Quality of morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter danharte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
danharte said:
I’ve tried to move him away from the word “morality” as it seem like quite a generic term to me.
I’ve been focusing on “love” as a specific or defined aspect of morality.
My claim to him is that “love” is objective in that it’s an unwritten inbuilt universal abstract feeling that is understood by everyone equally.
I’ve given examples such as it would be objectively true that a baby objectively & subjectivity loves his mother. We can know that because we all share this inbuilt unspoken knowlage.
I’ve also stated that we can objectively know that a newly formed couple objectively love each other thus abstract for can be quantetive & therefor objective.
I’ve also touched on the other end of the scale by stating that it would be objectively true that a young child who loves his mother would objectively hate the person who kills his mother for no valid reason.
These are verbally quantifyable examples of objective morality
is this making any sense & do you see any problems with this approach
Click to expand...
Dear Dan:

I see that you need to oppose your own thoughts to your friend’s thoughts. I wonder why do you feel such need. I know it is quite a normal practice, but most of the times it proves to be fruitless, unless you are defending someone else. If you engage into a discussion, it is much better if you listen and ask questions, so that you become familiarized with the thoughts of your friend.

Love is a very Big Thing. And as you know, the power of love is pragmatical, not argumentative. Nevertheless, I do not see anything wrong in talking to him about love. What I consider a wrong approach is to be too condescending. Your friend seems to have a small box; and he seems to be saying: “I will not accept anything if it doesn’t fit into it”. Then you try to push Love hard enough to make it fit into his small box. You will lose, Dan; because you are implicitly accepting his rules.

Love is real and is powerful but it is not quantifiable. It does not have to fit into your friends small box.

Why don’t you ask him what does he understand by “objectivity”, and why does he think that he must request it to accept any discourse?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
lmelahn said:
The most classic one is probably the Republic, in which he discusses (among many other things) the Form of the Good. (See, for example, Book 6, 508a-e, in which Plato makes a comparison of the Form of the Good with the Sun.)

Plato’s basic idea is that if I make a statement, say, “Fido is a dog,” that can only be true to the degree that Fido participates in an idea, which for Plato is an extrinsic reality that transcends the material world. Hence, the statement “Fido is a dog” is exactly equivalent (for Plato) to saying “Fido participates in the idea of dog.” Each genus or species participates in a unique idea. (Note that for Plato the ideas are more real than the things that participate in them.)

So, argues Plato, we all agree that some things (men, actions, objects) are “good.” That means that there must be an idea (or “form,” which is the same thing) in which all good things participate. But the Form of the Good has to be a special one, in a way, because all things are “good” to some degree, so all things (even the ideas themselves) must participate in the Form of the Good.

In the Republic, the Form of the Good appears to be the “super-form” that rules all the others. (Plato was a very honest thinker, and he did not hesitate to modify his theory as he thought necessary, and we see him add other elements in later dialogues.)

I don’t know if I can accept all of Plato’s theory of forms, but the notion that all goodness participates in the Good Itself (whom we know to be God) is a good one. (I don’t, however, recommend trying this out on your atheist friend straight away; I don’t think he is ready for it.)
Click to expand...
Dear lmelahn:

We don’t have to accept Plato’s theories. But we can enjoy his dialogues, and get acquainted with his techniques. Just like you, I would not recommend to try to use those techniques right away. It requires maturation.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Is there one of the dialogues in particular that you would recommend? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I would recommend to read several of them in this order:

Apology of Socrates
Crito
Euthyphro
Ion
Lysis
Charmides
Hippias (major)
Hippias (minor)
Laques
Protagoras
Symposium

Regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Charlemagne_III said:
C.S. Lewis argues somewhat along the line of the Platonic forms when he says that we have an idea of the form without knowing exactly what that idea is. If I remember right, he say we have an idea of perfection without having seen anything perfect. Where did this idea come from if not from the senses? So if perfection exists and we are constantly striving for it, we might well ask the atheist why we are constantly striving for something that doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
The very fact that we constantly striving perfection means that it is not objective or it is not perceivable.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I would recommend to read several of them in this order:

Apology of Socrates
Crito
Euthyphro
Ion
Lysis
Charmides
Hippias (major)
Hippias (minor)
Laques
Protagoras
Symposium

Regards
JuanFlorencio
Click to expand...
The only objective truth is that we are consciousness. The rest is subjective.
 
Dear Dan:

Aristotle, the inventor of Logic as a discipline, also wrote at least three works on Ethics. In one of them, the Nicomachean Ethics, he says that an educated man is aware that not everything can be investigated with the same level of precision. It is convenient to meditate about the significance of his remark. In the same work he describes prudence, the queen and mother of all virtues, as an intellectual virtue oriented to practice, because Ethics is not a theoretical discipline, but pragmatic.

In my understanding, ethics concerns the integration of a Universal Community. The question about its objectivity can ( and I would say “should”) be re-stated this way: Is a “universal” community desirable? If the answer is “yes”, then we should use all the means at hand to get it. Is it enough with human reason? In the last centuries, human reason has shown that it is not able to produce unity, but diversity. I think that instead of using exclusively only one of our strengths (reason), we should use all of them. To me, it makes no sense to cut off your legs when you want to win the marathon.

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Bahman said:
The very fact that we constantly striving perfection means that it is not objective or it is not perceivable.
Click to expand...
Then of course the next question to ask is why nature gives us a chronic desire that is not objective.
 
Bahman said:
The only objective truth is that we are consciousness. The rest is subjective.
Click to expand...
Remember that when an armed robber demands your money or your life. 😃

And by the way, if there can be one objective truth, why can’t there be more than one?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Remember that when an armed robber demands your money or your life. 😃

And by the way, if there can be one objective truth, why can’t there be more than one?
Click to expand...
What it is said is primary. The rest stand on it as secondaries. For example definition of justice: Justice is the state of balance between inside and outside.
 
Bahman said:
The only objective truth is that we are consciousness. The rest is subjective.
Click to expand...
There is a book you might profit from reading. *Ten Philosophical Mistakes *by Mortimer Adler. Adler writes in layman’s language for those who are not steeped in philosophy, and he covers the issues you are having with objective vs. subjective knowledge.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
There is a book you might profit from reading. *Ten Philosophical Mistakes *by Mortimer Adler. Adler writes in layman’s language for those who are not steeped in philosophy, and he covers the issues you are having with objective vs. subjective knowledge.
Click to expand...
Could you please provide the fruit of the book here, or open another thread so I can engage?
 
Bahman said:
Could you please provide the fruit of the book here, or open another thread so I can engage?
Click to expand...
The book is available at Amazon.

amazon.com/Ten-Philosophical-Mistakes-Mortimer-Adler/dp/068481868X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423085660&sr=8-1&keywords=ten+philosophical+mistakes

The first chapter would be of special interest to you: “Consciousness and Its Objects” but the whole book is a fascinating read for the layman because Adler opens doors to these great fallacies and how to refute them.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The book is available at Amazon.

amazon.com/Ten-Philosophical-Mistakes-Mortimer-Adler/dp/068481868X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423085660&sr=8-1&keywords=ten+philosophical+mistakes

The first chapter would be of special interest to you: “Consciousness and Its Objects” but the whole book is a fascinating read for the layman because Adler opens doors to these great fallacies and how to refute them.
Click to expand...
I cannot buy it. 😦 Books are kinda long for me. I need something very very zipped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top