I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

Re: I May Be a Philosphy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread over.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

and just to clarify, i'm talking like morally right and morally wrong, so i'm saying that to murder some one is only right or wrong depending on some arbitrary set of morals, no one out there disputes this?

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

OK, I'll bite,

Can you explain what it would mean if there were such a thing as morally right and wrong and then show how this is not the case?

Is this a fair question to ask?

cielo

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain what it would mean if there were such a thing as morally right and wrong and then show how this is not the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe, this is the best i can do:

some guy claims that and action is morally right if it is doing whatever is best for the greater want of all people

then i say couldn't you just as easily declare that's morally wrong?

i don't know if this is what you meant. but anyway, if you walk up to a rando and say "do you think murder for fun is right or wrong?" most people will say wrong

and i'm curious why these people define right and wrong

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]


maybe, this is the best i can do:

some guy claims that and action is morally right if it is doing whatever is best for the greater want of all people

then i say couldn't you just as easily declare that's morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hypothetical guy has already assumed some standard of good by saying, the "greater want of all people". I guess the question is what is that greater want, or as Aristotle says, the good is, "that toward which all things aim".

This is called the greatest good, as all actions are thought to aim toward some final end.


[ QUOTE ]
i don't know if this is what you meant. but anyway, if you walk up to a rando and say "do you think murder for fun is right or wrong?" most people will say wrong

and i'm curious why these people define right and wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean "why" people define things as right/wrong or "how" they define them as right/wrong?

As for the Why, they could have been taught them, or perhaps thought them out on their own.

I think more importantly is HOW they define things as right or wrong.

For example, I think that my life is an end in itself, that is to say, I do not need to justify doing what I think is best for myself, in terms of not sacrificing myself to others.

So, for me, at this point (as I have not been convinced otherwise) The things that make my life more fulfilled and worth living are good and those that do not are bad. I don't really use the term "evil" because of the connotations it has to Christianity.

I don't know if that made sense, what do you think?

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

i think it makes sense

so if i asked you if it is good or bad that some guy on the other side of the world gets tortured and murdered, you'd say neither good or bad because it does not affect you (assuming his murder does not affect you)?

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Interesting question,

so the question is, Good for whom?

as well as, Did this guy do anything? Did he say that he would kill his torturer/murderer if he was released?

I think that ethics needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, this does not necessarily imply a relativism. But merely that moral principles should be applied to the specifics of each, for example my questions above.


Back to your hypothetical, lets assume for the sake of argument that the tortured/murdered guy is completely innocent. Is it going to be good or bad for my life if people are allowed to torture/murder others at whim. I think it will be an overall -EV move for me.

A correlary principle to my life being an end in itself is that I must recognize that the lives of others are ends for other people as well.

So, while I can claim a right to my own happiness and fulfilling that, I can claim no right to the life of another, for example, I can't justify torturing/murdering someone who does not pose a threat to my life.

cielo

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Morality is the most useful lie we have ever told.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But merely that moral principles should be applied to the specifics of each, for example my questions above.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is sort of what i am getting at also, i reckon that moral principles and ethics are arbitrary

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am accelerating so quickly into the realm of Post Modernism that all concept of meaning applicable to the words you have spoken are blurring into a potential gestalt which as yet escapes me. Except for noob. I suspect that could be key.

PairTheBoard

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

if this were true, does that mean that laws created by the society are worthless?

or is it just that, although morality may be arbitrary, the point of view that best allows the society to function without disorder is the one that should be widely accepted?

edit: and if the latter is the case, then it really isn't arbitrary, is it?

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
or is it just that, although morality may be arbitrary, the point of view that best allows the society to function without disorder is the one that should be widely accepted?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this is what i'm talking about, what you call 'best' is arbitrary too i think, and why not embrace disorder? why isn't it 'good' to give people the opposite of what they want? etc.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am accelerating so quickly into the realm of Post Modernism that all concept of meaning applicable to the words you have spoken are blurring into a potential gestalt which as yet escapes me. Except for noob. I suspect that could be key.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds like a very funny joke that i want to get, but i am not smart enough too.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is the most useful lie we have ever told.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?


cielo

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or is it just that, although morality may be arbitrary, the point of view that best allows the society to function without disorder is the one that should be widely accepted?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this is what i'm talking about, what you call 'best' is arbitrary too i think, and why not embrace disorder? why isn't it 'good' to give people the opposite of what they want? etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of theories you could use in order to justify why progress. The reason why killing others is bad could be said by some to be because of the bible or religion. I would argue that it is generally bad because it could cause societal collapse which impedes human progress and results in self destruction of the species. Obviously progress and survival could be said to be arbitrary, but the reason they are important comes from whatever governs evolution. All species strive to survive and multiply; that is the mechanism.

So its not completely arbitrary, as there is some processes behind it. The system itself could be said to be arbitrary, but what comes out of it is determined by the system.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Umm, the entire science of Ethics would disagree with you.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am accelerating so quickly into the realm of Post Modernism that all concept of meaning applicable to the words you have spoken are blurring into a potential gestalt which as yet escapes me. Except for noob. I suspect that could be key.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds like a very funny joke that i want to get, but i am not smart enough too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was categorized as a Post Modernist on the test linked to by another Thread. I've been pondering the implications of this [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] . "noob" just sounds like a funny word to me. This style of post flows from a subcharacter of myself who's belief in conspiracy theories runs to the galactic level.

PairTheBoard

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, the entire science of Ethics would disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are referring to psychologists, sociologists and biologists studying ethical norms as determinants of observable phenomena, the study of ethics is not science. A biologist may tell you which norms are "good" relative to the end of gene proliferation. He may eventually accurately predict that a human with a certain set of norms will have a certain probability of having his genes survive relative to a human with a different set of norms. But no scientist can tell us why gene proliferation (or anything else) is good without making reference to some foundational arbitrary principle (like "god said so," "human survival is good," or "because I want to live").

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Au contraire.

If science is to mean only the physical or experimental sciences than Ethics is not a science. But this is not the true definition of science. The philosophical definition of science is the certain knowledge of things in their causes, and Ethics completely fulfills this definition. It studies the purpose or final cause of human life, and the principles and laws governing our means to this end. Furthermore, it is able to demonstrate these truths.

The perverted notion of science dealing only with the physical is the result of Auguste Comte and his positivism which eliminates metaphysics from philosophy and restricts science to facts and relations between facts.

What one ought to do is a fact regardless, and subject to scientific scrutiny. One group of scientists should never try to illegitimatize the subject matter of a different group of scientists.

See Fagothey, A. "Right and Reason" 23-24

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
He may eventually accurately predict that a human with a certain set of norms will have a certain probability of having his genes survive relative to a human with a different set of norms. But no scientist can tell us why gene proliferation (or anything else) is good without making reference to some foundational arbitrary principle (like "god said so," "human survival is good," or "because I want to live").

[/ QUOTE ]

How is because I want to survive arbitrary?

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


cielo

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Au contraire.

If science is to mean only the physical or experimental sciences than Ethics is not a science. But this is not the true definition of science. The philosophical definition of science is the certain knowledge of things in their causes, and Ethics completely fulfills this definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Karl Popper, philosopher of science, a scientific theory is one that can be falsified by testing its predictions against our observations. According to dictionary.com, science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Both of these definitions of science agree with my use of the term and not yours. I guess one can always claim not to have made a mistake by redefining a word to mean something other than what a reasonable speaker of English would understand the word to mean.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is because I want to survive arbitrary?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recharacterize the statement as "my survival is good." Now prove it without making a moral assumption of the form "x is good" or "x is bad." At some point, you must make an arbitrary (or intuitive) choice between "x is good" and "x is bad."

[ QUOTE ]

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly my point -- all moral principles derive, fundamentally, from an arbitrary assumption about what is good and what is bad. None of the principles derived from the initial assumption are arbitrary in realtion to the assumption -- they follow from deductive reasoning, the initial assumption, and experience(science). But at base, they too are the result of an arbitrary chioce.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The system itself could be said to be arbitrary, but what comes out of it is determined by the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i'm thinking along these lines

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What one ought to do is a fact regardless, and subject to scientific scrutiny. One group of scientists should never try to illegitimatize the subject matter of a different group of scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of ipse dixit.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong, cause I don't

The way I see it they are arbitrary definitions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am accelerating so quickly into the realm of Post Modernism that all concept of meaning applicable to the words you have spoken are blurring into a potential gestalt which as yet escapes me. Except for noob. I suspect that could be key.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds like a very funny joke that i want to get, but i am not smart enough too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was categorized as a Post Modernist on the test linked to by another Thread. I've been pondering the implications of this [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] . "noob" just sounds like a funny word to me. This style of post flows from a subcharacter of myself who's belief in conspiracy theories runs to the galactic level.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

noob is indeed an awesome word

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

Thanks.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who here thinks there is an objective right and wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a simplified take of my opinion on objective values . . . Everything's hunky-dory so long as we agree with each other, but once we disgree it becomes necessary to tell other people how they should live. Not cool.

Scott

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morality is the most useful lie we have ever told.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?


cielo

[/ QUOTE ]


By following moral rules, we increase our chance at "succeeding" as a species. I judge success on a single basis, existance. Existance is the most base, fundamental "good", as subjectively believed by our society. It is this way because the more we value life, the more likely we are to survive.

Since morality is a creation of man, it cannot have any true authority beyond the purpose it serves. For it to function, it must be held as an absolute authority. So we lie, and ascribe morality authority over all, with great results.

It is unfortunately ultimately flawed. As we become more rational we lose our inherent obedience to morality (as we lose our belief in religion), which is why it must be substitued for philosophy. Social contract.

Re: I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is because I want to survive arbitrary?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recharacterize the statement as "my survival is good." Now prove it without making a moral assumption of the form "x is good" or "x is bad." At some point, you must make an arbitrary (or intuitive) choice between "x is good" and "x is bad."

[ QUOTE ]

and what would it mean to posit a non-arbitrary principle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly my point -- all moral principles derive, fundamentally, from an arbitrary assumption about what is good and what is bad. None of the principles derived from the initial assumption are arbitrary in realtion to the assumption -- they follow from deductive reasoning, the initial assumption, and experience(science). But at base, they too are the result of an arbitrary chioce.

[/ QUOTE ]



Ah, yes, compelling.

We are now left with the question, "What do you do with your life?" There is a fundamental choice right?, to live or to die, like that one play says right? Assuming that you do want to live (this would be our "arbitrary/intuitive starting poing right?), could you then deduce "correct" ways of action with respect to this end?