Stephen168
New member
You didn’t answer the question. Unless you mean that it IS moral to throw a mentally handicapped person overboard.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
It took you three tries, but you finally got there.
No, it is not a straw-man. A straw-man requires I misstate your position. Your position has nothing at all to do with me asking a question well in advance of you trying to answer it.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Only through moral means.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s not true, you require other axioms like the golden rule which are based on arbitrary ideals and preconceptions.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Then this is all arbitrary and there is no real moral weight.
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
Then I assume you believe that taking them is moral; even someone taking yours.
Stephen168
New member
Yet, you claim the sea Captain would be acting immorally by throwing the passenger overboard taking his life; a natural right.
Stephen168
New member
So your opinion about the sea Captain is irrational.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well, let’s see…Stephen168:
In MY opinion, of course. Life is not a “right”. And “unforced” right is just a pipe dream. The only definition of “life” is: complex responses to complex stimuli.
If life is not a “right” then no being that happens to be alive has any moral claim on any other being to keep them alive.
In an “objective” sense, any life can be taken away at will – according to you – by anyone with the power to do so, given there is no such thing as a natural or inalienable right to remain alive that can be invoked.
If life cannot be taken without warrant by anyone at anytime as the result of a natural right to life, what other justification is there to protect the lives of individuals from being taken at will?
Stephen168
New member
If it is legal, you believe slavery is moral; slavery being a violation of a natural right.
Stephen168
New member
I understand. You claimed: if it is legal, it is right. Therefore, you don’t have a problem with slavery where it is legal. If two people vote to kill the third, you are OK with that because it is legal. You said there are no natural rights, so they can be taken away by a vote (legal). Your beliefs are random and irrational only subject to the will of the masses and your feelings.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No actually. I think you are confusing a “natural” (inalienable) right with a “legal” right (endowed by some legal system or other).HarryStotle:
You confuse “moral” with legal.
Moral rights are inalienable because they apply in virtue of human beings having moral agency.
Legal rights apply to human beings who happen to belong to some legal system — nation, state, province, municipality, etc. — or other.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You don’t really believe that. If someone came and threatened to cut off your arm, you wouldn’t shout at them, “Hey! That’s against the law!” What you would cite— if you were sane — is the inherent evil of the act, “That is an evil thing you are about to do!”Stephen168:
When will you understand that in OUR opinion it is wrong. Let me repeat: “There is no objective morality.”
If the only thing you would or could cite, in terms of the wrongness of the act, is the current “law,” most reasonable human beings would shake their heads and wonder at your own moral incapacity.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The point being: if “legal” is the final arbiter for right and wrong, then there is no higher resort to judge whether what happens to be legal is, itself, right or wrong. The fact that it is legal makes it right, according to those like @Csakimavan who then have to concede that what Hitler did was right because it was legal according to Nazi jurisprudence.I understand. You claimed: if it is legal, it is right. Therefore, you don’t have a problem with slavery where it is legal. If two people vote to kill the third, you are OK with that because it is legal. You said there are no natural rights, so they can be taken away by a vote (legal). Your beliefs are random and irrational only subject to the will of the masses and your feelings.
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
Yes, but you never explained that difference. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. You have suggested that the law is your foundation for morality by eliminating reason and natural rights.
Exactly!!
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
If there is no “objective” morality, then there is no objective way to determine if laws are right or wrong, good or bad. You have no “objective” means of determining whether slavery laws are good or bad. Ergo, you cannot reach any conclusion beyond “It is legal.”Stephen168:
When will you understand that in OUR opinion it is wrong. Let me repeat: “There is no objective morality.”
If it is legal, then by your definition, that is the only objective determiner of what is thought to be right.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Not at all.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, except maybe the reality that if you strip away the moral varnish from the ideologue, what you have is the quintessential free-moral agent.
And here’s the beauty of it - you don’t even have to agree. It just simply seems to be the reality in which we find ourselves.
Now you on the other hand, ho boy…
You’ve got to prove god, then Christian God, then Catholic God.
Best of luck.
Gad-zooks, man. How many times have I asked you to offer your description of the state of a man stripped of any moral schema. I’ve offered “libertas”. Free moral agency.
If you don’t agree, great!!! So what’s your alternative???
Would you like me to point you to the post number where I say the very same thing?
I’m inquiring about the moral null. That’s all. And it very nearly certainly seems to be free moral agency.
Where on earth (or in this thread or any other) did a say that as a description of divine command theory???
Do you know what divine command theory is?
We can almost never meaningfully discuss “telos”. To agree to discuss it requires the concession that telos exists, which we have no good reason to believe outside of evolutionary terms (vis a vis this bird adapted this particular beak because it’s better at cracking nuts). As far as metaphysical telos, we can be as certain that it exists as we can be about gods, as the two are usually intertwined.
The meaning of life is probably life itself. Being. There’s no good reason to think anything other from a hard-rationalist perspective.
Given this perspective, I’m sure you can see why I don’t bother with your continued line of reasoning that assumes telos as a given…
It’s as rational to me as saying “Ok, assuming the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist…”.
Can’t do it, man…
H
Hume
Guest
I answered your question, sir.
Libertas doesn’t give anyone anything. You’re simply a free moral agent.
In forming a moral schema that doesn’t depend on superstition, we employ norms that most can agree on.
I think Kant had some good ideas, but he was still an 18th century thinker. So do I fully subscribe 100% to all the underlying aspects of his Categorical Imperative?
No. Of course not.
But his underlying assumption of human autonomy was spot on.
But as the default moral state of man, no I don’t.
I don’t have to prove anything because I’m not claiming anything - the moral space is undefined. No gods, devils, snarks or grumpkins.
Libertas doesn’t give anyone anything. You’re simply a free moral agent.
In forming a moral schema that doesn’t depend on superstition, we employ norms that most can agree on.
I think Kant had some good ideas, but he was still an 18th century thinker. So do I fully subscribe 100% to all the underlying aspects of his Categorical Imperative?
No. Of course not.
But his underlying assumption of human autonomy was spot on.
No, there are not. Other than I guess, the “right” to die…
Sure, to form moral schemas, absolutely.
But as the default moral state of man, no I don’t.
I don’t have to prove anything because I’m not claiming anything - the moral space is undefined. No gods, devils, snarks or grumpkins.
If the passenger posed a danger to the captain, it would be difficult to argue that the DIDN’T have the right to toss the passenger overboard.
H
Hume
Guest
I would imagine that @Csakimavan probably doesn’t subscribe to Nazi jurisprudence. Similarly, human sacrifice at Aztec altars would probably receive your scorn because you don’t subscribe to Aztec belief.
Thanks for arguing the relativity of morality for me!
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
But are you free to steal from, murder, or enslave other free moral agents? This is the question, and you have not answered it.
So you believe in one standard for you and another standard of acting for others. It seems amoral but OK.
- Status