I May Be a Philosophy Noob, But...

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[Prevaricator]

[ 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?

[Jazza]

[ 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.

[Jazza]

[ 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.

[cielo]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?


cielo

[Prevaricator]

[ 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.

[Peter666]

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

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[JoshuaMayes]

[ 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").

[Peter666]

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