RE: Are we born….Good?

RE: Are we born….Good? (Full Version)

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

Message

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 7:56:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 When you come into a country you agree to abide by its laws. If I was then running around poisoning people then you have the right to try me in a court of law. To determine my guilt. But you just can't get together in a town meeting and point to me and say " Hey we haven't killed anybody in a long while. I say we kill that guy". Putting my cat to sleep because of widespread cancer: right. Killing cats for entertainment: wrong. dead is dead, the reason, the context is how we decide the right and wrong of it.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 10:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata As an instance in point, you claim "There are no absolutes in life." Is that absolutely true? If so, then it's false. Lying is bad. Thou shalt not kill... Any moral code or ethical rule you can come up with can be argued down. perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "absolutes" in this case. But the intent of what I was saying should be pretty clear. My objection wasn't to using the word "absolutes" in connection with morality. My objection was to denying that there are moral absolutes, on the grounds that doing so confronts a logical paradox. I agree that there is always some circumstance in which simple formulaic rules like the ones you cite can be argued against, but for the argument to be valid it must invoke a morality that is implicitly absolute. Consider the example you give in your next post: Putting my cat to sleep because of widespread cancer: right. Killing cats for entertainment: wrong. Is that necessarily true? Would you accept that it might not be? Because if morality is in the final analysis relative, then it becomes perfectly conceivable to declare pleasure the highest good, and if you find pleasure and entertainment in torturing cats to death then that's an entirely fine and dandy thing to do. Is that really where you want to go? Because any notion that some kind of middle ground exists is an illusion. K.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 12:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata My objection wasn't to using the word "absolutes" in connection with morality. My objection was to denying that there are moral absolutes, on the grounds that doing so confronts a logical paradox. I agree that there is always some circumstance in which simple formulaic rules like the ones you cite can be argued against, but for the argument to be valid it must invoke a morality that is implicitly absolute. Consider the example you give in your next post: Putting my cat to sleep because of widespread cancer: right. Killing cats for entertainment: wrong. Is that necessarily true? Would you accept that it might not be? Because if morality is in the final analysis relative, then it becomes perfectly conceivable to declare pleasure the highest good, and if you find pleasure and entertainment in torturing cats to death then that's an entirely fine and dandy thing to do. Is that really where you want to go? Because any notion that some kind of middle ground exists is an illusion. K. If I posit that there are no moral absolutes, there's no paradox because an observation (whether I'm right or wrong) is not the same as a moral directive. Upon examination, I don't think you can come up with a moral rule that holds independent of context. As to my cat examples, of course you're right. I can create a scenario where keeping a dying cat alive and killing a healthy cat could arguably be the ethical choices. I'd have to be creative about it, but I just used that example to demonstrate how context affects "do not kill". --I believe--- there are times where killing is the right thing to do, and there are times where killing is the wrong thing to do. Hence context, and the moral absolute of "do not kill" doesn't hold water. Can you come up with a moral absolute? One in which you cannot imagine an exception which would be the ethical choice? I know I've tried quite unsuccessfully, finding the counterarguments myself. So have philosophers and logicians; that's not to say it cannot be done, but for as long as people have been trying to do it, it hasn't been done.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 1:31:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden If I posit that there are no moral absolutes Well now you're just running us around in a circle. If that claim was absolutely true, it would be false. quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Can you come up with a moral absolute? Our inability to articulate one is not an argument against there being moral absolutes. We may not know what they are, or more likely they are not of a kind that can easily be subsumed in nice little sound-bites. But the fact remains that if morality is relative, then there is no such thing in any meaningful sense; it's simply whatever anyone wants to say it is. I realize there are people who might make such a claim, but the consequences should be obvious. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 3:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Agreed. The example of Nazi Germany suggests that morality is a social construct. There were people who disagreed with the anti-sematic philosophy and rhetoric but quickly learned to keep quiet about their opinions. This tells us that morality is imposed by structural power. Sure not everybody drank the koolaid and some Germans fled Germany others tried to keep their heads down. But there were also the rest who were convinced that Jews were destroying Germany, they were convinced that it was "righteous" to kill the Jews. Sort of like how the Real 'Merikins are convinced it's "righteous" to oppress homosexuals.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 3:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Agreed. The example of Nazi Germany suggests that morality is a social construct. There were people who disagreed with the anti-sematic philosophy and rhetoric but quickly learned to keep quiet about their opinions. This tells us that morality is imposed by structural power. Sure not everybody drank the koolaid and some Germans fled Germany others tried to keep their heads down. But there were also the rest who were convinced that Jews were destroying Germany, they were convinced that it was "righteous" to kill the Jews. Sort of like how the Real 'Merikins are convinced it's "righteous" to oppress homosexuals. I don't see where we disagree.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 3:24:30 PM)
quote: Our inability to articulate one is not an argument against there being moral absolutes. We may not know what they are, or more likely they are not of a kind that can easily be subsumed in nice little sound-bites. But the fact remains that if morality is relative, then there is no such thing in any meaningful sense; it's simply whatever anyone wants to say it is. Or perhaps whatever is defined by the social power structure (formal or informal) Isn't that evident from reading history?

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 4:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Our inability to articulate one is not an argument against there being moral absolutes. We may not know what they are, or more likely they are not of a kind that can easily be subsumed in nice little sound-bites. But the fact remains that if morality is relative, then there is no such thing in any meaningful sense; it's simply whatever anyone wants to say it is. Or perhaps whatever is defined by the social power structure... "Whatever" indeed, which could be anything. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Isn't that evident from reading history? What is actually evident is that almost all moralities share common elements, proscriptions again murder and theft for example. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 5:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Righteousness is just following what is viewed moral...and that fits just fine in the Moral grammar theory. Hitler was immoral and he gathered others around him that were as well... as I said in a previous post I believe morality as we are discussing in this thread is personal. He was? I mean if we're considering morality to be "personal" don't you think Hitler considered his Jew extermination to be "righteous"? It seems to me that he was rather fanatical in that regard.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 7:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden If I posit that there are no moral absolutes Well now you're just running us around in a circle. If that claim was absolutely true, it would be false. [/quote Do you understand the concept of a moral absolute? It's a perspective that there are actions which are inherently good or inherently bad. I don't believe that to be the case; i.e that an action is inherently good or inherently bad, ergo, I don't believe in moral absolutes. I believe that context is crucial to the definition of what we consider good or bad. I cannot make it anymore clear than that, and there's certainly nothing else for me to add if you're using your own personal definition of "moral absolute".

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 7:34:33 PM)
I would say it makes no difference what he considered... his actions and deeds were judged by the majority of mankind to be immoral. Butch

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 10:32:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Do you understand the concept of a moral absolute? It's a perspective that there are actions which are inherently good or inherently bad. I don't believe that to be the case; i.e that an action is inherently good or inherently bad, ergo, I don't believe in moral absolutes. I believe that context is crucial to the definition of what we consider good or bad. You haven't provided a definition for a moral absolute. What you've handed me is a definition of Moral Absolutism. In my view moral absolutes, purely as a practical matter, would have to be standards against which actions can be judged, not simply a catalog of acts in themselves. So I can't feel terribly sanguine about that view, but neither do I agree that the only alternative is to deny the existence of moral absolutes altogether. K.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/17/2014 1:04:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Do you understand the concept of a moral absolute? It's a perspective that there are actions which are inherently good or inherently bad. I don't believe that to be the case; i.e that an action is inherently good or inherently bad, ergo, I don't believe in moral absolutes. I believe that context is crucial to the definition of what we consider good or bad. You haven't provided a definition for a moral absolute. What you've handed me is a definition of Moral Absolutism. In my view moral absolutes, purely as a practical matter, would have to be standards against which actions can be judged, not simply a catalog of acts in themselves. So I can't feel terribly sanguine about that view, but neither do I agree that the only alternative is to deny the existence of moral absolutes altogether. K. You know, I really enjoy debates, being challenged, and I'm tickled pink to find out that I'm wrong about something --- Ishtar's logic has been remarkable compelling and she's straightened me out about a few things. Jeff and I haven't debated or particularly disagreed, but his logic has been rock solid in my view too. That said, in the future, if you don't know understand the words in a debate, I suggest you ask or look it up before basically telling someone they're categorically wrong. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html If you do understand and you're trying to win godknowswhat by playing petty semantic games because the concept of moral absolutes in moral absolutism escapes you or was your entire bone of contention, we are most certainly done. If neither of these apply, I've still been as clear as I'm going to be and I doubt I'll have anything further to add.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/17/2014 2:01:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Do you understand the concept of a moral absolute? It's a perspective that there are *actions which are inherently good or inherently bad. In my view moral absolutes, purely as a practical matter, would have to be standards against which actions can be judged, not simply a catalog of acts in themselves. in the future, if you don't know understand the words in a debate, I suggest you ask or look it up before basically telling someone they're categorically wrong. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html From your link: Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged* quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden You know, I really enjoy debates, being challenged, and I'm tickled pink to find out that I'm wrong about something... Well good, then you should quite a pretty pink right now. K.

wittynamehere -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/17/2014 2:06:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Are we born….Good? Define "Good" and I can answer your question very quickly. Unfortunately from your OP, I don't think you can even come close to doing that. What a disaster :(

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/17/2014 2:18:51 AM)
~ FR ~ On the subject of moral absolutism more generally... Will you let me fuck you for a million dollars? Sure! How about twenty bucks? What do you think I am? We've established that. Now we're just haggling about the price. I doubt there is anyone here who wouldn't agree that to kidnap, rape, and murder a child is a morally odious act. Period. Do Not Pass Go. Regardless of the fucking "circumstances". When it comes to certain acts, we're all moral absolutists. There remains only to haggle about what's on the list. And most importantly, why. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/17/2014 6:20:42 AM)
I would certainly hope that no one posting here could find the kidnapping, rape and murder of a child accepable under any circumstances. But sadly this distaste is not shared universally. There are numerous people in prison in numerous countries for carrying out this abomnible act. Please don't think I am defending them - I'm simply pointing out that such people exist.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/18/2014 12:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ On the subject of moral absolutism more generally... Will you let me fuck you for a million dollars? Sure! How about twenty bucks? What do you think I am? We've established that. Now we're just haggling about the price. I doubt there is anyone here who wouldn't agree that to kidnap, rape, and murder a child is a morally odious act. Period. Do Not Pass Go. Regardless of the fucking "circumstances". When it comes to certain acts, we're all moral absolutists. There remains only to haggle about what's on the list. And most importantly, why. K. It is a morally odious act in Western Civilization. In classical Greece male children were sodomized by the elite warrior class. In the land of the Aztec human sacrifices were made to gods. In 19th Century America African children were taken from their mothers and sold as slaves under the auspices of the Christian bible. Today in various American states people are executed despite the biblical prohibition against killing. So what appears to be an absolute prohibition is relative to time and place.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/18/2014 12:57:40 PM)
quote: What is actually evident is that almost all moralities share common elements, proscriptions again murder and theft for example. Of course. That is how the powerful and wealthy seek to insure their class status. You will notice that the elites are rarely executed for their crimes in America. Justice applied inequitably is hardly supportive of absolute morality.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/18/2014 1:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML It is a morally odious act in Western Civilization. In classical Greece male children were sodomized by the elite warrior class. In the land of the Aztec human sacrifices were made to gods. In 19th Century America African children were taken from their mothers and sold as slaves under the auspices of the Christian bible. Today in various American states people are executed despite the biblical prohibition against killing. So what appears to be an absolute prohibition is relative to time and place. These types of arguments fail because they either ignore or are insensitive to how the victims might have felt about it. K.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875