Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10-20-2005, 05:33 PM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

LOL I tell you it's not meant as an insult and you go ahead and take it that way anyway?

Am I supposed to want to continue this discussion if you're going to act that way?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-20-2005, 10:41 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

Just because I said your statement was slightly arrogant, doesn't mean I was insulted. To be insulted, I'd have to think your statement had merit. I didn't... but I did think it was slightly arrogant.

It was getting tiresome trying to get straight answers from you, though... so I don't mind ending this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-21-2005, 08:57 AM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
You still didn't give me any general principles that I'm ignoring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I thought I did, but I'll be more clear. In that first example, both men were acting on the principle "helping others is good", despite the fact that their specific actions were different. You say "different actions = subjective" while I say "acting on same principle /= subjective".

The shoes example... I said "you'll have to concede that there are situations in which they act different based on *different* values and each result is morally equivalent." However, Albert is trying to insult Fred and Bob is not. These are not morally equivalent actions, so your example is flawed.

You also said: [ QUOTE ]
(I could say that Albert leaves his shoes on, and would then argue that these two different actions are morally equivalent, because their values are different.)


[/ QUOTE ]

But in that case, their values aren't different, or more accurately, their heirarchy of values isn't different. They each place Fred's wishes above their own since it's his house and they each do what they consider respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-21-2005, 10:17 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still didn't give me any general principles that I'm ignoring.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that first example, both men were acting on the principle "helping others is good", despite the fact that their specific actions were different. You say "different actions = subjective" while I say "acting on same principle /= subjective".

The shoes example... I said "you'll have to concede that there are situations in which they act different based on *different* values and each result is morally equivalent." However, Albert is trying to insult Fred and Bob is not. These are not morally equivalent actions, so your example is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main difference here is how you are definining "subjective". I think it's mostly used the way you are using it in the Objectivist camp.

I have said that motives & intentions are a huge factor in determining whether something is "right" or "wrong". The difference, then, is that I say that makes morality subjective, whereas you keep refuting my examples by saying they aren't *identical* circumstances because their motives and intentions differ.

So, we are back to square one. I said if the people have to be identical, then I would agree, but that the word "subjective" loses meaning in this context.

So, I'll summarize:

I think that someone's background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs are core to what makes them, them. It's these things that molds their core values and moral principles. You already agreed that a different in knowledge between people creates a different situation (and thus, the morality of their actions is not "subjective"). I would guess, then, that you would say a difference in any of the things I listed would create a different situation.

I will conclude that the word "subjective", according to your definition, is mostly meaningless in this context. I will concede that morality is not "subjective" according to your definition (or Rand's definition, by the way).

But, for the common usage of the term "subjective" (even in the fields of ethics and philosophy), morality is partly "subjective" because it is partly determined by the persons involved (specifically, their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs).
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-21-2005, 11:09 AM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
But, for the common usage of the term "subjective" (even in the fields of ethics and philosophy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement but it's pretty much beside the point because:

[ QUOTE ]
I will conclude that the word "subjective", according to your definition, is mostly meaningless in this context. I will concede that morality is not "subjective" according to your definition (or Rand's definition, by the way).


[/ QUOTE ]

It makes no difference to me the specific action or decision a person makes. All that really matters is the value/principle they are acting on. And those values/principles are more than just a matter of opinion. They're based on our nature as human beings and can be discovered and developed logically.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-21-2005, 11:38 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
It makes no difference to me the specific action or decision a person makes. All that really matters is the value/principle they are acting on. And those values/principles are more than just a matter of opinion. They're based on our nature as human beings and can be discovered and developed logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, "helping others is good", and "insulting people is bad" -- those are the two general principles you've mentioned. I don't think those are just a matter of opinion, either. But, they are subjective. What "helps" one person, may not be "helping" someone else. And an insult to you, may be a compliment to me. So, those objective principles, in practice, are measured subjectively. But, both of those (and probably any other you could come up with) would fall under my single principle of morality: "increase happiness". And, in my definition, happiness is at least partly subjective.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-21-2005, 05:01 PM
txag007 txag007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 256
Default Re: Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not somebody takes off their shoes before entering his house does not affect the "true happiness" of anyone except an emotional, fickle person. It sounds as if you are defining "good" by that which causes "bliss" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred didn't really care about the shoes... but to purposefully disrespect someone... most people care about that, don't they? To treat someone as inferior... most people wouldn't appreciate it, and it would decrease their happiness, and probably hurt any sort of friendship that they had, right?

So, point is... Albert's values made something wrong for him to do, although it was right for Bob to do it. Different cultures have ways of interacting with each other due to a difference in values. This aspect plays a part in morality, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]
The following can be found here:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/relativism.html

Moral Relativism

Is morality relative? Are definitions of right and wrong a matter of opinion, or are there absolute standards? Some things to consider about moral relativism:

1. Some moral standards are universal to all cultures and times. What society approves of treason/disloyalty, murder of innocents or theft?

2. While people may disagree on whether an action is right or wrong, everyone agrees that people ought to do good. Even someone who believes that morality is relative will say that people ought not impose their morality on others, or that people ought to respect others' beliefs - both of which are clear statements of ethics that the speaker believes others should follow.

3. If morality is a matter of opinion, we have no reason to condemn others' beliefs or actions. But this means we can't condemn philosophies such as Nazism or racism or actions such as child abuse or rape. Nor can relativists condemn those who are intolerant of other beliefs (including their own), because "intolerance is wrong" is merely an opinion of theirs which is not shared by the intolerant. Likewise, if ethics are only opinions, praising heroic or unselfish deeds would make as much sense as praising someone for sharing our taste in food, for praise assumes that one has done something good when one could have easily done otherwise.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.