So Not Ready is Right. Now What?

David Sklansky · #1 08-19-2005, 12:05 AM

Not Ready says there can be no absolute right and wrong unless it comes from God. He's right. (oh OK, I'll change that to "I agree with him") Now I don't agree with the converse that Not Ready believes "if there is a God he definitely provides us with absolute morality". Nor do I agree with Not Ready's contention that God certainly exists. So I am left with the belief that there is no absolute morality (an ill defined term I admit.)

But the big difference I have with Not Ready AND with many of those philosophers who believe there is absolute morality without God is their contention that no absolute morality is a terrible thing. That's nonsense. Those who say stupid stuff like without God's morality there is no reason not to do all these depraved things are not thinking straight. I will let others elaborate. The fact that Hitler wasn't inherently immoral is almost irrelevant. There are lots of other reasons why Hitlers are not apt to pop up a lot.

Ironically if there is a need for absolute morality it isn't to prevent Hitlers but rather to help us with more mundane stuff. Should businesses be forced to spend money they will never recover to have good wheelchair access? Should we allow painful expeiments on mammals to help us make a slightly better cold pill? I see no way to prove the right answer and might like the idea that there was a God to provide it. (Except that I think that the God of many religions would get the second question wrong.)

Aside from things like the above though it is silly to think that it is of earthshaking importance to try to search for absolute morality. Pidgeons don't. 97% of 16 year old girls don't. And more importantly 90% of people in general don't. They have more important things to worry about. The people on this forum are exceptions and we shouldn't forget that. Who was it who said "the unexamined life is not worth living"? Well he was wrong. A life without joy is not worth living. If examining your life is fun as it is to most of us here then go for it. But don't presume to think that everybody else should feel the same.

IronUnkind · #2 08-19-2005, 12:13 AM

I will presume that the pursuit of fun should be secondary to the pursuit of meaning, while acknowledging that the two tasks are not mutually exclusive.

David Sklansky · #3 08-19-2005, 12:24 AM

Since the word fun has a trivial connotation change it to happiness or satisfaction.

spaminator101 · #4 08-19-2005, 01:13 AM

by absolute morality do you mean that it is possible for one to be completely moral

David Sklansky · #5 08-19-2005, 01:16 AM

No. I mean morality that is not a matter of opinion.

spaminator101 · #6 08-19-2005, 01:20 AM

well then there is definately absolute morality

Aytumious · #7 08-19-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
well then there is definately absolute morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

spaminator101 · #8 08-19-2005, 11:18 AM

well now that i think about it i cahnge my mind
like say that one person considers smoking to be immoral (im not saying that it is), while another one doesn't.
If the first person was tempted to smoke then he or she would have sinned
however if the second person just picked up a cigerette and had a smoke then he wouldn't necesarily be sinning

txag007 · #9 08-19-2005, 11:19 AM

"Not Ready says there can be no absolute right and wrong unless it comes from God. He's right."

The following is a repost from another thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

If there is no absolutely morality, what defines "right"?

DS-
"My point about absolute morality is not a deep one. It is simply the same point that you can make about something like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder."

So morality is a matter of opinion? What's right for me may not be right for you.

If that's true, what keeps chaos from resulting?

Our system of laws, but based on what?

That which does the greatest good?

DS-
"Lets skip to those Nazis who were a willing part of the Holocaust. An obvious case of evilness? Why? I'm quite sure that the majority of Nazis were not licking their chops at the thought of killing Jews. And that they were not sociopaths either. This is probably even more true of the doctors who performed medical experiments. What at least some, if not most of them, were is people who had figured out a way to turn off enough of their empathy instinct to rationalize doing horrible things to fellow human beings because of the greater GOOD they thought would result."

But what is "good"? Either "good" and "right" are defined in terms of each other (which is circular reasoning), or they must be defined by some standard beyond this utilitarian process.

Georgia Avenue · #10 08-19-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who was it who said "the unexamined life is not worth living"?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The unexamined life is not worth living for man.
Socrates, in Plato, Dialogues, Apology
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)

He also said: 2. "All I know is that I know nothing."

[ QUOTE ]
A life without joy is not worth living.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer: 3."A life without SELF-KNOWLEDGE is a life without joy."

1+2=3.