-2005 01:05									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: That is not answering my question. Your believe is either true or not. Explain to me how it can be both.

It's neither true nor false. You don't have a well-defined proposition. What does it mean for a morality to be absolutely true?

quote: Now tell me why that is the result of our brains working differently as opposed to us having different capacities. Perhaps you were raised to believe that revenge was not ok, and I was raised to believe that it was ok. That would affect our relative capacities. There are other things as well that will affect our capacities.

What does that mean, to have a different capacity? You're creating a terminology of superiority and inferiority with justifying a single thing.

quote: We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.... Please reread the point cuz it's important.

	26-04-2005 01:08									#193
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I meant "reason" the verb, not the noun. edit: I don't believe that values come from your emotions. I don't think that you refrain from hurting someone because you love them, or because you will feel guilt if you do hurt them. I think you reason that hurting them is immoral. At least it's that way for some people.

You have a needless contrained idea of what emotions constitute. I feel bad at the thought of people being hurt. That's why I don't hurt people. Not for any rational reason.

I'm still wondering, what's the rational basis for not hurting people?

	26-04-2005 01:15									#194
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"1 + 1 = 2" is neither an absolutely true nor false statement. You have to assume the axioms of number theory before that statement becomese true. And those axioms can be arbitrarily constructed.

	26-04-2005 01:18									#195
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo What does it mean for a morality to be absolutely true?

It means the conclussion that every person would reach if they were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

quote: What does that mean, to have a different capacity? You're creating a terminology of superiority and inferiority with justifying a single thing.

Do you agree that you will have a propensity to have a moral belief that is consistant with the cultural norm for that belief. Isn't that a limitation if this cultural belief is wrong? If you are able to think rationally then you can overcome that limitation, but only if you have the capacity.
were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

quote: quote: We've been down this road before. Some people can study until they are blue in the face and they are not going to understand Partial Derivatives. That's just a fact. That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.... Please reread the point cuz it's important.

I understand what you are saying I think. My point is that people have different mental capacities for different things.

	26-04-2005 01:23									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: I meant "reason" the verb, not the noun. edit: I don't believe that values come from your emotions. I don't think that you refrain from hurting someone because you love them, or because you will feel guilt if you do hurt them. I think you reason that hurting them is immoral. At least it's that way for some people. You have a needless contrained idea of what emotions constitute. I feel bad at the thought of people being hurt. That's why I don't hurt people. Not for any rational reason. I'm still wondering, what's the rational basis for not hurting people?

You keep going back to the "basis." The basis of a belief is not necessarily the determinant of the belief. The reason that a beleif is either moral or immoral is because the conclussions that people would come to are the same if none of them had limitations to their reasoning.

	26-04-2005 01:25									#197
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo "1 + 1 = 2" is neither an absolutely true nor false statement. You have to assume the axioms of number theory before that statement becomese true. And those axioms can be arbitrarily constructed.

Yeah. Sure you do.

	26-04-2005 01:26									#198
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Let us please not again confuse feelings about things with ethical codes. These are different, otherwise, how is tolerance possible at all? Had you just "felt that X is wrong, and one shouldn't do it" you'd always stop X... But you don't. People don't take sigarettes out of other people's mouths, etc. That's because there is, usually, a more logical level that dictates that in matters of personal preference, people shouldn't be bothered. ( and various ethical theories have different explanations as to why not ).

	26-04-2005 01:27									#199
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: It means the conclussion that every person would reach if they were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

Why do you say that? And does this only apply to humans? What about intelligent aliens?

quote: Do you agree that you will have a propensity to have a moral belief that is consistant with the cultural norm for that belief. Isn't that a limitation if this cultural belief is wrong? If you are able to think rationally then you can overcome that limitation, but only if you have the capacity. were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion.

On what basis do you say that a cultural norm is absolutely wrong? Your hierarchy assumes an absolutely morality.

Cultural norms affect a person's morality. So does everything else about a person's life.

quote: I understand what you are saying I think. My point is that people have different mental capacities for different things.

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. No mathematical statement is intrinsically correct. You have to presuppose a set of axioms. Mental capacity is irrelevent to the argument. Moral statements can be seen in a similar light.

	26-04-2005 01:36									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Why do you say that?

Let's see

1) All people have a limitless capacity for moral reasoning. Check.
2) All people come to the same conclussion. Check.

Why wouldn't I believe it?

quote: And does this only apply to humans? What about intelligent aliens?

Why would aliens be different? I don't know, maybe they are, or maybe there is no such thing as aliens. All I am saying is that the human brain works the same in every human, except where there are capacity limitations.

quote: quote: Do you agree that you will have a propensity to have a moral belief that is consistant with the cultural norm for that belief. Isn't that a limitation if this cultural belief is wrong? If you are able to think rationally then you can overcome that limitation, but only if you have the capacity. were not limited in their capacity to reach that conclusion. On what basis do you say that a cultural norm is absolutely wrong? Your hierarchy assumes an absolutely morality. Cultural norms affect a person's morality. So does everything else about a person's life.

I'm not saying that it's wrong or right. I'm saying that most people have a tendency to believe in a similar way to their culture, family etc.. and that that is a limitation to moral reasoning.

quote: quote: I understand what you are saying I think. My point is that people have different mental capacities for different things. No, you don't understand what I'm saying. No mathematical statement is intrinsically correct. You have to presuppose a set of axioms. Mental capacity is irrelevent to the argument. Moral statements can be seen in a similar light.

I don't believe in your axiom thingy.

	26-04-2005 01:37									#201
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Yeah. Sure you do.

Yes, you do. If you study some advanced math, you'd see that the mathematical axioms we use are there because we think they create interesting structures, no other reason.

quote: Let us please not again confuse feelings about things with ethical codes. These are different, otherwise, how is tolerance possible at all? Had you just "felt that X is wrong, and one shouldn't do it" you'd always stop X... But you don't. People don't take sigarettes out of other people's mouths, etc. That's because there is, usually, a more logical level that dictates that in matters of personal preference, people shouldn't be bothered. ( and various ethical theories have different explanations as to why not ).

Freedom is important to me, emotionally. When it comes between a person's health and their freedom, one feeling is sometimes greater than the other. From these (often-conflicting) feelings, we distill an ethical basis.

quote: You keep going back to the "basis." The basis of a belief is not necessarily the determinant of the belief.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

quote: The reason that a beleif is either moral or immoral is because the conclussions that people would come to are the same if none of them had limitations to their reasoning.

You keep repeating that, yet don't provide a rational justification for any moral statement. That there's a bald assertion.

	26-04-2005 01:38									#202
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

brb

	26-04-2005 01:39									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Freedom is important to me, emotionally. When it comes between a person's health and their freedom, one feeling is sometimes greater than the other. From these (often-conflicting) feelings, we distill an ethical basis.

But, in reality, it's not a synthesis of two emotions, but rather your reason and your feelings fighting each other.For example, if you commit something, You could know it's bad, and wrong, but feel great about it.

	26-04-2005 01:45									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Dude Kid this is rediculous. You haven't provided one whit of justification that morality is rational. That simply is an absurd idea. You have to start with something that is irrational. You have to start with something that is arbitrary. That's how logic works. If you don't have assumptions, you can't make any meaningful statement. That applies in mathematics or morality. You can't prove that 1+1=2 without any axioms. You can't prove that killing is wrong without any axioms.

	26-04-2005 01:48									#205
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: But, in reality, it's not a synthesis of two emotions, but rather your reason and your feelings fighting each other.For example, if you commit something, You could know it's bad, and wrong, but feel great about it.

No, it's your feelings fighting with each other. Your feelings create that ethical system that can fights with other feelings.

	26-04-2005 01:50									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Az, maybe you can take a shot at my question: prove some moral statement (i.e. killing is wrong) rationally.

	26-04-2005 02:01									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Yeah. Sure you do. Yes, you do. If you study some advanced math, you'd see that the mathematical axioms we use are there because we think they create interesting structures, no other reason.

You're speaking theoretically. 1+1=2 is true regardless of your reasoning. It's been so since before you were born.

quote: You keep repeating that, yet don't provide a rational justification for any moral statement. That there's a bald assertion.

I'm not trying to prove that any moral reasoning is correct. I'm not trying to prove anything in fact. I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I do. It's not necessary for me to prove something beyond any doubt to believe it.

	26-04-2005 02:03									#208
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Dude Kid this is rediculous. You haven't provided one whit of justification that morality is rational. That simply is an absurd idea. You have to start with something that is irrational. You have to start with something that is arbitrary. That's how logic works. If you don't have assumptions, you can't make any meaningful statement. That applies in mathematics or morality. You can't prove that 1+1=2 without any axioms. You can't prove that killing is wrong without any axioms.

I think I have provided plenty of justification, but you are looking for objective proof which is impossible for me to provide.

	26-04-2005 02:21									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Your opposing arguments concerning absolute morality don't concern me so much as your arguments in support for moral relativity. This is what I find illogical. MRs believe that since you can't prove that claim A is either true or not true that it is both true and not true at the same time.

That is completely wrong I'm afraid. It all depends upon context as I have said many times before on this thread. Taking that into consideration, no moral absolutism = moral relativism, which is not contradictory given subject and predicate (the latter being essential in anything arbitrary). You're assuming a logical vacuum when that is plainly not the case; try reading what people are writing.

quote: Moral relativism seems right to me philosophically, and scientifically, but it seems like one of those things that you just can't believe, lest it torture your conscience. For example, according to the moral relativist would defend female genital mutilation and other opressive acts we westerners would call barbaric because stoping it would be imposing western values on another society.

Relativism isn't something one believes, it's more a consideration within which you place your own morality which gives it a nice premise for the likes of pacifism... i.e. oppose horrible things but recognise that your morality *is* premised in yourself so you wouldn't fight to change it unless there were de-neutralising circumstances. That way you avoid the contradictions Kid seems to have found himself in.

	26-04-2005 02:24									#210
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I think I have provided plenty of justification, but you are looking for objective proof which is impossible for me to provide.

Then your entire argument is pointless, since non-absolute morality = moral relativism, given Wittgensteinian contexts, the points raised about which you haven't bothered to address.