|
Post by posthuman on Jan 19, 2011 21:18:00 GMT -8
I'd like to hear some views on morality.
Does an objective moral system exist, or is it all relative to the current society?
If there are objective morals, where do they come from and in what possible ways can we discover them?
If morality is relative, why do many religions have similar moral systems and how can a society remain stable?
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Jan 20, 2011 0:43:01 GMT -8
I believe there is no explanation for objective morality (right and wrong) without the existence of a deity. From where else would a transcendent set of rules come?
How come murder and stealing are taboo in every society throughout history?
The Bible teaches that the Law of God is "written on [man's] hearts."
Romans 2:14-16 says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
Man often goes against what is morally upright, and he is held accountable.
Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
|
|
|
Post by KiNGskruffi on Jan 20, 2011 14:33:49 GMT -8
WW, you ever heard of philosophy? Ethics basically tries to define morality in absence of a deity.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Jan 20, 2011 15:48:26 GMT -8
WW, you ever heard of philosophy? Ethics basically tries to define morality in absence of a deity. There are definitely philosophers who argue that morality cannot exist without God and others who argue the opposite. It hasn't been solved. The Euthyphro dilemma is a part of this. "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" There are problems with both answers--if the first is true, where do morals come from, how do we discover them, and isn't God now irrelevant? If the second is true, what if God changes His mind? My point is that there's no consensus on this issue; I'm not trying to support or discourage any views. I'm just looking for different opinions and arguments on the subject. So, KiNGskruffi, what arguments have you seen for morality without God?
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Jan 20, 2011 20:36:29 GMT -8
As for the Euthyphro dilemma, I would say the second is true.
God established, decreed and willed what is good. Were there preexisting absolutes by which he had to abide, he wouldn't be sovereign.
The Christian God is immutable; he doesn't change. An omniscient, omnipotent God is not going to go against his own will. He knows, perfectly, from the beginning, exactly what he wants, and he accomplishes all those things.
King,
Your reply seems to not only dismisses my post, but also the original prompt. I don't think that's fair. If things were so clear cut, PH wouldn't have asked.
I'm interested to know how you think an objective moral system can exist without a transcendent qualification?
Put it another way, how can the combination of protons and neutrons result in objective morality?
|
|
|
Post by KiNGskruffi on Jan 21, 2011 1:50:27 GMT -8
[...] From where else would a transcendent set of rules come? [...] I was just answering your question. I said Ethics tries to define such moral standards. In my opinion, for the Euthyphro dilemma, the first is true, since I believe that any deity was created by man, probably to give us rules/define a moral standard. I don't believe in God, though I can neither prove nor disprove its existence. It's like Russel's Teapot.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Jan 21, 2011 10:53:45 GMT -8
God established, decreed and willed what is good. Were there preexisting absolutes by which he had to abide, he wouldn't be sovereign. Okay, but how do we actually know God's will? There are so many different interpretations of the Bible and, as a result, many divisions of Christianity. How do we truly know that any one person or denomination has everything right? In the past, Christianity has allowed stuff like slavery and the mistreatment of women. Currently most divisions understand these things are immoral. Now, certain sects are saying gay marriage is okay. Why have interpretations changed so much over time? I'd say our society has progressed (in this respect at least), and so we've changed Christianity to fit with our modern moral standards. I'd like to note that I'm not saying that a system of universal morality does not exist but that the general consensus on some values has changed over time.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 4, 2011 13:48:03 GMT -8
While I think Russell's Teapot is fair, I don't think it pertains to the discussion at hand, or at least not to the question of Objective Morality. - There seems to be a transcendent moral code across humankind. - Whence does this come? Possible answer: a higher being has established an idea of perfection and moral rightness and this has been made partially evident to us. Other possible answers: ? I have yet to see an argument as to how there can be a transcendent moral code without a higher being setting the standard. Can someone provide an argument? Nathan, I agree, the bible is not always clear and has been interpreted differently for centuries. Many of the interpretations have honestly been outrageous and should never have been followed. What I mean by that is this: Scripture has often been lazily and irresponsibly interpreted. Many of the disagreements over the years could have been avoided if people did follow the proper methods for interpreting scripture. Unfortunately, as imperfect people, personal biases and agendas/politics have often been mixed into these interpretations. Because we are to interpret scripture in light of scripture, the implicit in light of the explicit, it can be somewhat difficult. However, even with just the above prescription, many (most?) doctrines can be discarded as unbiblical. If we only allowed the doctrines that are totally biblically sound to survive, the church would be much more unified. The Reformation attempted to return (reform) the church to biblical theology. Doctrines of man had overtaken the church. Sadly, the established (Catholic) church rejected the reformation movement, and we were forced to separate. This was a turning point for the church, because we no longer had a totally united body to interpret each doctrine. The opportunity to inject personal theologies into the church was increased tenfold, and now look, we have thousands of denominations. In hindsight, we see that the reformers valued biblical adherence over church unity. We look forward to once again being united as one church... Incidentally, I would just mention that, in the wrong hands, anything can be a tool of destruction. The bible is no exception. As I go through life, I realize more and more that there are so many simple things that society doesn't understand. We're constantly misinformed (either through the passing on of ignorance, or through selfish/malicious intent). Simple truths are unknown concerning a variety of subjects, including the american civil war, the grocery shopping, lawn care, and the reformation. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I want to be a teacher. I feel like there are so many easy-yet-important truths that people should know. Also, the fact that I like to look at every side of something and am not opposed to changing a long-held view if I'm thoroughly convinced/convicted of the truth of another view helps... more thoughts later. questions for whomever: where do YOU think we get an objective moral system? when is the last time you changed your stance on a "big" issue? (or did you figure everything out at an early age and have never had to chance your stance... ) what was it? story time...
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Feb 8, 2011 8:29:22 GMT -8
I'd like to give a quick answer now that I'll expand later. There certainly is some sort of innate morality that we all share (there has been much biological and psychological research on this, I'll go into it at some other time), but it's obvious this morality is not enough to prevent us from violence, rape, murder, or war. This is why I would say that an objective morality would be somewhat separate from us, in the sense that our own opinions can not justify (objectively) immoral actions. Of course, this objective morality--which I have intentionally not specified--is not entirely separate from us because it would not exist without us. We cannot apply our morality to other species, and so human morality would mean nothing without humans. There is no human morality that is fully separate from humanity. EDIT: If anyone's really interested in the psychology of morality, this conference covers a lot of current research.
|
|
|
Post by brookman on Feb 8, 2011 9:15:29 GMT -8
I tried to post something meaningful but the internet failed. So now I'm going to summarize my statement by saying this:
From Youngstown, Ohio, Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini. A lightweight contender; like father like son. He fought for the title - with Frias in Vegas And he put him away in round number one.
When Alexis Arguello - gave Boom-Boom-a-beating Seven weeks later he was back in the ring. Some have the speed and the right combinations; If you can't take the punches it don't mean a thing.
Hurry home early - hurry on home Boom Boom Mancini's fighting Bobby Chacon
And when they asked him who was responsible For the death of Du Koo Kim He said, "Someone should have stopped the fight, and told me it was him." They made hypocrite judgments, after the fact. But the name of the game is be hit and hit back
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 25, 2011 0:14:25 GMT -8
"where do YOU think we get an objective moral system?"
I think that happiness has a huge correlation to morality. I think that every moral question can be boiled down to which option returns greater happiness in total for the least amount of suffering. The problem with this of course is that to determine what the correct decision is life must also be deterministic, but if it perhaps is not then it could be impossible to tell (though you could theoretically give the highest probability of happiness for a given situation).
"when is the last time you changed your stance on a "big" issue? (or did you figure everything out at an early age and have never had to chance your stance... ) what was it? story time..."
I am not sure about 'changing my stance' on a big issue because I am constantly thinking about many different issues, but usually it's not black and white. I guess religion was the biggest thing I've changed my mind about completely, but that's not really a good topic to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 25, 2011 13:14:15 GMT -8
Religion's always a good topic to discuss. For WW's question on the source of morality--it's humanity. Human morals would not exist without humans. We cannot apply our morality to aliens, as they could be entirely different from us even if they were rational. Our rationality's function is basically to argue for our intuitions, feelings, and beliefs, not to find objective truth. So the source of human morality is our intuitions. A social psychologist, John Haidt, has found five "moral foundations" that we all share. I'm not sure he's entirely correct with his theory, but I agree that these foundations exist in some form. A rational morality can be created that is based on these foundations. How that morality is formed from the base is debatable... but I think there is a system of ethics based on this stuff that should apply to everyone, no matter what culture/society. If anyone wants to see a couple papers related to this, ask me and I can upload them. Further reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionismfaculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.phppeople.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/moraljudgment.htmlSam, what form of happiness are you talking about? If a guy really likes eating ice cream, would it be the best for him to simply sit in his house and eat ice cream for the rest of his life? Or if another guy really liked sex, would it be the best for him to have sex with as many consenting adults as he could? Morality is more than just happiness and suffering. Certain things are important not because they cause happiness, but because they are important in themselves. Consummate love, for example, is something I believe is important for everyone to experience. It can end happily or miserably, but either way, it is an essential experience for each and every person. Even though suffering can come from the experience, that suffering is ultimately good (but not necessarily happiness-causing). Basically, I'm a virtue ethicist. So everyone should try to live as morally as they can not for the consequences, but because being moral is important in itself.
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 25, 2011 14:00:19 GMT -8
"Sam, what form of happiness are you talking about? If a guy really likes eating ice cream, would it be the best for him to simply sit in his house and eat ice cream for the rest of his life? Or if another guy really liked sex, would it be the best for him to have sex with as many consenting adults as he could?"
If a person is eating ice cream for the rest of his life how is he going to support himself? Have others pay for them making them less happy in the long run just for him? It's not moral in any way for him to eat that ice cream all his life while doing nothing else for anyone else because he is not contributing. He is hurting people in the long run.
In your second example I don't see the problem. If he wants to have sex let him have sex as long as it's not hurting anyone.
"Religion's always a good topic to discuss."
I hate discussing religion because it always ends up in an irrational argument, and it doesn't really change anyone's opinions.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 25, 2011 18:17:43 GMT -8
I still think religion's fun to discuss. Not to argue about, but to just talk about. It can turn into arguments of course, but I like seeing how religion, among other things, affects people's ideas and actions.
I was trying to show with both examples that morality is not the same as happiness. I'm not saying the guy who likes sex is doing anything immoral, but he's not being moral either by having lots of sex. Sex, by itself, is amoral; it's neither moral nor immoral. Living a life of sex is not immoral if you aren't hurting people, but it's not a moral life either. It's amoral and meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 25, 2011 18:52:09 GMT -8
I'll reply more later, but for now...
Nathan, from your point of view, why do you think it's better (?) to live a moral life than an amoral life? And (also from your point of view), if an amoral life is "meaningless," and a moral system ceases to exist outside of humanity (via your argument above), does that mean the life of an Elephant is meaningless?
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 25, 2011 19:28:16 GMT -8
I still think religion's fun to discuss. Not to argue about, but to just talk about. It can turn into arguments of course, but I like seeing how religion, among other things, affects people's ideas and actions. I was trying to show with both examples that morality is not the same as happiness. I'm not saying the guy who likes sex is doing anything immoral, but he's not being moral either by having lots of sex. Sex, by itself, is amoral; it's neither moral nor immoral. Living a life of sex is not immoral if you aren't hurting people, but it's not a moral life either. It's amoral and meaningless. I am not saying that morality and happiness are synonymous. I am saying that something is moral because it gives the greatest total standard of living or happiness or whatever you want to call it really.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 25, 2011 23:43:24 GMT -8
WW, for your second question, I didn't say (or mean to say) that morality exists only within humanity, but that human morality exists only within humanity. Elephants may be able to have meaningful lives, but a meaningful elephant life is very different from a meaningful human life.
Your first question's a little more difficult... I need to learn more about this, but I'll answer the best I can. It's better to live a moral life than an amoral life because we are human and because an objective morality (based on our humanness) exists. We must do the best we can to discover this morality (we've already partially) and to follow it the best we can. So because we're human, we must treat others as human/we must be moral. Another reason could be that living a moral life will help you achieve eudaimonia, which is a sort of objective happiness or flourishing.
Sam, I think good consequences, like the maximization of happiness, certainly can come from people being moral, but these consequences do not dictate what is moral and what is not. To use yet another example--a variation of the trolley problem:
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five."
If you push the fat man to save the five people, you will maximize happiness, correct? You may feel guilt from killing the man and he will certainly not be happy, but the other five people will have lived instead of died. Assume further that the fat man had no friends or relatives, so no emotional suffering is caused there. It seems that killing the fat man in this case maximizes happiness.
Because killing the fat man here is wrong, not right (hopefully you agree with me here), maximizing happiness is not an adequate way to derive morality.
Of course, we probably have to come to an agreement on the definition of happiness and how it is maximized before we can really discuss this fully.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this thread back! I love talking about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 26, 2011 10:28:44 GMT -8
I think that killing a person is usually wrong, but I wouldn't say that it is always wrong. There in an adequate reason to break every 'rule'. The rules we have in place (like the ones for murder) are usually in place because they are usually true. For example stealing is usually wrong, murder is usually wrong, but there are always reasons for it to be the right decision. Of course, this is a hard decision to make, and people almost never make the decision correctly. We aren't intelligent enough to see the ramifications of things in many circumstances.
I am going to ask you a few questions though to end this post. Let's suppose that the world is deterministic. What do you think is moral then? What do you think of free will then? After that, suppose that true randomness does in fact exist. What then, if nothing is given, what happens then?
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Mar 26, 2011 10:39:13 GMT -8
Killing the fat man is probably more wrong in that analogy because, intuitively, what's a fat man against a trolley? I think that this intuition kind of detracts from seeing the analogy completely clearly.
That being said, I'd say that trading one life for many against that one's will is not intrinsically wrong in itself, but for the ramifications of making such a decision - setting precedents that can snowball into allowing others to decide whether non-consenting individuals live or die based on more trivial matters.
I'm definitely a utilitarian (with nuance, of course, I know some of the more prominent pitfalls of stereotypical utilitarian thinking), and I have to think that a well-developed set of ethics is based on maximizing "happiness-inducing" ramifications, intrinsic human morality or no. It feels stiff and analytic, but probably the best way to objectively make decisions to benefit the most. If, at its core, we're not aiming for a weighted maximization of happiness/pleasure/(insert vague but undeniably desirable quale here), then what?
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 26, 2011 15:40:56 GMT -8
Let's suppose that the world is deterministic. What do you think is moral then? What do you think of free will then? I'm basically a compatibilist, so I think free will and determinism are compatible. "Compatibilists often define an instance of 'free will' as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. The Compatibilist's belief that we often have 'free will' is perhaps better described as a belief in occasional Liberty." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompatibilismAfter that, suppose that true randomness does in fact exist. What then, if nothing is given, what happens then? Randomness does seem to exist at a quantum level. If everything was random though, then nothing would cause anything, and nothing would have any meaning... That being said, I'd say that trading one life for many against that one's will is not intrinsically wrong in itself, but for the ramifications of making such a decision - setting precedents that can snowball into allowing others to decide whether non-consenting individuals live or die based on more trivial matters. The slippery slope argument doesn't work here. If there are no negative ramifications of deciding to kill one unwilling person for many (say the person has no family/friends, the killer will never kill again, no one else will know of the killing, etc.) it's still wrong. What if you were this one unwilling person? Your life would be taken from you without your consent for the 'greater good'. We can go even further and say that you don't agree with this 'greater good', you don't believe it to be all that good (although maybe it still maximizes happiness). So now your life is being taken without your consent for something you don't believe in. Utilitarianism is inhuman.
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 26, 2011 18:59:29 GMT -8
"I'm basically a compatibilist, so I think free will and determinism are compatible."
Alright, so basically you believe that you have choice to do what you want, but that choice has already been determined. But what does that say of morals? Doesn't it mean that perhaps you made a 'bad' decision, but the choice was predetermined anyway?
I don't really believe that there is anything that is inherently bad. Killing a person is on the same layer as planting a tree. To extrapolate meaning from those words one must add an additional layer. Let's say I wanted to know whether or not which act was good or evil. How can I tell? I am not a religious scholar, but I would think that for a religious person this answer would be different, but my answer would be that I'd have to add positive and negative connotations to the acts to determine whether the act was indeed moral or not. However, by doing that I also have to accept that I could plant a tree having the worst intentions in mind while killing someone and having the best intentions in mind.
"If there are no negative ramifications of deciding to kill one unwilling person for many (say the person has no family/friends, the killer will never kill again, no one else will know of the killing, etc.) it's still wrong."
If I was in the given situation I would be willingly killing one person versus willingly letting five other people die, correct? Your stance is that it is bad because killing a person is bad and so is letting five people die, but couldn't it be said instead that it was a travesty, in a perfect world the decision should not have been needed to be made, but the decision was still a moral one because it was the better decision?
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 27, 2011 17:29:21 GMT -8
I honestly don't think it matters much whether or not determinism is true. I think we have moral responsibility either way. Even if it's true, we can't know this because we don't have (and may never have) enough knowledge to prove its truth. I'm not saying there are actions that are inherently bad, just that certain actions happen to be almost always (or even always) bad because of what being a good person means to me. A virtuous person who has a good understanding of other people would be very unwilling to kill anyone. Virtue ethics is not the same as deontology (Kant etc.), which is about rules and actions. "Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behaviour, rather than rules (deontology) or consequentialism, which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethicsThe situation you gave with intentions for planting a tree vs. killing someone is possible, but whether the intentions were good or bad is not the only factor, but also what those intentions are based on and and how they were reached. I can falsely believe killing Person A is good while being incorrect. If I had more understanding of the situation and of the general concept of killing, I would more likely come to the true moral decision.
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 27, 2011 18:58:06 GMT -8
"The situation you gave with intentions for planting a tree vs. killing someone is possible, but whether the intentions were good or bad is not the only factor, but also what those intentions are based on and and how they were reached."
I am assuming the situation is given. I don't really care if I can calculate a situation properly or not. That's another thing entirely.
"I honestly don't think it matters much whether or not determinism is true. I think we have moral responsibility either way. Even if it's true, we can't know this because we don't have (and may never have) enough knowledge to prove its truth."
I think that it is of great importance really. Having a choice that will likely affect something versus having a choice that is given are the two options, and they are very different.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 27, 2011 19:48:11 GMT -8
Alright, I think we're all partially responsible for our actions. We have moral responsibility, but not total moral responsibility because we're not fully in control of everything we do. We have choices, but those choices are based off of our beliefs, desires, and character which is only partly determined by our own actions. So we have partial moral responsibility.
I'd rather not have this discussion turn into a free will/moral responsibility argument if possible. Try to assume we're morally responsible even if you don't agree so we can discuss what exactly we should be morally responsible for (which I think is more important).
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 28, 2011 20:44:21 GMT -8
"Alright, I think we're all partially responsible for our actions. We have moral responsibility, but not total moral responsibility because we're not fully in control of everything we do. We have choices, but those choices are based off of our beliefs, desires, and character which is only partly determined by our own actions. So we have partial moral responsibility."
If that's a belief of yours then I don't care if we don't go further into the topic if you don't want to.
Anyway, I think a person should be moral because it's the only way to create stability, growth, and general happiness. I think there is a problem going further than that though. If morality has an affect on a person after death that's another debate entirely.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 30, 2011 13:48:29 GMT -8
A person should be moral not just for others (society), but also for his/her own sake.
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 30, 2011 17:43:59 GMT -8
I would think that it would be implied.
|
|