Is morality static?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Is there any right morality?
How are morals just?

[xexon]

It all comes down to personal awareness. How conscience are you?

We are all born with various parts of that puzzle. We observe the behaviour of others to judge our own limits.

Un-evolved people will force their morals upon you.




x

[historyteach]

Duo;
During my 17 year search for my own moral/ethical/religious belief system, I studied many different Western and Eastern religions and philosophies.
Every one I studied has it's own version of the Golden Rule.
Some were stated in the positive:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Others in the negative:
"Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."
Therefore, from my humble experience I beleive that ONE rule is static throughout societies around the world.
Of course, this ONE rule can and is broken down to many different moral/ethical rules. I think that is for clarification. :)
Nice question; I look forward to more answers here...
L'Chaim!

[JoeR]

I don't really have a moral system. I did outline what I would consider my moral code in another thread, but its not something I would have thought about up until I typed it out. I just do what comes naturally, so I've never had a need for any sort of moral code to contemplate over.

[Duo_Maxwell]

What happens when a pyscho applies the golden rule, or a sadist, or maosochist?

[Senor Herberto]

it is about respecting others, not causing harm, and not being a douche. it is about protecting what is good from attack. it is about positivity and not negativity.

[historyteach]

Well, Duo,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that question. Can you elaborate a bit?
For example, what do you mean by a "psycho." That is a street term, not a medical one, so, I don't know how to answer it.
L'Chaim!

[xexon]

Self-edit





x

[xexon]

For me, everything is a result of karma. That said, some people incarnate with various maladies that enable them to burn off their vast accumalation of bad karma in a faster manner.

You are in effect, paying for your sins at a lower interest rate. The principal reduces faster.

Saints are no strangers to pain. They often go out in a blaze of inhumane treatment. But this same fire that burns is also the same fire that cleanses you. In the end, saints have no further obligation here. Their worldy attachments have lost their grip. Been burned away. They're free again.

None of us are capable of judging another's path. The real judgement is our own. People who are mentally ill, have a bit of a different contract in life with God. We, as sound minded individuals, are not privy to it.

You have to trust that everything happens for a reason.



x

[cytwombly]

You have to trust that everything happens for a reason.

x

Do people who get beat up and robbed on the street deserve it? Everyone of them?

[Redratio1]

Is there any right morality?
How are morals just?

The only morals that are static are the ones that further the sucessful operation of our species' social patterns, biologically speaking. All other social taboos are mere window dressing.

[Duo_Maxwell]

wow, not a word from the local church (hahha).

[cpwill]

It all comes down to personal awareness. How conscience are you?

We are all born with various parts of that puzzle. We observe the behaviour of others to judge our own limits.

Un-evolved people will force their morals upon you.

so then you don't believe in others' forcing their morality which claims that rape is wrong on me?

[cpwill]

wow, not a word from the local church (hahha).

check the proof of god thread; i've been busy :p

[xexon]

Do people who get beat up and robbed on the street deserve it? Everyone of them?

Yes they do. Karma balances. It balances exactly. There is no thumb on the scale nonsense. When you use the term "deserve", you are implying either punishment or reward. There is neither. What is happening is whatever needs to happen. Sometimes in the play of life, you are cast as a victim. Othertimes, a leader.

They are both just states of mind. The real worth is in how your mind is allowed to weigh between the two and identify with one and not the other. Your mind is a learning machine. It has no karma of itself, but it's actions here in the earthly arena applies karma to your soul. Good and bad.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people, but their accounts are still paying off old debt left over from past lives. It takes along time to turn the tide.




x

[cpwill]

Yes they do. Karma balances. It balances exactly.

the jews deserved the holocaust? the little boys deserved to get raped by the priests?

[xexon]

so then you don't believe in others' forcing their morality which claims that rape is wrong on me?

Sometimes you are used as a tool in other people's karmic plays. It pays the same, but the perspective is different.




x

[xexon]

Karma makes no distinction as to race or creed. It only sees human.


x

[cpwill]

interesting; so then you don't get upset when people mistreat you or others; nor is there any reason to oppose the iraq war; as the iraqi people had it coming.

[cytwombly]

Yes they do. Karma balances. It balances exactly. There is no thumb on the scale nonsense. When you use the term "deserve", you are implying either punishment or reward. There is neither. What is happening is whatever needs to happen. Sometimes in the play of life, you are cast as a victim. Othertimes, a leader.

They are both just states of mind. The real worth is in how your mind is allowed to weigh between the two and identify with one and not the other. Your mind is a learning machine. It has no karma of itself, but it's actions here in the earthly arena applies karma to your soul. Good and bad.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people, but their accounts are still paying off old debt left over from past lives. It takes along time to turn the tide.
x

your karma philsophy is just an after the fact philosophy. Like pragmatism, it justifies everything just because it has happened.
When I walk down the street I certainly don't believe in karma, I believe no one deserves to steal my money--no matter what "karma" is.

[xexon]

Its not that I don't get upset. I'm still plugged into a brain, and aware of the senses. :)
It's how much of a leash I allow it while it sniffs at something.

You can really get into the thick of things, or you can sit there on the bank and wave at others who are. You have some options. I know the world is ultimately a play. I hope my part here will be remembered with favor.



x

[peavine]

Yes they do. Karma balances. It balances exactly. There is no thumb on the scale nonsense. When you use the term "deserve", you are implying either punishment or reward. There is neither. What is happening is whatever needs to happen. Sometimes in the play of life, you are cast as a victim. Othertimes, a leader.

They are both just states of mind. The real worth is in how your mind is allowed to weigh between the two and identify with one and not the other. Your mind is a learning machine. It has no karma of itself, but it's actions here in the earthly arena applies karma to your soul. Good and bad.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people, but their accounts are still paying off old debt left over from past lives. It takes along time to turn the tide.




x
is this just your opinion, or does this stem from a religeon of some kind?

[xexon]

Not religion really. More like a science. It gives you specific instruction for obtaining a specific result.

Karma is mainly a Hindu concept. I am not Hindu, but many of the elements of eastern mysticism have borrowed from it. The laws that govern karma are very precise, and simple.

It makes for interesting reading.





x

[xexon]

This is a plain and simple explanation. Beautifully worded.

http://www.flowinghands.com/mbs_htm/mbs.art.karma.htm



x

[Rivet]

Basically the Golden Rule ... just worded differently.

"Treat others as you want to be treated"

"You get back what you give out"

[xexon]

We have a remarkably hard time with the simpliest things.




x

[cytwombly]

We have a remarkably hard time with the simpliest things.


x

Are you posting here today just to share your opinions? Or did you want some debate on your ideas. Some people take offence when they want the first and get the second.

[xexon]

People get what I give them. Equality.

If your cup is half full or half empty, it is entirely up to you.




x

[historyteach]

Ya know....
I like that idea of karma....
Just not the way it's presented here, Xenox...sorry.
No one deserves it.
It is an act of fate...
How WE CHOOSE to react to it is another story altogether.
And we may decide to drown or to live....
And THAT is where I see karma at work...
With what WE decide....with the help of our higher power...and a little help from our friends. :)
Shalom!

[cpwill]

Sometimes you are used as a tool in other people's karmic plays. It pays the same, but the perspective is different.

but how can that be if we all get what we've earned via karma?

[xexon]

Karma can be paid for by action. You can take on as much as you can carry, just like college.

There are two points. You have to be aware of the fact, of how your actions create karma for you. Secondly, you understand point #1 well enough to not produce further bad karma in the future.

You can carry this credit as long as you want. The wise person tries to get out from under it altogether.




x

[Duo_Maxwell]

so no one is going to defend the morality of orthodox religions as static? wow, what has this world come to?

[cpwill]

i would; but i'm busy.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Actually, I think you're smart enough to realize you can't argue something you know isn't static as static.

[cpwill]

not really; there is definitely an overarching eternal base morality. the basic morals haven't changed; their application has.

[eugene40]

not really; there is definitely an overarching eternal base morality. the basic morals haven't changed; their application has.


And what are these basic morals.... just so I know...

[Senor Herberto]

seeking universal goodness and avoiding and preventing badness. that is what it all stems from.

these terms become applied differently as society changes and as people understand themselves and each other better, or as they become elitist and corrupt and stray from goodness.

[cpwill]

And what are these basic morals.... just so I know...

:lol: talk about a book idea.

i would venture to say that in general self-sacrifice seems to be honored; among others.

[Duo_Maxwell]

so the standard morals of orthodox religion don't fall into the "basic morals" and "overarching eternal base morality?"

[cpwill]

yes and no; there are common threads to both (don't murder: the definition of wrongful killing being one of those variables); however, yes, orthodox goes past the basic overarching morality and into more specifics.

[Duo_Maxwell]

what exaclty makes things moral?

Outright murder is beneifical to evolution in many cases. Not to mention sacrificial murders in other cultures, are those immoral because a completely unverifiable book says so?

HAHAHHAAHHAH. KNow what, i'm going to write something myself and hold you all to it as the morally correct line of thought. HAHAHAHAHAHa

[cpwill]

what exaclty makes things moral?

ultimately; the Moral Law that God has laid down.

Outright murder is beneifical to evolution in many cases.

which makes you wonder why it is against our ethical natures.

Not to mention sacrificial murders in other cultures, are those immoral because a completely unverifiable book says so?

therein lies the problem; ritual sacrifice isn't considered murder; as i pointed out, the definition of wrongful killing alters from society to society.

HAHAHHAAHHAH. KNow what, i'm going to write something myself and hold you all to it as the morally correct line of thought. HAHAHAHAHAHa

:shrug: you're free to do that just as soon as you can create your own universe out of nothing;)

[Duo_Maxwell]

ultimately; the Moral Law that God has laid down.

Because a unverifiable book said so? How exaclty do you not know that "god" has written a new book that declares all of the old 'morals' wrong?


which makes you wonder why it is against our ethical natures.

Correction: current ethical natures. Morals and ethics change from era to era.


therein lies the problem; ritual sacrifice isn't considered murder; as i pointed out, the definition of wrongful killing alters from society to society.

Hence why the orthdox morals, and most morals are not static.


:shrug: you're free to do that just as soon as you can create your own universe out of nothing;)

Why do I need to do that? After all, the same morals you are following could have come from some nutcase writing down his random thoughts on a natural LSD trip.

[cpwill]

Because a unverifiable book said so?

many of the books aspects are verifiable; however, my knowledge of this stems not from the book itself but rather from my own logic.

How exaclty do you not know that "god" has written a new book that declares all of the old 'morals' wrong?

unlikely that He would alter the laws under which he created humanity; however, if He ever does; we will know it by two reasons : 1. our morality will switch, and 2. it will likely be drawn out in the specifics to us.

Correction: current ethical natures. Morals and ethics change from era to era.

wrong, murder has always been wrong, the societies idea of what justifies a killing has altered.

Hence why the orthdox morals, and most morals are not static.

:sorry: you've got to provide evidence outside of simply stating that morals and ethics change from era to era; you've got to prove the overarching morality of humankind has changed.

Why do I need to do that?

because when you create a universe you get to create the moral laws that go along with it.

After all, the same morals you are following could have come from some nutcase writing down his random thoughts on a natural LSD trip.

unlikely; as they can come to me in a variety of directions; the bible being only one.

[Russikan]

therein lies the problem; ritual sacrifice isn't considered murder; as i pointed out, the definition of wrongful killing alters from society to society.

So in other words your proof of God being that wrongful killing is always considered wrong but that what is considered wrongful changes. Wrongful killing=wrong. I may not understand the English language well but I think that would be selfevident.

Further, when we look at morals over time we find that what people say changes readily. However, what they do is anything that they feel helps them in the long run or in the short run. If I thought that the sun would not rise unless I killled a few people then I would. By the same token if destroying another nations economy helped mine it would happen.

[cpwill]

you're right; the language doesn't lend itself easily to the concept; however, how about merely stating that there are killings which are not allowable, or, rather, that you have to have a good reason in order to kill a fellow human being has been a constant; certainly it is somewhere in between the two here.

particular morals change with times, the overarching supports of them remain constant.

However, what they do is anything that they feel helps them in the long run or in the short run.

wrong; and this is actually one of the reasons why this overarching morality serves as evidence of a Godly source: each man on this planet has a moral code, and each man on this planet fails completely to live up to that moral code.

[xexon]

They fail because nobody is around to tell them what "it" is with any real authority.

People like Jesus define it, but even he couldn't reach those that weren't ready for it. Not all flowers bloom at the same time, thus we have many messiahs, spread over many years.

We all have the seed. People like Jesus just know how to water it to make it grow.




x

[cpwill]

i'd say there are current members of those who are around to guide us: mind you; none of them quite come up to Jesus level (nobody really does.

[Duo_Maxwell]

many of the books aspects are verifiable; however, my knowledge of this stems not from the book itself but rather from my own logic.

Many? How about a relatively few, and even then its questionable. Hmm, more circumantial evidence.


unlikely that He would alter the laws under which he created humanity; however, if He ever does; we will know it by two reasons : 1. our morality will switch, and 2. it will likely be drawn out in the specifics to us.

Is this because you say so? :lol: I'm starting to see the trend: it goes like this "because I say so," and then "because I say so," and then "because I say so." :rolleyes:


wrong, murder has always been wrong, the societies idea of what justifies a killing has altered.

And you know this how? Murder was beneifical to our race as a point in time, removing weaker, inferior specimens from the gene pool likely ensured our race's survivial. Not to mention murder in the form of capital punishment is deemed just. And we can't forget the murder that occurs in many aboriginal societies that ends with beneficial results for most of the involved. If you want to play semantics there's no point discussing anything.


:sorry: you've got to provide evidence outside of simply stating that morals and ethics change from era to era; you've got to prove the overarching morality of humankind has changed.

Murder is acceptable during the evolution from ape to man, and then during the transition to use of language. not to mention murder of slaves was acceptable in the past, and murder as a means of basically anything politica was deemed justified in the past, yet that has all changed. not to mention the whole issue of theft. You need to prove that morals haven't changed, which you aren't doing at all.



because when you create a universe you get to create the moral laws that go along with it.
unlikely; as they can come to me in a variety of directions; the bible being only one.

See trend: "because I say so."

I wonder if you'd like it if I started using your style.

CPWILL, you're wrong because I say so. :lol:

[Russikan]

wrong; and this is actually one of the reasons why this overarching morality serves as evidence of a Godly source: each man on this planet has a moral code, and each man on this planet fails completely to live up to that moral code.

This fits perfectly with my theory that people say different things, but that everyone operates by the standard of what is best for them (occasionally geneticlly but mostly singulaly). All it shows is that deception is sometimes one of those benificial things. You might notice that if you do not share a form of communication with something then you assume that it has no "morality" when in fact many animals have complex systems that are similar (or very different) from ours.

[cpwill]

Many? How about a relatively few, and even then its questionable. Hmm, more circumantial evidence.

:lol: not hardly; if the new testament is innacurate then virtually everything we know about the ancient world is wrong.

Is this because you say so?

no, it is due to logic; if God wereto change the Moral Law that is inherent in us; then it makes sense that the Moral Law that is inherent in us would change. as God has utilized revelation in order to get his point across in the specifics every time he's changed the rules; he'd likely do so again.

:lol: I'm starting to see the trend: it goes like this "because I say so," and then "because I say so," and then "because I say so." :rolleyes:

i'm starting to see a trend of deliberately attempting to ignore the logic of arguments in order to classify it in ways most comfortable to the reader; but okay:)

And you know this how? Murder was beneifical to our race as a point in time, removing weaker, inferior specimens from the gene pool likely ensured our race's survivial.

precisely, and it still is, in fact. so why is murder wrong? why has it been punishable by death for as long as we've had legal codes; and likely before that?

Not to mention murder in the form of capital punishment is deemed just.

:lol: because that's not murder, my friend.

Murder is acceptable during the evolution from ape to man, and then during the transition to use of language.

:laughter: talk about utilizing an unprovable thesis: murder was acceptable up to the point where we could possibly have evidence one way or the other?:) based on what?

not to mention murder of slaves was acceptable in the past, and murder as a means of basically anything politica was deemed justified in the past, yet that has all changed.

yes, as i have stated; the details have changed with time and culture; what has not is the overarching morality. what you are attempting to do is to apply your details to them. secondly; your two examples are wrong (historically speaking).

See trend: "because I say so."

I wonder if you'd like it if I started using your style.

CPWILL, you're wrong because I say so. :lol:

seeing as you have no personal experience on the matter which was being addressed; i somehow doubt you.

[cpwill]

This fits perfectly with my theory that people say different things, but that everyone operates by the standard of what is best for them (occasionally geneticlly but mostly singulaly).

then why is self-sacrifice a major moral plus? why is it that saving an 80 year old woman from being hit by a car at risk of your own life is considered a good thing? why do events like that happen? under your logic, there's no reason for it. and if everone does simply what's best for them as dictated by nature; why do people smoke, drive recklessly, do deliberately stupid things that put their lives at risk?

All it shows is that deception is sometimes one of those benificial things. You might notice that if you do not share a form of communication with something then you assume that it has no "morality" when in fact many animals have complex systems that are similar (or very different) from ours.

don't believe i've ever really claimed that; but it'd be an interesting piece to study: although certainly the claim has a rather ridiculous history.

[Russikan]

then why is self-sacrifice a major moral plus? why is it that saving an 80 year old woman from being hit by a car at risk of your own life is considered a good thing? why do events like that happen?

I personally have never seen nor heard of an event such as this happening ever. But I would assume that it comes as a natural extension of sacrificing (not necisarrily your life but that two) for family and when it will benifit you through gratitude.

under your logic, there's no reason for it. and if everone does simply what's best for them as dictated by nature; why do people smoke, drive recklessly, do deliberately stupid things that put their lives at risk?

As I stated in my first post, people are often short sighted and therefore think about it only as far ahead as they are capable of comprehending.

And finally cp to help you understand Duo (I think that is who said it) about your logic:
My religeon which I am a [priest] of states that the devine conscious spoke and said that it was created with the Universe and was not responsible for its creation. It then stated that all members of Christianity and Islam posses in their heads no form of thought and that everything similar is an imaginary contrivence of it's and should ignored. Therefore by this logic (which is just as good as your's I might add) you can not think and should be ignored.

Obviously, the above is just an example of me applying your kind of logic (slightly embelished) and is not my actual opinion (though the [priest] part is true).

[cpwill]

I personally have never seen nor heard of an event such as this happening ever. But I would assume that it comes as a natural extension of sacrificing (not necisarrily your life but that two) for family and when it will benifit you through gratitude.

....you're willing to die in order to cause someone else to feel a sense of gratitude towards your folks? talk about a bad bargain :lol:

As I stated in my first post, people are often short sighted and therefore think about it only as far ahead as they are capable of comprehending

And finally cp to help you understand Duo (I think that is who said it) about your logic:
My religeon which I am a [priest] of states that the devine conscious spoke and said that it was created with the Universe and was not responsible for its creation. It then stated that all members of Christianity and Islam posses in their heads no form of thought and that everything similar is an imaginary contrivence of it's and should ignored. Therefore by this logic (which is just as good as your's I might add) you can not think and should be ignored.

Obviously, the above is just an example of me applying your kind of logic (slightly embelished) and is not my actual opinion (though the [priest] part is true).

:confused: the above has nothing to do with my logic; i think you need to reread my posts. you are a priest of what religion?

[Russikan]

Discordian equivalent.

And I said at the bottom that that is not actually what we believe I was just using it as an example.

My point was that all your "logic" appeals to "God" meaning that if you are wrong everything you say is also false.

I would still like to know of a situation when someone sacrificed themselves to save someone past reproduction who they don't know. However, my point was that if one is no longer capable of reproduction ones sacrifice is no loss in a genetic perspective and therefore the ability to sacrifice onself is not lost from the gene pool. Especially since being willing to sacrifice can get you a partner better than a selfish person. (Obviously not your life in this case but it is only a degree of magnitude.)

[Senor Herberto]

we assume pleasure and pain, as well as other emotions and sensations like joy and love are linked to good and evil. unfortunately, we cannot adequately feel the emotion generated in other people, and sometimes we get emotion from inappropriate sources because we were sociomentally warped or damaged.

morals are supposedly an attempt to define and link true emotion to true good and wrong.

[ironside]

Is morality static? Of course it isn't - we can discern this from the most basic of analysis.

Take sexual morality for example. Just thirty or fourty years ago few would've accepted homosexuality as a legitimate choice. Over the same period of time, sexuality in general has become more overt and accepted in all its forms.

This isn't an isolated example either - think about the gradual increase in acceptence and respect for women and ethnic minorities across the last hundred years. Think about the greater compassion shown by society towards the poor, for instance - 150 years ago it was acceptable to forcible insert the poor into workhouses, or consign them to a grim life in a slum. How about the animal rights movement? Greater religious tolerance?

Even what we see as basic morality, such as the rejection of murder, has hardly been static - throughout history we can see a gradual rise in respect for human life. What might've been considered legitimate a few hundred years ago, such as retaliatory killing, would now be considered murder.

[cpwill]

Discordian equivalent.

:sorry:, stupid boy requires you use itty-bitty words please :lol: (translation: "huh???":p)

And I said at the bottom that that is not actually what we believe I was just using it as an example.

yeah, i saw that, what are your beliefs?

My point was that all your "logic" appeals to "God" meaning that if you are wrong everything you say is also false.

hmmm... well, my logic in this instance points to God, if that's what you'r saying... however, if God does indeed not exist; then that doesn't falsify the claim that there seems to be this overarching moral sense to humanity.

I would still like to know of a situation when someone sacrificed themselves to save someone past reproduction who they don't know.

:shrug: firemen and police officers do it all the time; i know one guy who dived into a river to pull an elderly man from a car that was going in; potentially trapping and drowning himself (both survived). i'm not sure if the guy was so old that he couldn't produce sperm any more (do males ever stop); but i'm also sure that the man's actions wouldn't have been any different had it been a post-menopausal woman.

However, my point was that if one is no longer capable of reproduction ones sacrifice is no loss in a genetic perspective and therefore the ability to sacrifice onself is not lost from the gene pool.

precisely; which is why a naturally arising darwinistic morality would require that we act (morally) like the elk; and leave our elderly who are past production to the wolves.

Especially since being willing to sacrifice can get you a partner better than a selfish person.

if you're dead; you don't get any partner. the only time we see natural occurences of males risking their lives in order to gain a partner is when that is the only possible way. also, in today's society; if you are in a self-sacrificial role (military, police, etc.) then you are actually less likely to find that good partner.

[Russikan]

Firstly cp, here (http://www.ology.org/principia/body.html).

Secondly, I was refering specificly to the changing of morals being revealed by God situation but I will review a few others.

Also, in the situation you gave me no one died therefore it was beneficail because (addressing your next point) even past reproduction people can still contribute to society through labour and knowledge.

Read the last sentence of my last post.

And on the subject of my beliefs they are very different from the Discordian view. I have just adopted the religeon as a joke. If that doesn't tell you enough about my views of religeon then nothing will.

[Dr. Sinister]

LoL

All this talk about morality, good and evil. Yet no real objective definitions for any of them.

Morality is ultimately a subjective matter, because there can be no consensus on what is 'good'.

[cpwill]

morality is certainly not ultimately a subjective matter.

[cpwill]

Firstly cp, here (http://www.ology.org/principia/body.html).

:lol: funny.

Secondly, I was refering specificly to the changing of morals being revealed by God situation but I will review a few others.

i think you are referring to the changing of social morals.

Also, in the situation you gave me no one died therefore it was beneficail

however the man could easily have died; therefore, evolutionarily-wise; there was no reason for him to do what he did.

because (addressing your next point) even past reproduction people can still contribute to society through labour and knowledge.

:shrug: fine, replace the word "old" with the words "senile" and "retarted": the point remains the same. no one would abandon their downs-syndrome baby on the side of the road figuring it was the moral thing to do for the betterment of the community.

Read the last sentence of my last post.

evolution is an if/or decision; either you survive to pass on genes, or you don't. therefore, anything that proves a risk to viable genes being passed on (up to and including destruction of less-viable genes) becomes the goal of evolution.

[JoeR]

precisely; which is why a naturally arising darwinistic morality would require that we act (morally) like the elk; and leave our elderly who are past production to the wolves.

This more complicated (and frivilous to survival) morality probably comes from our ability to empathize and sympathize with others, that animals lack (as far as I know...at the very least it would be a very primitive version of our own) Sure, it would be beneficial to the gene pool to get rid of retards, but we have compassion, which comes from our ability to self-conceptualize, which we then project onto others. We no longer see him as merely a weakness, but as a victim of circumstance.

Personally I think once we got to a point natural selection really ceased to be as much of a factor. We no longer needed to develop ourselves further biologically, because instead of developing a natural means to combat predators, we started to use tools. Darwinism is not enough, it seems that there must be other factors , such as us eating meat which allowed our brains to develop to what they are today.

I am barely awake as I write this, so if I come back tomorrow and nothing that I said makes sense to me, I won't be surprised.

[Dr. Sinister]

morality is certainly not ultimately a subjective matter.

Some rationale to the claim?

[cpwill]

well, for one, is it a moral truth that all morality is subjective?

[Dr. Sinister]

well, for one, is it a moral truth that all morality is subjective?

Those who affirm that virtue is nothing but a conformity to reason; that there are eternal fitnesses and unfitnesses of things, which are the same to every rational being that considers them; that the immutable measures of right and wrong impose an obligation, not only on human creatures, but also on the Deity himself: All these systems concur in the opinion, that morality, like truth, is discern'd merely by ideas, and by their juxta-position and comparison. In order, therefore, to judge of these systems, we need only consider, whether it be possible, from reason alone, to distinguish betwixt moral good and evil, or whether there must concur some other principles to enable us to make that distinction,

- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III.

[cpwill]

that didn't really answer the question; it seems he's simply setting up the argument that it is possible to get our current moralities from a natural source (it is not; darwinistically arising morality would be different from the morality which we currently have).

[Dr. Sinister]

What then, is a clear objective definition of good? You must identify that in order to make value judgements such as morality.

[JoeR]

that didn't really answer the question; it seems he's simply setting up the argument that it is possible to get our current moralities from a natural source (it is not; darwinistically arising morality would be different from the morality which we currently have).


What makes you think Natural Selection is the only natural force?

[cpwill]

what other forces would you identify in a naturally arising morality?

[cpwill]

What then, is a clear objective definition of good? You must identify that in order to make value judgements such as morality.

clear? i am not such an anthropologist/sociologist as to be able to clearly express it; but i will say that all cultures seem to hold self-sacrifice pretty highly; there is no culture where betraying the person who trusted you most is something to be typically proud of etc.

[Dr. Sinister]

clear? i am not such an anthropologist/sociologist as to be able to clearly express it; but i will say that all cultures seem to hold self-sacrifice pretty highly; there is no culture where betraying the person who trusted you most is something to be typically proud of etc.

That is not an objective definition of good, it’s an example of a social construct.

[Smurf]

thank you cpwill, I find your posts to be quite provocative
sorry guys, I'm jumping in in the middle so I hope i don't repeat too much
fine, replace the word "old" with the words "senile" and "retarted": the point remains the same. no one would abandon their downs-syndrome baby on the side of the road figuring it was the moral thing to do for the betterment of the community.Far 'worse' has been done for the betterment of the community. There have been cultures that sacrafice their children for the favour of the gods which was believed to aide the society.

what other forces would you identify in a naturally arising morality? I think that the very problem with today's society is exactly that people are not educated in abstract ideas separate from western culture. Nietzsche's philosophy of "will to power" is quite an advanced extension of the accept natural laws such as Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest (or more specifically, the will to survive).

clear? i am not such an anthropologist/sociologist as to be able to clearly express it; but i will say that all cultures seem to hold self-sacrifice pretty highly; there is no culture where betraying the person who trusted you most is something to be typically proud of etc.
A universal moral law (call it universal, absolute, static, whatever) is supposed to be just that. Universal. So let us not talk of history and known cultures, but of possibilities of such cultures.

If we are to accept a moral law as absolute it must be able to apply to all the "What if's" as well as the "are's" and "will's".

The possibilities of cultures are so varied and so different. Some Indigenous South Americans and African tribes do not have any idea of 'property' and 'ownership' and therefor, no concept of theft. Therefore one cannot say that theft is immoral in this society because theft simply does not exist.

If you really want to insist you could say regardless, theft is wrong, even if the society in question doesn't have a problem with this, the action in its self is wrong.

The separation of good and evil is not an old idea, it did not exist untill Zoroaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster), a persian prophet, probably from around the time 1000 BC, who was the first known prophet to separate good from evil. (I have little to no knowledge of indigenous Americans).
Is it such a large jump to believe that some cultures did not have any belief of right and wrong and good and evil? Were/Would such cultures simply be wrong? Would that in its self be immoral?

If absolute moral laws do exist, does that mean that humans are, by definition, immoral? because our most primitive cultures had no such laws, or will we refer to the basic social structure and primitive 'instincts' as a universal moral law. This goes all the way back to Natural Selection.

Ok thats it for tonight :Peace:

[cpwill]

That is not an objective definition of good, it’s an example of a social construct.

fine, all cultures consider these things good.

[cpwill]

Far 'worse' has been done for the betterment of the community. There have been cultures that sacrafice their children for the favour of the gods which was believed to aide the society.

:confused: dude, that's a further example of my argument; what darwinistic mother is going to give up her own child if she can help it?

I think that the very problem with today's society is exactly that people are not educated in abstract ideas separate from western culture. Nietzsche's philosophy of "will to power" is quite an advanced extension of the accept natural laws such as Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest (or more specifically, the will to survive).

alright, so you've got a will to survive, how is that any different, and if our morality now stems from our will to survive, why does morality often tell us to either die or risk our lives needlessly.

A universal moral law (call it universal, absolute, static, whatever) is supposed to be just that. Universal. So let us not talk of history and known cultures, but of possibilities of such cultures.

why? if you have to construct a world of make-believe to get away from Moral Law then that doesn't invalidate it at all.

If we are to accept a moral law as absolute it must be able to apply to all the "What if's" as well as the "are's" and "will's".

The possibilities of cultures are so varied and so different. Some Indigenous South Americans and African tribes do not have any idea of 'property' and 'ownership' and therefor, no concept of theft. Therefore one cannot say that theft is immoral in this society because theft simply does not exist.

within the tribe or externally;)

If you really want to insist you could say regardless, theft is wrong, even if the society in question doesn't have a problem with this, the action in its self is wrong.

but then it get's tricky, because in some instances theft is the morally correct answer. that's why i didn't use it; although i will take it and note that everyone who is stolen from tends to get upset: they are judging the perpetrator by the Moral Law. we show it much more clearly in our reactions than in our actions.

The separation of good and evil is not an old idea, it did not exist untill Zoroaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster), a persian prophet, probably from around the time 1000 BC, who was the first known prophet to separate good from evil. (I have little to no knowledge of indigenous Americans).

if Zoraster lived at about 1,000 BC, then he was already preceded by the Jewish faith :sorry:

either way; it's hardly as if the jews (or zoraster) made it up and everyone else learned from it; every culture develops a right/wrong ethic.

Is it such a large jump to believe that some cultures did not have any belief of right and wrong and good and evil?

if you can name one.

If absolute moral laws do exist, does that mean that humans are, by definition, immoral?

to an extent; think on it, every man knows what he morally should do; and yet, we deliberately do what we often know to be wrong. every man has a moral code, and yet, we break it. this would not be possible for naturally arising morality; for such rules are branded ironclad onto the creature; ours appear to contain free will.

[JoeR]

alright, so you've got a will to survive, how is that any different, and if our morality now stems from our will to survive, why does morality often tell us to either die or risk our lives needlessly.


Does my previous post not pose an answer this? Compassion.



This more complicated (and frivilous to survival) morality probably comes from our ability to empathize and sympathize with others, that animals lack (as far as I know...at the very least it would be a very primitive version of our own) Sure, it would be beneficial to the gene pool to get rid of retards, but we have compassion, which comes from our ability to self-conceptualize, which we then project onto others. We no longer see him as merely a weakness, but as a victim of circumstance.

[Smurf]

:confused: dude, that's a further example of my argument; what darwinistic mother is going to give up her own child if she can help it?
This is my point, Morality is a perversion of the basic instincts as it persuades people to commit such acts in the first place.

alright, so you've got a will to survive, how is that any different, and if our morality now stems from our will to survive, why does morality often tell us to either die or risk our lives needlessly.
More reason why I believe Morality is a perversion. Ancient Athenians had no Morals, they didn't believe in Vices and Virtues, there was just Noble and Ignoble. Noble men were Strong and Charismatic and all that, Ignoble were weak, ect. There was little to no emphasis on traits such as Pity, Generosity, Sacrafice, ect.

Well that's my interpretation of Morality at the least


why? if you have to construct a world of make-believe to get away from Moral Law then that doesn't invalidate it at all.
I could certainly argue against absolute morals staying within our own history, but don't you find this so much more interesting?

But the point is still valid, if you have an Absolute Moral Law, it has to be Absolute, not just apply to cultures that have existed in this area, at this time, of this species, ect.
When you apply a condition, it is no longer absolute and becomes an interpretation.

if Zoraster lived at about 1,000 BC, then he was already preceded by the Jewish faith :sorry:
When I said about, I meant really about, according to Wikipedia he probably existed around 1400 BC, but has been placed as early as 300 years before Alexander the Great, or as late as 6500 BC.

As for which came first, I have no idea, but the scripture of Zoroaster has been dated around the same time as (one of) the first Jewish Scripture (can't remember which one(s))

either way; it's hardly as if the jews (or zoraster) made it up and everyone else learned from it; every culture develops a right/wrong ethic.
Of course not every culture developed out of Zoroastrianism, but the point is that untill that point, not a single culture had developed a structured separation between good and evil, Zoroastrianism didn't do precisily this, but stated that life is a permanent struggle between the truth and the lie, a similar philosophy which did Influence Judaism.

if you can name one.
Lacking the knowledge of their scientific name, cave men. Any 'rights' and 'wrongs' could hardly be called Morals as their sole purpose was survival, more like your mother telling you not to touch the over because it'll burn you, not because you'll be damned to hell if you do.

to an extent; think on it, every man knows what he morally should do; and yet, we deliberately do what we often know to be wrong. every man has a moral code, and yet, we break it. this would not be possible for naturally arising morality; for such rules are branded ironclad onto the creature; ours appear to contain free will.
Free Will? Let's stay away from that, I don't believe we have it, but for the sake of the argument I'll assume we do since you can't really argue the difference between right and wrong if people don't have the abilitiy to choose between the two.

So now we argue Nature vs Nurture, I don't believe we are born with knowledge of what is right and wrong, I think it's all programmed into us by the society we grow up in, most of it (like 90%) in the first few years of our lives.

[cpwill]

Does my previous post not pose an answer this? Compassion.

that might explain a willingness to die for some others; but how does it explain (say) the willingness to die for free speech? for liberty?

This more complicated (and frivilous to survival) morality probably comes from our ability to empathize and sympathize with others, that animals lack (as far as I know...at the very least it would be a very primitive version of our own) Sure, it would be beneficial to the gene pool to get rid of retards, but we have compassion, which comes from our ability to self-conceptualize, which we then project onto others. We no longer see him as merely a weakness, but as a victim of circumstance.

so? what moral difference would that make to a morality designed to enhance group performance? and where does this ability to self-conceptualize come from, anywho? as it leads to foolish compassion; you'd think it would have been wiped out.

[Smurf]

that might explain a willingness to die for some others; but how does it explain (say) the willingness to die for free speech? for liberty?
Cultural Influences, Social Brainwashing, Nationalist Propoganda, other perversions of the Basic Instincts.

[Dr. Sinister]

fine, all cultures consider these things good.

It may seem universal, only because, self-sacrifice is a very old social construct which has survived since time immemorial.

[JoeR]

what moral difference would that make to a morality designed to enhance group performance? and where does this ability to self-conceptualize come from, anywho? as it leads to foolish compassion; you'd think it would have been wiped out.

The ability to self-conceptualize comes from our more complicated brains. One possible reason that our brains became like this was from eating meat. If natural selection ceased to be as much of an effect, then theres no reason it would be wiped out.

[cpwill]

It may seem universal, only because, self-sacrifice is a very old social construct which has survived since time immemorial.

unlikely; as the penchant of self-sacrifice would make it a bit more likely that one's genes wouldn't make the journey from time immemorial to now.

[cpwill]

Cultural Influences, Social Brainwashing, Nationalist Propoganda, other perversions of the Basic Instincts.

what original instinct could possibly be in place that could be substituted with free speech?

[cpwill]

The ability to self-conceptualize comes from our more complicated brains.

how do our brains produce this ability.

[cpwill]

This is my point, Morality is a perversion of the basic instincts as it persuades people to commit such acts in the first place.

and this perversion is provided for by?

More reason why I believe Morality is a perversion. Ancient Athenians had no Morals, they didn't believe in Vices and Virtues, there was just Noble and Ignoble.

?? you'd have a hard time pushing that to me; further, explaining how noble/ignoble isn't good/bad.

Noble men were Strong and Charismatic and all that, Ignoble were weak, ect.

yes, the greeks connected the body with the soul and the mind; not seperating the three.

There was little to no emphasis on traits such as Pity, Generosity, Sacrafice, ect.

ever hear of prometheus?

But the point is still valid, if you have an Absolute Moral Law, it has to be Absolute, not just apply to cultures that have existed in this area, at this time, of this species, ect.
When you apply a condition, it is no longer absolute and becomes an interpretation.

you are confusing moral laws with natural laws. people can break moral laws here; what is to stop them from breaking it in pretend universes.

When I said about, I meant really about, according to Wikipedia he probably existed around 1400 BC, but has been placed as early as 300 years before Alexander the Great, or as late as 6500 BC.

:lol: oh. so in reality; nobody has any serious idea about when the heck he lived, if he indeed lived, what other faiths have influenced or been influenced where, etc? :)

As for which came first, I have no idea, but the scripture of Zoroaster has been dated around the same time as (one of) the first Jewish Scripture (can't remember which one(s))

what are we talking about, and in what geographic location?

Of course not every culture developed out of Zoroastrianism, but the point is that untill that point, not a single culture had developed a structured separation between good and evil,

:confused: every civilization we've ever been able to study the beliefs of had a good/bad morality. Even assuming that Zorastor managed to live in the year 10,000 BC, that doesn't make him the inventor of it; merely the first to articulate it in writing.

Zoroastrianism didn't do precisily this, but stated that life is a permanent struggle between the truth and the lie, a similar philosophy which did Influence Judaism.

:lol: at what time period? based on what? more parrallels? Confucious would have to be jewish.

[B]Lacking the knowledge of their scientific name, cave men.

then why did they care for their sick, their wounded, their crippled?

Free Will? Let's stay away from that, I don't believe we have it,

then what is a decision?

So now we argue Nature vs Nurture, I don't believe we are born with knowledge of what is right and wrong, I think it's all programmed into us by the society we grow up in, most of it (like 90%) in the first few years of our lives.

then how is it that societies which grow independent of each other all produce these complex, yet similar moral systems?

[JoeR]

how do our brains produce this ability.

Well I don't know how the brain works precisely...I'm fairly certain no one does at this point. I do think that it is our enlarged cerebral cortex that allows us to do this though.

[Dr. Sinister]

unlikely; as the penchant of self-sacrifice would make it a bit more likely that one's genes wouldn't make the journey from time immemorial to now.

You yourself admitted, you are not an anthropologist, but I'm curious, have you at least taken a basic anthropology course?

I only ask because you don't seem to be able to separate biology from culture.

[Kong]

Is there any right morality?
How are morals just?
There is no right morality in a free society.

[cpwill]

Well I don't know how the brain works precisely...I'm fairly certain no one does at this point. I do think that it is our enlarged cerebral cortex that allows us to do this though.

might be but as is current; we have no idea even what causes thoughts.

[cpwill]

You yourself admitted, you are not an anthropologist, but I'm curious, have you at least taken a basic anthropology course?

I only ask because you don't seem to be able to separate biology from culture.

i don't make the distinction because i am pointing out the inherent flaws in not making the distinction.

[Redratio1]

morality is certainly not ultimately a subjective matter.

hMMM...I see this statement as totally insane. All humans who have tried to confront the Gods has gone insane....and the position for us is good, but not great....

[el nopal]

hMMM...I see this statement as totally insane. All humans who have tried to confront the Gods has gone insane....and the position for us is good, but not great....


Sweet dreams, immoral knight errant in plastic armour. Confrontation is bad, and some consider it immoral.

[cpwill]

hMMM...I see this statement as totally insane. All humans who have tried to confront the Gods has gone insane....and the position for us is good, but not great....

existance of an Absolute Truth does not make me insane.

[xexon]

Insanity results when a weak mind trys to absorb something it cannot possibly understand.

The spiritual world is one of those things. You have to learn to seperate your soul from your mind. The soul, has no trouble with it. It is it's natural habitat.

"You can't take it with you".

They were talking about your mind, not your wealth.




x

[Dr. Sinister]

i don't make the distinction because i am pointing out the inherent flaws in not making the distinction.

So there is no distinction between culture and biology?

I do love it when the lay, take haphazard stabs at reason. It amuses me immensely.

[cpwill]

there isn't if we claim that culture and hence, morality, have materialistic biological origins.:)

[Dr. Sinister]

there isn't if we claim that culture and hence, morality, have materialistic biological origins.:)

Instead of me writing you an essay in response to why your assertions are ridiculous, why don't you give me an example of some universal morality that is derived from nature or biology?

Either way, what you said before still doesn't make any sense in regards to this discussion, which only demonstrates your lack of understanding.

unlikely; as the penchant of self-sacrifice would make it a bit more likely that one's genes wouldn't make the journey from time immemorial to now.

Did you understand my previous point? Because from the above response, it doesn't seem like you did.

[cicero191]

What happens when a pyscho applies the golden rule, or a sadist, or maosochist?

You apply Kantian ethics.

Kantianism uses a version of the golden rule, with the added dimension that it is considered to be an interpretation of human dignity.

So, if it violates any aspect of dignity (dignity in Kant's hands was pretty universal), it's a bad thing.

[cicero191]

There is no right morality in a free society.

Doesn't this statement imply that freedom and preservation of it ARE moral goals?

[cpwill]

Instead of me writing you an essay in response to why your assertions are ridiculous, why don't you give me an example of some universal morality that is derived from nature or biology?

i can't, because there isn't one :)
that is the point of my argument.

Either way, what you said before still doesn't make any sense in regards to this discussion, which only demonstrates your lack of understanding.

i think perhaps you are rather misreading me; my point in this thread is that to claim a naturally arising universal morality that is the morality we have today is ridiculous.

Did you understand my previous point? Because from the above response, it doesn't seem like you did.

i did, i think we are on the same side and you just don't know it.

[cpwill]

You apply Kantian ethics.

but Kantian philosophy is self-contradicting.

and what if you have competing dignities? what decides between them?

[cicero191]

but Kantian philosophy is self-contradicting.

and what if you have competing dignities? what decides between them?

Could I have a for instance?

In my view, such conflicts are restricted by the nature of the categorical imperative.

[cpwill]

One of Kant's chief claims is that it is impossible to ever really know anything about the world; that when you look out your window and see a tree, you're not really seeing a tree, but only supposing that the sense data in your mind is categorized under "tree". it's almost an ultimate form of agnosticism; the argument is that all we can ever really know about the world is that we sense it. however, the argument falls victim to it's own logic; If Kant by his own admission can't know anything about the world, then how does he know that it's unknowable? it's kind of like the "all generalizations are false, including this one" thing.

[cicero191]

One of Kant's chief claims is that it is impossible to ever really know anything about the world; that when you look out your window and see a tree, you're not really seeing a tree, but only supposing that the sense data in your mind is categorized under "tree". it's almost an ultimate form of agnosticism; the argument is that all we can ever really know about the world is that we sense it. however, the argument falls victim to it's own logic; If Kant by his own admission can't know anything about the world, then how does he know that it's unknowable? it's kind of like the "all generalizations are false, including this one" thing.

Well, I don't have a problem with agnosticism, although I do think that rationalism sucks.

I also think you're confusing theories. Epistemology rarely overlaps with ethics. The tree has little to do with morality. I can accept his ethics and still see problems with his epistemology.

[Dr. Sinister]

i can't, because there isn't one :)
that is the point of my argument.

Your point seems to be that there is an objective morality and it is somehow derived from biology or nature. That cannot be true however, because we can observe moral contradictions between cultures implying that the idea of morality is merely a culture specific social construct. Yes, there are similarities between various ideologies, they may or may not have come about independently, but ultimately this idea of morality is simply put in place to ensure the proper function of a particular society, not because there exists some sort of objective good.


i think perhaps you are rather misreading me; my point in this thread is that to claim a naturally arising universal morality that is the morality we have today is ridiculous.

Well in regards to today's morality we are in agreement, I dislike it, but again that is a personal ideology which I choose to follow, which only reiterates the fact that morality is an entirely subjective issue.


i did, i think we are on the same side and you just don't know it.

Unfortunately we are not on the same side, because you believe that there is an absolute definition of this elusive concept of 'what is good'. I don't blame you for trying, many have, myself included; though it does seem to be a futile effort. Plato and Aristotle believed that Good = God, but then that argument is of course circular, because how do we define God but to say that God = Good? This is indeed the problem with a generalized form of morality; an intelligent person in my opinion doesn't follow any code of ethic in a rigid form, but deals with every situation in an independent fashion.

[nilz263]

Is there any right morality?
How are morals just?

How can we even know what is just and moral sometimes? How do we if the way we're being reased is the right way? I find that sometimes Morality is a type of popular opinion kind of thing. But does that make it right? If everyone thinks it's right is that truly moral? I'm probably just ranting.

[cpwill]

Your point seems to be that there is an objective morality and it is somehow derived from biology or nature.

:sighs: no, again, no, that is not my point, my point is that such a claim is inherently false; that biology, evolution, whatever you want to call it clearly can not be the source of objective morality as we have it.

That cannot be true however, because we can observe moral contradictions between cultures implying that the idea of morality is merely a culture specific social construct.

innacurate; studies of various cultures reveal startling similarities, often with the same basic moral teachings running as an almost constant thread through all of them. self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, loyalty, there is no culture which does not value these as virtues or fail to teach them as part of their moral code. there is no country where you are lauded for betraying those to whom you owe the most.

furthermore, no one really holds to this idea; not even (i'll wager) you.

Well in regards to today's morality we are in agreement, I dislike it, but again that is a personal ideology which I choose to follow, which only reiterates the fact that morality is an entirely subjective issue.

don't mistake ideology for morality; the two are connected, but hardly the same.

Unfortunately we are not on the same side, because you believe that there is an absolute definition of this elusive concept of 'what is good'. I don't blame you for trying, many have, myself included; though it does seem to be a futile effort. Plato and Aristotle believed that Good = God, but then that argument is of course circular, because how do we define God but to say that God = Good?

:lol: God is a bit more than Good, that is simply a part of Him. it is hardly the circular argument you describe; as God would serve as the source of moral law as much as he is the source of physical or natural law.

This is indeed the problem with a generalized form of morality; an intelligent person in my opinion doesn't follow any code of ethic in a rigid form, but deals with every situation in an independent fashion.

...and applies it to what?

[cicero191]

Your point seems to be that there is an objective morality and it is somehow derived from biology or nature. That cannot be true however, because we can observe moral contradictions between cultures implying that the idea of morality is merely a culture specific social construct. Yes, there are similarities between various ideologies, they may or may not have come about independently, but ultimately this idea of morality is simply put in place to ensure the proper function of a particular society, not because there exists some sort of objective good.

Or perhaps different people come to different conclusions about morality. People are not completely rational, and their conclusions about morality (as opposed to morality itself) can change depending on environment.

[Russikan]

self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, loyalty, there is no culture which does not value these as virtues

cp I have said before all of these help one participate in society and therefore to form cooperative groups that will have a better chance of survival. And yet when we become advanced enough that we are not in a position of immediate danger (as a society) then we do things that violate all of the above.

1. Selfishness
2. Cowardice
3. Deception
4. Betrayl

All of these benifit the indivdual and are therefore useful individually but if society or all the people in it take on these attributes we have a society that will decline.

[cpwill]

we've already had the "is it instinct" discussion; as Moral Law often tells us to do things which harm the viability of both ourselves and the group overall, it is unlikely to be instinct. furthermore, what chooses between the instincts? when you are walking down a dark street and you hear a man cry for help; there are immediately two competing instincts: help the man (herd instinct) or run away (self-preservation) now, having these two instincts, there is something that decides between them; and this something that decides between them (of course) cannot itself be either one of them. nor is it merely the stronger of the instincts who wins; for we know that the moral answer to that situation is to go in and help, and yet we would have countless examples of people doing the exact opposite of that. were moral law a natural law, it would hardly be so easily breakable. you say that once we are advanced enough so that our lives are not in danger we submit to the opposites of these examples of the Moral Law; wrong, it is when our lives are in danger that the pull to break that law is most powerful. few are tempted to flee the dangers of a basketball game; yet how many deserters have various armies had over the years? if use of these behaviors can help the individual (and thus the group); then why is it that all man kind still recognizes it as bad? as an example, in war one side will use traitors, and they may be of great benifite and convenience to the success of their side; but they never really respect them nor do they typically find them to be moral creatures.

[Dr. Sinister]

Cpwill, you seemed to miss the point once again, whether or not you believe morality to be derived from nature or from religion or whatever, the point is that morals are not universal, there are only varying ideologies.

I also find it humorous that a self-proclaimed amateur to anthropology would denounce what someone else posted as 'inaccurate', it is foolish to make assertions in such a matter-of-fact manner when it is not the academically accepted perspective.

But to address your concerns, self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, and loyalty are all social constructs put in place to ensure that the collective will function as explained above by Russikan. From an individualist's perspective these virtues are vices and conversely to a collectivist these vices are considered virtues, further demonstrating the subjectivity of the idea of morals. Society may decide to impose order on the individual by way of virtues, but what is a virtue to the collective but a vice to the individual. You can consider the selfish-individualist a coward, but by his moral ideology he would consider you a foolhardy moron obsessed with heroics. It's all about perspective, personally I like to find a good middle ground, but that's my point, it's all about personal choice, you cannot bring objectivity to value judgements like morality.

[cpwill]

Cpwill, you seemed to miss the point once again, whether or not you believe morality to be derived from nature or from religion or whatever, the point is that morals are not universal, there are only varying ideologies.

and you are then missing the point; that all the various ideologies ultimately teach universal morals; as i have already outlined.

I also find it humorous that a self-proclaimed amateur to anthropology would denounce what someone else posted as 'inaccurate', it is foolish to make assertions in such a matter-of-fact manner when it is not the academically accepted perspective.

i state innacurate that which i find to be innacurate; if you are able to refute the points i have made, please do so.

But to address your concerns, self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, and loyalty are all social constructs put in place to ensure that the collective will function as explained above by Russikan.

then you have problems; as the application of moral law all too often tells us to do that which is either damaging to ourself or the group. if the moral law were simply to do what is good for the group then it could not be so. what is it which decides, which provides the standard, between doing what is good for the group v. what is good for the individual?

From an individualist's perspective these virtues are vices and conversely to a collectivist these vices are considered virtues,

explain; at what point does cowardice, avarice, and selfishness become virtue?

You can consider the selfish-individualist a coward, but by his moral ideology he would consider you a foolhardy moron obsessed with heroics.

a cynic might believe so; but he would not consider it immoral; which is the argument here.

It's all about perspective, personally I like to find a good middle ground, but that's my point, it's all about personal choice, you cannot bring objectivity to value judgements like morality.

:lol: you most certainly can; as can be seen in the shock of those who witness other's breaking it. :)

think on it; if there is no overarching moral law; then we have no way of denouncing what the nazi's did to the jews, canadains have no way of objecting to america invading iraq, and genocide in Darfur is perfectly fine (morally speaking).

[Dr. Sinister]

I didn’t miss your point, but that’s where we disagree, so obviously I wouldn’t acknowledge it... However you missed my point in believing that I was refuting a non-existent claim, so your pretentiousness is unwarranted since you seem to lack comprehension.

Anywho, what you believe to be ‘accurate’ and what is the current academic perspective on the subject are not aligned, can you give me an academic source to back up your assertions? Whatever I’ve said is pretty much what you’ll get on the subject from any cultural anthropology text, personally I would direct you to the 2nd edition of Haviland’s Cultural Anthropology. Your imperious attitude towards people is unfounded, as you are not an expert on the subject; you are simply giving ‘your’ personal views, which hold no greater weight than any other poster on this forum, maybe less as you yourself admitted you are not an anthropologist.

I do hate to resort to Ad Hominem arguments, but I, and so many others on this thread have explained our points more than once and this is just becoming a foolish game of repetition.

But if you can provide us with a credible source, which is aligned with your perspective, then we can continue this discussion.

[cpwill]

I didn’t miss your point, but that’s where we disagree, so obviously I wouldn’t acknowledge it...

what, that ideology is different from morality? naturally it is; ideology is the intellectual utilization of morality.

your pretentiousness is unwarranted since you seem to lack comprehension.

:lol: cute. :)

Anywho, what you believe to be ‘accurate’ and what is the current academic perspective on the subject are not aligned, can you give me an academic source to back up your assertions? Whatever I’ve said is pretty much what you’ll get on the subject from any cultural anthropology text

excelent, then no doubt you will be able to quote me from these cultural anthropology texts and articles works by anthropologists which argue that in fact the virtues i've listed above are not universal, but that there are major cultures/civilizations/societies, you name it, which hold them to be vices.

I do hate to resort to Ad Hominem arguments

well then i'd suggest you don't; as they tend to lead into personal attacks.

but I, and so many others on this thread have explained our points more than once

and used faulty logic, if you are indeed arguing that there is not a basic overarching morality; and have failed to show examples otherwise, other than to argue that societies apply their morality differently within the specifics.

however, i also highly doubt that the same individuals believe what they are saying.

and this is just becoming a foolish game of repetition.

that i would agree; as you refuse to address my points.

But if you can provide us with a credible source, which is aligned with your perspective, then we can continue this discussion.

if you can provide one which refutes my arguments i would be most interested to hear it.

[cpwill]

specifically; i was wondering about if there is no overarching moral law; then we have no way of denouncing what the nazi's did to the jews, canadains have no way of objecting to america invading iraq, and genocide in Darfur is perfectly fine (morally speaking).

[Russikan]

cp congratulations you completly ignored the part where he cited an academic source and then proceeded to say he should be able to give you one. It is in his post. And to readdress my point since you seem to be able to misunderstand everything that I say:

1. Virtues (good things for survival).
2. Vices (bad things for survival).
3. Your Ideas of virtue are imposed by society because they benifit society's survival by allowing cooperation with less chance of being swindled, etc.
4. An indivdual has these burned into their brain as part of their conscious (it may be part of their insticts as well but since I have never met someone without conscious thought I will not claim so).
5. Instincts command us to benifit ourselves.
6. Individually we are benifited by cowardice and betrayl that is why people do it.
7. As a group we are benifited by loyalty.

[cpwill]

cp congratulations you completly ignored the part where he cited an academic source and then proceeded to say he should be able to give you one. It is in his post.

not at all he suggested an entire book; all i really need is an argument. i'll turn it back; you won't find any major culture which does not hold these virtues as moral; for reference i direct you to the 2nd edition of Haviland’s Cultural Anthropology.:rolleyes: if he can find within this edition of cultural anthropology a society which morally teaches that cowardice is good, honesty bad, betrayal good, and loyalty bad, i will concede the point.

1. Virtues (good things for survival).
2. Vices (bad things for survival).

the problem with this is that cowardice would become a virtue; which clearly it is not. all too often our morality tells us to do things which are inherently place our personal (or group) survival in danger.

3. Your Ideas of virtue are imposed by society because they benifit society's survival by allowing cooperation with less chance of being swindled, etc.

the problem then being that we have all these virtues and vices which do not serve to benifite our society's survival. if benifiting my society was all a thing had to do in order to be "good"; then genocide becomes morally acceptable, as does treason in other nations. after all, it's benifiting my group, my society. each side will deal with a traitor from the enemy, it benifites them to do so; but by and large no one respects such an individual.

4. An indivdual has these burned into their brain as part of their conscious (it may be part of their insticts as well but since I have never met someone without conscious thought I will not claim so).

instinct indeed plays a part of it; someone once said that instinct was the piano keys and moral law the music sheet; as it tells us how to pick the correct instinct to follow.

5. Instincts command us to benifit ourselves.

and yet morals command us to benifite others :)

6. Individually we are benifited by cowardice and betrayl that is why people do it.

and yet people condemn it :)

7. As a group we are benifited by loyalty.

eh, not always :)

[cicero191]

Argument that survival determines morality would seem to devolve to utilitarianism rather then subjectivism.

I've never come across a subjectivist who couldn't be convinced of my point of view by a good beating. After all, without a uniform moral code, he has no right to complain.

[cpwill]

Argument that survival determines morality would seem to devolve to utilitarianism rather then subjectivism.

ultimately.

I've never come across a subjectivist who couldn't be convinced of my point of view by a good beating. After all, without a uniform moral code, he has no right to complain.

:lol: something tells me you might be a fan of the medieval Muslim philosopher Avicenna. ;)

[Dr. Sinister]

specifically; i was wondering about if there is no overarching moral law; then we have no way of denouncing what the nazi's did to the jews, canadains have no way of objecting to america invading iraq, and genocide in Darfur is perfectly fine (morally speaking).

It is indeed ironic that you bring up Hitler, because Nazi Germany is a perfect example of subjective morality. Hitler believed he was the savior of the 'Aryan Race', he did many 'good' things for Germany such as pulling the country out of an immense depression etc. He justified the slaughter of millions with the survival of his own ‘pure’ race, was he wrong? Only from our perspective, Hitler had a following of millions, if he had succeeded it is his morality that the world would have followed. Just like how Jesus had a following, and now 2 millennia later, Christian morality seems to be the preeminent ideology.

Morality is taught, through religion and philosophy, and because it is not an instinctual impetus it is not universal. True, some broad virtues are found in many cultures, but these virtues help the state function that is the only reason they exist in such a seemingly universal fashion, and where they exist the definitions of these 'virtues' are open to interpretation, pertaining to specific situations. If one is to look to cultural practices that effect the individual, each culture observed will have quite different practices, different definition’s of ethics, for example a Jehovah’s Witness and a Puritan Christian would have many conflicting moral values.

But to address your concerns, self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, and loyalty are all social constructs put in place to ensure that the collective will function as explained above by Russikan.
then you have problems; as the application of moral law all too often tells us to do that which is either damaging to ourself or the group. if the moral law were simply to do what is good for the group then it could not be so. what is it which decides, which provides the standard, between doing what is good for the group v. what is good for the individual?

I found this amusing, one of your more pretentious comments implying that I have a problem simply because my views differ from yours.

You assert that 'Moral law', in terms of those four virtues are not simply societal constructs and you go so far as to assert that they sometimes have a damaging effect on society. Can you provide an example where this is true?

Your four virtues seem to be derived from religion, but what is religion but a form of social control? And why would a system of social control have detrimental effect on the society it is trying to gain control over?

A social function of religion is to sanction a wide range of conduct. In this context, religion plays a role in social control, which as we saw in Chapter 11, does not rely on law alone.

- The Functions of Religion, Haviland, 2nd Edition, Cultural Anthropology, 2005, pg. 377.

Furthermore, you have still not been able to provide a valid definition of what is ‘good’, other than attempt to state broad subjective virtues like courage, loyalty, self-sacrifice and honesty. There are so many ways to interpret such virtues, that you basically shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning.

[cicero191]

It is indeed ironic that you bring up Hitler, because Nazi Germany is a perfect example of subjective morality. Hitler believed he was the savior of the 'Aryan Race', he did many 'good' things for Germany such as pulling the country out of an immense depression etc. He justified the slaughter of millions with the survival of his own ‘pure’ race, was he wrong? Only from our perspective, Hitler had a following of millions, if he had succeeded it is his morality that the world would have followed. Just like how Jesus had a following, and now 2 millennia later, Christian morality seems to be the preeminent ideology.

So then you have no basis to oppose any political ideology.

Morality is taught, through religion and philosophy, and because it is not an instinctual impetus it is not universal. True, some broad virtues are found in many cultures, but these virtues help the state function that is the only reason they exist in such a seemingly universal fashion, and where they exist the definitions of these 'virtues' are open to interpretation, pertaining to specific situations. If one is to look to cultural practices that effect the individual, each culture observed will have quite different practices, different definition’s of ethics, for example a Jehovah’s Witness and a Puritan Christian would have many conflicting moral values.

There can be undiscovered moral truths. One reason for the conflicts you cite is that different groups have different views. That both Jehovah's Witnesses and Puritans have conflicting values does not mean that there are no moral values, it's just that no one has discovered a conclusive and absolute law.

For an analogous situation, consult science. We know we don't know every law about the universe, but that does not mean there aren't any laws.

You assert that 'Moral law', in terms of those four virtues are not simply societal constructs and you go so far as to assert that they sometimes have a damaging effect on society. Can you provide an example where this is true?

If you mean damaging from a practical rather then a moral standpoint, sure. Refer to Hitler's Germany, as we have before. World War II was very damaging to many societies, but it was a moral act.

Your four virtues seem to be derived from religion, but what is religion but a form of social control? And why would a system of social control have detrimental effect on the society it is trying to gain control over?

I'm an atheist and I see nothing wrong with his laws, although I don't think his derivation of them is correct.

Furthermore, you have still not been able to provide a valid definition of what is ‘good’, other than attempt to state broad subjective virtues like courage, loyalty, self-sacrifice and honesty. There are so many ways to interpret such virtues, that you basically shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning.

From cp's viewpoint, that's like asking someone to define what "is" is. Everyone knows, but it would take an etymological project of major proportions to define it.

I'm much simpler: follow the categorical imperative and respect human dignity.

[cpwill]

Hitler believed he was the savior of the 'Aryan Race', he did many 'good' things for Germany such as pulling the country out of an immense depression etc. He justified the slaughter of millions with the survival of his own ‘pure’ race, was he wrong?

not if you believe in a naturally arising morality from group-survival/success motivation he wasn't. :)

Only from our perspective, Hitler had a following of millions, if he had succeeded it is his morality that the world would have followed.

however hitler's millions did not widely accept his morality; they merely accepted his racism. the vast vast majority of the german population was shocked when forced to face the holocaust; it's why we so quickly see such a severe repudiation of naziism in the post-war years; by the same people who earlier had supported that which they did not fully understand.

Just like how Jesus had a following, and now 2 millennia later, Christian morality seems to be the preeminent ideology.

christian morality? love your neighbor? forgive those who harm you? i would say that these are pretty endemic to every culture i've studied or come across; admittedly that excludes large chunks of africa and most of the native tribes of south america and the south pacific.

Morality is taught, through religion and philosophy, and because it is not an instinctual impetus it is not universal.

ah, but the one does not necessarily lead into the other.

and if morality is taugth by religion and philosophy; then where did they get it?

True, some broad virtues are found in many cultures, but these virtues help the state function that is the only reason they exist in such a seemingly universal fashion, and where they exist the definitions of these 'virtues' are open to interpretation, pertaining to specific situations.

that, then, gives the role of morality a protection-of-the-state function; yet then how do you explain morality which does not help the state???
the hitler example again becomes pertinent.

If one is to look to cultural practices that effect the individual, each culture observed will have quite different practices,

practices are not basic morals; they are applications. much like the morals=ideology swap you tried to pull ealier;)

different definition’s of ethics, for example a Jehovah’s Witness and a Puritan Christian would have many conflicting moral values.

basic moral values? i highly doubt it. you would no doubt find some individuals (sociopaths); but such individuals have no morality, and are thus rather defined out of the debate.

I found this amusing, one of your more pretentious comments implying that I have a problem simply because my views differ from yours.

actually i was implying that your logic had problems. had i implied that you had problems, that would be a personal attack (like, for example, calling someone pretentious), which are banned on this forum.

You assert that 'Moral law', in terms of those four virtues

i don't state they are limited to those; i simply say that that's pretty much what i'd be sure of.

are not simply societal constructs and you go so far as to assert that they sometimes have a damaging effect on society. Can you provide an example where this is true?

why is it moral for me to sacrifice something which helps society grow stronger in favor of saving something which is a drag on society, and keeps it weaker? where the heck do we even get this idea of individual soviergnity from?
does this moral law get broken? well of course it does. so what is it that produces this breakage? well, the argument that morality is simply a construct to provide for the success of the group would state that breaking the moral law is simply an individual choosing to place himself over the group. however, as no one is completely evil or completely good, there are apparently competing impulses in man: that for individual advancement and that for group advancement; which are often placed in conflict. now, when these two seperate urges find themselves on opposite sides of the fence, what is it that chooses between them? what is it that tells the man that one impulse is more moral than the other? logically, the choosing mechanism cannot be either one of them. so there must be something within the man that is independent of his voice and society's voice.

Your four virtues seem to be derived from religion,

backwards; religion tends to derive itself from the virtues.

but what is religion but a form of social control?

apparently it is something else; as religion often exists and even flourishes where it has zero social control. not to say it isn't used as social control; merely that historically speaking it clearly exists independent of it.

And why would a system of social control have detrimental effect on the society it is trying to gain control over?

precisely:)

A social function of religion is to sanction a wide range of conduct. In this context, religion plays a role in social control, which as we saw in Chapter 11, does not rely on law alone.

alright, so?

Furthermore, you have still not been able to provide a valid definition of what is ‘good’, other than attempt to state broad subjective virtues like courage, loyalty, self-sacrifice and honesty.

i'd say that these are clear examples of good; the ability to state what is good in it's entirety is rather beyond the power of the human race.

There are so many ways to interpret such virtues, that you basically shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning.

but the virtues remain the same, and are rather unnassailable.

[serenity]

I think CP is on very solid ground here; we can quibble over details (and sure, the details can be important), but to claim there is no overarching moral code, and that morality if culturally subjective in its entirety, seems to me to be almost too mistaken to warrant a debate.

Otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to disagree--because other views would be so alien, so decontextualized from our reality, it would be remarkable.

For example, CPWill and I debate and argue frequently on political matters--what's referred to as "opposite side of the fence" but in fact isn't, not really: because we are both arguing for things like the greater good, for moral courage for saving as many lives as possible and allowing those lives to be decent. We disagree on how to get there, and even on the meaning of certain actions...but clearly we want the same things,, in a general sense, to occur.

[cpwill]

precisely; any debate which includes notions of right/wrong (invading iraq was wrong, freeing the iraqi people was right) assumes an overarching morality; a standard to which both sides are attempting to claim their arguments most closely match.

[Dr. Sinister]

This is exactly my point, without a proper definition of what is 'good' morality breaks down. There can be no 'overarching morality', because without a valid general definition of 'what is good', there is no way to put a value to things/situations/people, virtues are open ended and subject to interpretation.

You yourself say that it is 'beyond our power', to abstract an absolute definition of good from our existence, so then how can there be an overarching morality?

Courage? Is there a global consensus on what constitutes as courage, or is it not true that there are only varying ideas? The same can be said for all the virtues you've given as a so-called definition of good.

It seems that your arguments are ultimately made from your personal ethnocentric viewpoint. Cultural relativism is important when discussing global matters, for example, universal morality.

[cicero191]

This is exactly my point, without a proper definition of what is 'good' morality breaks down. There can be no 'overarching morality', because without a valid general definition of 'what is good', there is no way to put a value to things/situations/people, virtues are open ended and subject to interpretation.

You yourself say that it is 'beyond our power', to abstract an absolute definition of good from our existence, so then how can there be an overarching morality?

But do we need one? Though there are some areas where argument exists, most people can look at almost every single course of action they can take and say definitively, without recourse to definitional meditation, whether it is good or bad.

Courage? Is there a global consensus on what constitutes as courage, or is it not true that there are only varying ideas? The same can be said for all the virtues you've given as a so-called definition of good.

It seems that your arguments are ultimately made from your personal ethnocentric viewpoint. Cultural relativism is important when discussing global matters, for example, universal morality.

If you won't consider the philosophical arguments we've presented, consider the practical consequences of your viewpoint. If even a significant minority held your point of view, then the entire human race could very easily devolve into a suffering mass. I think even someone of your viewpoint would be prepared to admit on some level that that would be a negative outcome.

[Russikan]

Some people do things because of their own choice not because they are forced to do them.

[Dr. Sinister]

You have not presented any real philosophical arguments at all, in fact all of your views are simply yours and yours alone, on the other hand, I've stated not only my logic but backed them up with the conclusions of David Hume. So it is you, who has overlooked the philosophical fallacy in asserting a universal morality.

You maintain that there is no requirement for us to abstract a definition of ‘good’, in order for morality to arise. I agree, but that morality will be a personal subjective morality depending entirely on the situation of an individual. A universal morality cannot arise without a universal definition of good, so we can make valid objective value judgements.

Morality is ultimately ‘value theory’, things/situations/people with great value are 'good' and things/situations/people with no value are 'bad'. But obviously putting labels on things/situations/people like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are dependent on many specific variables that it is impossible to abstract an objective definition of what actually is good. Thus rendering morality totally subjective.

[cicero191]

You have not presented any real philosophical arguments at all, in fact all of your views are simply yours and yours alone, on the other hand, I've stated not only my logic but backed them up with the conclusions of David Hume. So it is you, who has overlooked the philosophical fallacy in asserting a universal morality.

Curiously missing my earlier reference to Kant. But okay, you want more?
1. Mill.
2. Rawls.
3. Plato/Socrates.
4. Aristotle.
5. Marx

And curiously, all the professional philosophers I've met (which is quite a few, since I am a philosophy major), have worked from an absolutist standpoint.

Besides, all of this is irrelevant since all you're doing is an argument from authority.

You maintain that there is no requirement for us to abstract a definition of ‘good’, in order for morality to arise. I agree, but that morality will be a personal subjective morality depending entirely on the situation of an individual. A universal morality cannot arise without a universal definition of good, so we can make valid objective value judgements.

Well, if you want simple definitions of good, here's a few.
1. Utilitarian: The greatest happiness for the most people.
2. Kantian: The preservation of human dignity.
3. Rights-based: The preservation of human rights.
4. Marxist: Equality of all people (or something like that. Marxism is repulsive to me).

Morality is ultimately ‘value theory’, things/situations/people with great value are 'good' and things/situations/people with no value are 'bad'. But obviously putting labels on things/situations/people like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are dependent on many specific variables that it is impossible to abstract an objective definition of what actually is good. Thus rendering morality totally subjective.

CONGRATULATIONS! You've just provided a definition of good: things/situations/people with great value. Having provided yourself with a definition of good, all you need to do is assess the value of things/situations/people in your life. Which some would argue everyone does anyway on a regular basis.

[cpwill]

This is exactly my point, without a proper definition of what is 'good' morality breaks down.

then your point is innacurate. it is without a proper recognition of what is "good" that morality breaks down.

You yourself say that it is 'beyond our power', to abstract an absolute definition of good from our existence, so then how can there be an overarching morality?

if we could indeed define all that is good; then it wouldn't be overarching. the fact that we cannot define all that is good indicates that perhaps it comes from an alternative source than ourselves; if it came from us, we would be able to get our grasp around it.

Courage? Is there a global consensus on what constitutes as courage, or is it not true that there are only varying ideas?

willingness to do dangerous things for something more important, sometimes with a specific injunction that it is despite personal fear, sometimes not would seem to be a rough approximation; although i make no pretenses of it being a perfect explination.

The same can be said for all the virtues you've given as a so-called definition of good.

what, that they are ultimately not completely definable? yes, i agree :)

It seems that your arguments are ultimately made from your personal ethnocentric viewpoint. Cultural relativism is important when discussing global matters, for example, universal morality.

cultural relativism is a crock, as even the most basic morality shows. :)

[cpwill]

:lol: hume's conclusions? the ones Ayer turned into the Principle of Empirical Verifiability?

cmon, your' smarter than that;)

[Dr. Sinister]

1stly, the explanation I gave you doesn't define good, but to say that even what is bad can be considered good depending on the situation, which doesn't get us anywhere in regards to an objective definition.

2ndly, It's not enough to name drop, without actually citing or paraphrasing the concepts that these men have put forth. Even still, there are many flaws in the moral philosophies outlined by all of these people.

Plato, believed God to be the definition of Good, I've demonstrated how that argument is circular, if good is God and God can only be thought of as good, that gets us nowhere. But this isn't theological discussion so let us leave god out of it.

Aristotle believed in the concept of eudaimonia or 'human flourishing' as the ultimate 'good', so then we must define human flourishing, which can be defined as a multitude of things, there is no objective definition for eudaimonia, hence that cannot be used to abstract a proper definition of 'good'.

True, Kant believed all of our experiences of the world are mediated through the human mind, in some universal fashion. But, was it not his own student Johann Gottfried Herder who argued that human creativity, as seen by the great variety in national cultures, reveals that human experience was mediated not only by universal structures, but by particular cultural structures as well? Hence the modern idea of cultural relativism. Ironically Kant's 'categorical imperative' contradicts Aristotle's claims, so it's funny that you brought up Aristotle. I love how philosophy majors seem to do more regurgitation than actually engaging in philosophical thought.

Nevertheless, the fact that you brought up all these conflicting philosophies/ideologies Utilitarian, Marxism etc. further demonstrates my point regarding the subjectivity of morality.

The problem with defining 'good' in an absolute way is that it always either ends in a circular argument or it doesn't apply to the real world.

[Dr. Sinister]

cultural relativism is a crock, as even the most basic morality shows. :)

Right, excellent argument against an established anthropological axiom.

[cpwill]

let me ask you something; in your opinion, was slavery wrong?
or, rather, do you believe that getting rid of slavery in this country was a good thing?

[cicero191]

1stly, the explanation I gave you doesn't define good, but to say that even what is bad can be considered good depending on the situation, which doesn't get us anywhere in regards to an objective definition.

So there's nothing that can be considered bad? How about we start with destroying the universe?

2ndly, It's not enough to name drop, without actually citing or paraphrasing the concepts that these men have put forth. Even still, there are many flaws in the moral philosophies outlined by all of these people.

Oh boy! Quiz time! Are you going to give me a bad grade if I don't know my concepts?

But in respose to your second point, of course there are flaws in their philosophies. Just like yours.

Plato, believed God to be the definition of Good, I've demonstrated how that argument is circular, if good is God and God can only be thought of as good, that gets us nowhere. But this isn't theological discussion so let us leave god out of it.

Aristotle believed in the concept of eudaimonia or 'human flourishing' as the ultimate 'good', so then we must define human flourishing, which can be defined as a multitude of things, there is no objective definition for eudaimonia, hence that cannot be used to abstract a proper definition of 'good'.

Well, I don't believe in them, so I won't defend them.

True, Kant believed all of our experiences of the world are mediated through the human mind, in some universal fashion. But, was it not his own student Johann Gottfried Herder who argued that human creativity, as seen by the great variety in national cultures, reveals that human experience was mediated not only by universal structures, but by particular cultural structures as well? Hence the modern idea of cultural relativism. Ironically Kant's 'categorical i