RE: Is anything inherently right?

RE: Is anything inherently right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

samboct -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 7:55:56 AM)
A lot of this debate can be boiled down to the concept of what constitutes a human being and how did he/she get that way. For the folks who think that there are no universal morals- odds are you probably think that there's no way to disprove the concept of the brain in a jar first proposed by Bishop Barclay and later made into a movie- The Matrix. If you're comfortable with the notion that our "reality" may just be electric impulses and have no basis in physical fact- well, you'll probably say there are no universal right or wrongs. However, if you agree with Kant (and probably a few other philosophers)- that the way we think actually gives us some important information about the nature of reality (our perceptions are conditioned through space and time) and that the organization of our brain/consciousness shows a lot of underlying structure, then you may be a bit more comfortable with the idea that any intelligent, self aware creature (human or alien) is going to have a sense of right and wrong. Kant points out that humans have to have two sets of processes- a table of categories, and a table of judgements. The table of categories allows humans to identify a chair as a chair, whether it is a two dimensional representation on the computer screen, or what we're currently sitting on. (Get a computer to do that one!) The table of judgements lets us know whether our actions are right/wrong. You can argue that an alien culture may have evolved very differently, but I'd respond that in all likelihood, there will be parallel evolution. Nature tends to solve the same problem the same way over time. Dolphins and sharks had wildly different evolutions, yet, at the end of the day, the forms are quite similar. I'll lay long odds that an alien brain would also have to share a lot of the same traits- including morality- as a human brain. Human language is another example of how things which can look superficially similar, actually share underlying deep structures. There clearly is a universal grammar, and humans are uniquely capable of learning human languages. In essence, there are rules involved in language processing that we're not aware of, but we use from an early age. A 2 year old would never say for example- Mama, home daddy get. but a computer could screw that one up. I wouldn't be surprised if there are similar rules for morality. Sam

Rule -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 9:42:02 AM)
About the morals of animals.

UncleNasty -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 10:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Just to add a caveat here I use the terms right and wrong in the moral sense not the correct and incorrect. I.E. I believe the earth is spherical that is right. You are incorrect. The earth is not spherical it is ovoid. Uncle Nasty

FullCircle -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 10:38:08 AM)
You mean like an egg? [8\|]

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 10:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle You mean like an egg? [8\|] Pretty much, except that it is compressed at the poles and wide around the equator... so... more like when you sit on one of those giant exercise balls... DC

FullCircle -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 10:45:36 AM)
I think the more concise thing to say is the earth is two hemispheres. Since the curve of an ovoid is defined by geometry with the same geometrical certainty as that of a sphere; the earth is neither. It is an irregular body undefined by geometrical rules. Half of it follows the rough shape of a sphere thus it is a hemisphere not a semi-sphere, likewise the other half. Two unknown halves added together to form an overall unknown. It's as if no one has heard the term hemisphere before and they must come up with more complex definitive answers because they don't like describing half of something. I tell you all now that the earth more closely resembles a sphere than an egg so you may as well call it a sphere instead of an ovoid. In fact if you zoom in close enough you could probably call is a spiky chickens arse due to the mountains etc. if you were that way inclined or a testicle perhaps.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 10:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle I think the more concise thing to say is the earth is two hemispheres. Since the curve of an ovoid is defined by geometry with the same geometrical certainty as that of a sphere; the earth is neither. It is an irregular body undefined by geometrical rules. Half of it follows the rough shape of a sphere thus it is a hemisphere not a semi-sphere, likewise the other half. Two unknown halfs added together to form an overall unknown. It's as if no one has heard the term hemisphere before and they must come up with more complex definitive answers because they don't like describing half of something. I just think most folks don't feel compelled to get that nit-picky about it and are satisfied to say that it is a roundish, ball-type sort of place, rather than a flat, piece-of-paper kind of thing or a square, box-ish sort of thing. DC

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 11:35:29 AM)
Samboct this is not a thread questioning whether one can or cannot have a moral compass. I myself have a very highly defined concept of what is right and wrong. However what I consider just is by no means universal hence the question is there anything that is?

Musicmystery -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 12:06:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle You mean like an egg? [8\|] Pretty much, except that it is compressed at the poles and wide around the equator... so... more like when you sit on one of those giant exercise balls... DC Closer to a pear.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 12:09:08 PM)
quote: If you're comfortable with the notion that our "reality" may just be electric impulses and have no basis in physical fact- well, you'll probably say there are no universal right or wrongs. You would, though agree with Buddhists, Hindus, and arguably a number of "primitive" concepts, from Aborigines to Native Americans to the Rain Forests of South America to tribal Africa, would indeed argue the physical world is not real--not to mention Plato. The jump to precluding universal right/wrong is just that, a jump. But then, so is assuming it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 1:23:08 PM)
quote: However, if you agree with Kant (and probably a few other philosophers)- that the way we think actually gives us some important information about the nature of reality (our perceptions are conditioned through space and time) and that the organization of our brain/consciousness shows a lot of underlying structure, then you may be a bit more comfortable with the idea that any intelligent, self aware creature (human or alien) is going to have a sense of right and wrong. "However, if you agree with Kant (and probably a few other philosophers)- that the way we think actually gives us some important information about the nature of reality (our perceptions are conditioned through space and time) and that the organization of our brain/consciousness shows a lot of underlying structure, then you may be a bit more comfortable with the idea that any intelligent, self aware creature (human or alien) is going to have a sense of right and wrong. " I dont think anyone has said that humans dont have a sense of right and wrong, just that the manifestation of that sense into a "moral code" will vary based on culture and conditions.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 1:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct . A 2 year old would never say for example- Mama, home daddy get. but a computer could screw that one up. Sam That is learned behavior. There are several languages where syntax is reversed from English. For example Japanese is a "verb-final" language, and a 2 year old in Japan would structure her sentences that way.

samboct -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 2:07:12 PM)
OK, let me try again.- Starbuck-what I'm pointing out is that your highly developed code of what's right and wrong shares a lot of characteristics with everyone elses. I find the language analogy quite apt- there are lots of human languages- but there are some underlying rules that they all follow. However, figuring out this "deep structure" isn't easy. Furthermore- no guarantees that an alien culture would share those rules. In terms of morals (I tend to use morals for a group, ethics are individual, but YMMV)- again, there are going to be some "deep structural" rules that I'll be the first to admit I don't know what they are- but I'll lay long odds they exist. Since the question was is there anything that is inherently right or wrong- let's back up a sec and do some definitions: 1) A right or wrong implies choice- which implies sentience. A cockroach can't do anything wrong- it's not wired to have a choice. Neither can a computer. A dog however, clearly has enough self awareness to understand the difference between right and wrong. Cats are apparently self aware too, which makes their actions just purely evil. 2) If we meet an alien species- they will be sentient (why explore otherwise?) and they will also have a concept of right and wrong. 3) If an aliens concept of right and wrong is completely different from ours- there is no universal right and wrong. However, I'm betting that parallel evolutionary processes produces this concept in any species- and thus the "deep structure" of morality found in humans and an alien species will be similar. Hence, the concept of right and wrong is universal, but there will be differences in the specifics. So is there anything that's just wrong in the universe? Amorality- the lack of a moral code. It's destructive to any society. Willbeurdaddy- OK, how about this one: Mommy Daddy, home get and. My point being that a two year old will not make some mistakes in language that a computer would- even without having direct examples. No language AFAIK, puts a conjunction at the end of a sentence- but a computer figuring out word orders would not a priori exclude that one. Sam

mnottertail -> RE: Is anything inherently right? (8/12/2009 2:14:45 PM)
Only one problem with that is what is sure to be in the laws of alien life.......... survival. They will not ,as we will not believe of them, believe that we are a harmless species. They will do everything in their power to insure their survival. it aint gonna be pretty.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125