Morality? What morality?

[Betterave]

Just because you don’t see it, it does not mean that it is not there.

True. Too true in your case.

 

[Spock]

True. Too true in your case.

Did you know that emulation is the highest form of praise?

 

[Warrenton]

I’ll try and say it just one last time. You have the last word then if you wish.
These games are not about reality, sin, emotion, ‘what I would do’, crime, subjectivity nor anything else other than logic of objective morality.Now you can if you wish try to force these games into reality but you cannot change the rules of reality. Because you are outside the game and in the big bad world now, and you are a human with free will you can push the button or not as you wish; but if you push the button you will still be doing an immoral action, the girl will die.

Gentlemen and ladies: I hope not to throw gasoline on this fire, but you might be interested to know these theoretical dilemmas have been translated into reality, but one must go back about a century and half to read about them.

In the days before steam, it was not uncommon that shipwrecked sailors found themselves serious ethical dilemmas. These ranged from insufficient lifeboats, to insufficient food for the survivors, to having to maroon people on desert islands. With its large merchant fleet, many cases can be found in the English law reports of the later 1700s through the mid 1800s.

Bottom line: it is illegal, hence immoral, to kill in order to survive. Cannibalism is immoral even when necessary. The rectification is made in the punishment that the act deserves: often, the men who bludgeoned each other, cast each other off, or ate each other were pardoned by the crown.

As one law lord put it, (paraphrasing here) “A man should never be put between the devil and the deep blue sea, but if the law remove the sea, then only the devil remains.”

Cheers.

 

[ignatius777]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

Your logic is questionable at best my friend. Your conclusion is based on faulty reasoning. The killing of innocent people is immoral not matter how much you agree with a persons actions. Your agreement doesnt change the immorality of the act. You can convince yourself it does but it doesnt.

 

[Spock]

Your logic is questionable at best my friend. Your conclusion is based on faulty reasoning. The killing of innocent people is immoral not matter how much you agree with a persons actions. Your agreement doesnt change the immorality of the act. You can convince yourself it does but it doesnt.

First, this thread was introduced with tongue-in-cheek, indicated by the smiley at the end of the OP. Of course I accept that there is an “objective” morality, but I deny that there is an “absolute” morality.

However, if you wish to argue that there is an “absolute” morality, please start with defining it. Then we can get into a discussion.

 

[ignatius777]

First, this thread was introduced with tongue-in-cheek, indicated by the smiley at the end of the OP. Of course I accept that there is an “objective” morality, but I deny that there is an “absolute” morality.

However, if you wish to argue that there is an “absolute” morality, please start with defining it. Then we can get into a discussion.

If its tongue-in-cheek then there is no need for a lengthy discussion.

Its good to see that you recognize an “objective” morality but if you deny an “absolute” moraility why dont we begin with what you perceive as the differences between “objective” and “absolute”.

 

[inocente]

Or could it be that you never gave your own answer because having trouble doing so is actually very typical and your characterization of the situation is nonsense? ("…they will give differing answers and then scream at each other. They will argue about it for days and get really upset with each other because neither side has a killer argument – both sides are being entirely sincere and rational but starting from different points." - Will they? Highly unlikely.)

I take it you’ve never been on a morality thread on CAF then?

A dilemma, by definition, is something that people do not have strong intuitive inclinations about, they recognize that the two options are both attractive, and their recognition of the dilemma as such - as a dilemma - shows that their basic principles are in fact in agreement, that their starting points are in fact NOT different.

I didn’t invent the name.

In this case some find the decision difficult, some not, but most people have huge problems trying to understand why others disagree because their basic principles are not in agreement, they start from different points.

First, you mischaracterize real deliberations about moral dilemmas - these don’t typically involve screaming; to the contrary, they involve agonizing. Second, your mischaracterization of the situation would appear in any case to be irrelevant to the truth of the matter: if people scream at each other and use different rationalizations for their view points, that does not imply that the difference between them is *fundamentally *grounded in a difference in “subjective preferences”. You would have to examine their actual claims and their actual reasoning in order to even consider such an assessment.

The deliberations don’t involve screaming, it’s when folk realize others have a completely different answer. Again, I’ll refer you to any morality thread, such as the one we were both on that just closed.

Suppose I prefer “do least harm” reasoning here (btw, yes I would push the button) while you prefer “do no evil” and wouldn’t push the button. We could argue about it for weeks on CAF, get really frustrated with each other and still not change each other’s minds. Neither of us have a killer argument to dissuade the other. Do it (not with me, I already know what will happen), examine the actual claims, make your assessment of the reasoning.

That’s nice speculation. Now maybe you could tell us a reason for actually believing it?

Simple friend . Suppose again we use different reasoning here, you go the “do no evil” route and I the “do least harm” route. There’s no objective reason why we have these different rationales, it’s a matter of preference. Now let’s ask a more simple question “in general is it right to kill?”. Without either of us changing our subjective reasoning preference, we’ll both give the same answer. So yes, agreed, it’s a neat speculation.

 

[inocente]

You have failed to answer my question. Let me pose it differently:
How do you reconcile your Baptist beliefs with the view that morality is divorced from reality! Surely moral principles and laws are not subjective but based on truths about personal development and fulfilment.

Even on this thread you’ve seen, from You and 4Horsemen, two different answers, both entirely reasoned. That’s the reality, that’s the evidence. Neither are wrong, there’s no point trying to get round that by implying one is less well developed or less fulfilled than the other, or by appealing to some alternate reality.

As for my beliefs, Baptists believe in freedom of conscience, don’t you?

 

[4Horsemen]

First, this thread was introduced with tongue-in-cheek, indicated by the smiley at the end of the OP. Of course I accept that there is an “objective” morality, but I deny that there is an “absolute” morality.

However, if you wish to argue that there is an “absolute” morality, please start with defining it. Then we can get into a discussion.

Definitions:

“Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”
“Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

Translating these concepts into reality, I would argue that murder of an innocent person is always and absolutely wrong, an immoral evil. (Moral absolutism) Can we agree on that?

However, killing someone (who may be innocent or not) is objectively wrong, but determined by the consequences (consequentialism). An example is a man protecting his home, wife and children from marauders. He kills the intruders even though he doesn’t really know their motives. Maybe they were just hungry and in dire need and not intending raping and murdering. The action of the husband-father is, however, morally and objectively permissible. (moral objectivism)

Having free will enables us to reason that there is an objective morality. Religion plays a significant role, but even non-theists can come to the same conclusion. Immanuel Kant promoted moral absolutism.

 

[Spock]

If its tongue-in-cheek then there is no need for a lengthy discussion.

Its good to see that you recognize an “objective” morality but if you deny an “absolute” moraility why dont we begin with what you perceive as the differences between “objective” and “absolute”.

Very well.

Definition of morality: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”. The written rules are codified in the laws, the unwritten ones are learned from the parents and the environment. There are some laws which do not reflect morality and there are some moral rules which cannot be codified.

Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid. Objective rules of morality reflect the stance of society, and are subject to change from one society to another, or they may change in the same society as time passes.

Absolute morality means that there are some rules of morality which can never change. They are true for all societies for all times.

Neither of them implies that everyone will accept them. If one disagrees with the accepted rules, one can engage in “civil disobedience”, or some other measures. These “deviants” may or may not be subject to legal procedures, depending on the society.

When looking to examples, I would suggest at least four items: 1) murder, 2) cannibalism, 3) public nudity and 4) pornography. Maybe more, if you wish to add other examples.

 

[Spock]

Definitions:

“Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”
“Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

Read my post directly above.

 

[ignatius777]

Very well.

Definition of morality: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”. The written rules are codified in the laws, the unwritten ones are learned from the parents and the environment. There are some laws which do not reflect morality and there are some moral rules which cannot be codified.

Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid. Objective rules of morality reflect the stance of society, and are subject to change from one society to another, or they may change in the same society as time passes.

Absolute morality means that there are some rules of morality which can never change. They are true for all societies for all times.

Neither of them implies that everyone will accept them. If one disagrees with the accepted rules, one can engage in “civil disobedience”, or some other measures. These “deviants” may or may not be subject to legal procedures, depending on the society.

When looking to examples, I would suggest at least four items: 1) murder, 2) cannibalism, 3) public nudity and 4) pornography. Maybe more, if you wish to add other examples.

So by your definition of morality murder could be socially acceptable behavior. Very well.

If I cant perceive an objective morality how am I to follow it?

Acceptance has never been a contention of mine so I am not sure why its mentioned here. In fact I have made a point of saying that acceptance in no way makes anything moral.

 

[Betterave]

I take it you’ve never been on a morality thread on CAF then?

Well Mr. Rolly-Eyes, I’ve participated in one thread involving trolley problems and there was no screaming or getting upset. I also don’t see that happening here either - do you?

In this case some find the decision difficult, some not, but most people have huge problems trying to understand why others disagree because their basic principles are not in agreement, they start from different points.

So you baldly assert, again.

The deliberations don’t involve screaming, it’s when folk realize others have a completely different answer. Again, I’ll refer you to any morality thread, such as the one we were both on that just closed.

I don’t recall any discussion of moral dilemmas there. Do you??

Suppose I prefer “do least harm” reasoning here (btw, yes I would push the button) while you prefer “do no evil” and wouldn’t push the button. We could argue about it for weeks on CAF, get really frustrated with each other and still not change each other’s minds. Neither of us have a killer argument to dissuade the other. Do it (not with me, I already know what will happen), examine the actual claims, make your assessment of the reasoning.

LOL! Right, I’ll get right on that… not with you though, you already know what would happen.

Simple friend . Suppose again we use different reasoning here, you go the “do no evil” route and I the “do least harm” route. There’s no objective reason why we have these different rationales, it’s a matter of preference.

LOL! Given that your scenario is counterfactual (we haven’t discussed the grounding of these “different rationales” or examined their worth), how could you possibly know that? Your claim is absurd - pure groundless intellectual hubris.

Now let’s ask a more simple question “in general is it right to kill?”. Without either of us changing our subjective reasoning preference, we’ll both give the same answer. So yes, agreed, it’s a neat speculation.

“neat”? And this is supposed to give me a reason for taking the following claim seriously?:

“If we then go back to simple moral questions where everyone gives the same answer, it may be that we all subjectively happen to prefer the same reasoning as everyone else, and only imagine we’re being objective.”

I know you’re not good at constructing arguments that actually make sense, but seriously, how is that supposed to work?

 

[Betterave]

Definition of morality: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”.

Sounds like your definition would also apply to manners, etiquette, correct procedures for ceremonial observances, etc. Do you recognize a difference between morals and these others?

 

[tonyrey]

How do you reconcile your Baptist beliefs with the view that morality is divorced from reality! Surely moral principles and laws are not subjective but based on truths about personal development and fulfilment.

It would be helpful if you could explain precisely where we have given two different answers** to the same question**…

As for my beliefs, Baptists believe in freedom of conscience, don’t you?

Where do you obtain your freedom, let alone your freedom of conscience? From atomic particles?

Moreover freedom of conscience implies that morality is not divorced from reality but depends on it!

 

[4Horsemen]

Very well.

Definition of morality: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”. The written rules are codified in the laws, the unwritten ones are learned from the parents and the environment. There are some laws which do not reflect morality and there are some moral rules which cannot be codified.

Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid. Objective rules of morality reflect the stance of society, and are subject to change from one society to another, or they may change in the same society as time passes.

Absolute morality means that there are some rules of morality which can never change. They are true for all societies for all times.

Neither of them implies that everyone will accept them. If one disagrees with the accepted rules, one can engage in “civil disobedience”, or some other measures. These “deviants” may or may not be subject to legal procedures, depending on the society.

When looking to examples, I would suggest at least four items: 1) murder, 2) cannibalism, 3) public nudity and 4) pornography. Maybe more, if you wish to add other examples.

I would add rape, torture and child abuse. (The definition of torture is not always agreed upon in the military of course).

 

[Spock]

So by your definition of morality murder could be socially acceptable behavior. Very well.

Well, we made some progress.

If I cant perceive an objective morality how am I to follow it?

Not sure what you mean here. The laws are there, you can read them. The unwritten rules you learn.

 

[Spock]

Sounds like your definition would also apply to manners, etiquette, correct procedures for ceremonial observances, etc. Do you recognize a difference between morals and these others?

Very true observation. The difference is in the seriousness of the actions. The unwritten rules might be sometimes hazy in the borderline cases. The reprcussions will vary too, based upon the severity of customs violated.

 

[Spock]

I would add rape, torture and child abuse. (The definition of torture is not always agreed upon in the military of course).

By all means. The proposed list was just that, a first approximation. Do you happen to agree with the proposed definitions? If you want to enhance or change them, let’s do it up front, before we get into the deepr waters.

 

[ignatius777]

Well, we made some progress.

Not sure what you mean here. The laws are there, you can read them. The unwritten rules you learn.

Here is what you wrote: “Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid”

This statement means that a moral can stand seperate and apart from anyone being able to perceive it. If it is outside anyones ability to perceive it then how can anyone accept or refuse it?