RE: Are we born….Good?

RE: Are we born….Good? (Full Version)

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

Message

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 10:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 if morality is absolute, then power has to be absolute I have no idea how you've come to this conclusion, or how you can possibly defend it. K.

Zonie63 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 4:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 if morality is absolute, then power has to be absolute I have no idea how you've come to this conclusion, or how you can possibly defend it. K. I thought I made myself pretty clear in the previous post, but if you're only going to take a portion of one sentence out ofcontext while ignoring the rest, it's not surprising that you missed the point. If morality is absolute, then that implies a constant across all ages, cultures, and places. Whatever "power" created this absolute morality has to be eternal and absolute - otherwise it doesn't work. If human beings conceived of this morality by themselves, without any eternal power to guide the process, then it can't possibly be absolute. Human beings are on the playing field, so they can't objective enough to be referees. My point was that if there is such a thing as "absolute morality," then humans are too imperfect and can't possibly be objective enough to know what it is. So, for all practical purposes, absolute morality is an unknowable concept and can't be considered a part of practical human reality.

tweakabelle -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 5:33:17 PM)
More light might be shed upon this issue if we approach it from another direction A moral absolute is one that exists beyond/across time, culture and language. Can a moral absolute exist irrespective of its own articulation or lack thereof? How might a moral absolute exist outside of language (or other means of symbolic representation and communication)? If a moral absolute can be established as existing beyond time culture and representation/discourse, how might humans recognise it? How would it be relevant to human life? If one is to assert the existence and relevance of moral absolutes, then it seems to me that one must also answer these questions. FWIW I don't believe coherent answers to these questions are possible.

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 5:43:36 PM)
Three month old children react to these situations in a common manner according to this research... There is no language... there is no symbolic communication yet we all recognize these reactions as moral or good as opposed to an opposite reaction that we would perceive as evil or bad... This is all the counts... WE KNOW IT TO BE SO All the talk of what is absolute moral and what is not is just rigmarole. Butch

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 7:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If morality is absolute, then that implies a constant across all ages, cultures, and places. Whatever "power" created this absolute morality has to be eternal and absolute - otherwise it doesn't work. In order for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be constant across all ages and cultures, does there have to be some "power" that created (and enforces) it? quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If human beings conceived of this morality by themselves, without any eternal power to guide the process, then it can't possibly be absolute... if there is such a thing as "absolute morality," then humans are too imperfect and can't possibly be objective enough to know what it is. But we're not talking about something that humans just cooked up on their own, we're talking about something we are discovering through scientific research. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 7:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Can a moral absolute exist irrespective of its own articulation or lack thereof? How might a moral absolute exist outside of language (or other means of symbolic representation and communication)? I'm afraid I can't see this, or else I'm not understanding it. There are all kinds of things that are real regardless of whether or not they are (or even can be) articulated. Words only stand for things, they are not the arbiters of whether or not a thing exists. K.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 8:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Three month old children react to these situations in a common manner according to this research... There is no language... there is no symbolic communication yet we all recognize these reactions as moral or good as opposed to an opposite reaction that we would perceive as evil or bad... This is all the counts... WE KNOW IT TO BE SO All the talk of what is absolute moral and what is not is just rigmarole. Well I suppose the word "absolute" is a trigger for some people, if we're to judge from them dragging God into the discussion. But a moral absolute is simply a standard that is not subject to limitation, which is to say that there are no circumstances in which its violation can be construed as moral even if some culture deems it to be a fine entertainment indeed. Could anyone with even a shred of humanity argue, say, that flaying homosexuals is moral in some circumstances, not just "accepted" or "believed" to be, but actually moral? It seems to me that the question of whether or not there are moral absolutes cuts to the very heart of morality, and I would question whether there even can be such a thing without them. K.

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/21/2014 8:16:10 PM)
I do understand what you are saying and agree... I just like to make things simple and say" We know when something is moral and when is not" We feel it and do not have to articulate it... that is IF... we have that shred of humanity you speak of.

Zonie63 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 3:14:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If morality is absolute, then that implies a constant across all ages, cultures, and places. Whatever "power" created this absolute morality has to be eternal and absolute - otherwise it doesn't work. In order for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be constant across all ages and cultures, does there have to be some "power" that created (and enforces) it? I'm not sure if this is analogous. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If human beings conceived of this morality by themselves, without any eternal power to guide the process, then it can't possibly be absolute... if there is such a thing as "absolute morality," then humans are too imperfect and can't possibly be objective enough to know what it is. But we're not talking about something that humans just cooked up on their own, we're talking about something we are discovering through scientific research. K. But then, if this is something we're only discovering now, then it's safe to say that the concept has not been fully established and realized in the human condition. We don't know enough about it to be able to make any absolute statements about it.

Zonie63 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 3:36:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Three month old children react to these situations in a common manner according to this research... There is no language... there is no symbolic communication yet we all recognize these reactions as moral or good as opposed to an opposite reaction that we would perceive as evil or bad... This is all the counts... WE KNOW IT TO BE SO All the talk of what is absolute moral and what is not is just rigmarole. Well I suppose the word "absolute" is a trigger for some people, if we're to judge from them dragging God into the discussion. But a moral absolute is simply a standard that is not subject to limitation, which is to say that there are no circumstances in which its violation can be construed as moral even if some culture deems it to be a fine entertainment indeed. Could anyone with even a shred of humanity argue, say, that flaying homosexuals is moral in some circumstances, not just "accepted" or "believed" to be, but actually moral? It seems to me that the question of whether or not there are moral absolutes cuts to the very heart of morality, and I would question whether there even can be such a thing without them. K. Would it be moral to flay any human being regardless of the circumstances? What if it was Hitler? Would the morality suddenly change? If I kidnap someone and lock them in a room against their will, that would be immoral, right? But then, if I'm wearing a badge and do the exact same thing to someone, it's considered moral and a service to society. In that sense, there's no moral difference between a lynch mob and a prosecuting attorney.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 4:37:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Would it be moral to flay any human being regardless of the circumstances? What if it was Hitler? Would the morality suddenly change? No, the morality wouldn't change. That's the whole point. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If I kidnap someone and lock them in a room against their will, that would be immoral, right? But then, if I'm wearing a badge and do the exact same thing to someone, it's considered moral and a service to society. In that sense, there's no moral difference between a lynch mob and a prosecuting attorney. Aw c'mon Zonie, this smacks of desperation. If you're a duly sworn officer arresting someone on probable cause, you're not fucking kidnapping them. K.

Zonie63 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 5:07:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Would it be moral to flay any human being regardless of the circumstances? What if it was Hitler? Would the morality suddenly change? No, the morality wouldn't change. That's the whole point. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If I kidnap someone and lock them in a room against their will, that would be immoral, right? But then, if I'm wearing a badge and do the exact same thing to someone, it's considered moral and a service to society. In that sense, there's no moral difference between a lynch mob and a prosecuting attorney. Aw c'mon Zonie, this smacks of desperation. If you're a duly sworn officer arresting someone on probable cause, you're not fucking kidnapping them. K. No, I'm just trying to sound this out and get a feel for this thing called "absolute morality." Can an action by one human being to another be deemed moral or immoral regardless of the situation or circumstances? In a world of moral absolutes, what gives any human being the moral right to exercise dominion over another human being? Just because other humans say it's okay? Is absolute morality derived by democratic consensus? Of course, one can argue that a "duly sworn officer" (which is a rather loaded phrase itself) has the legal right, which is also a practical necessity for human society and civilization, sometimes regarded as a "necessary evil." But is it moral?

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 5:21:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 In a world of moral absolutes, what gives any human being the moral right to exercise dominion over another human being? Possibly lots of things! What basis is there for concluding that the existence of moral absolutes would necessarily forbid, say, restraining a violent person against his will? K.

Zonie63 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 5:58:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 In a world of moral absolutes, what gives any human being the moral right to exercise dominion over another human being? Possibly lots of things! What basis is there for concluding that the existence of moral absolutes would necessarily forbid, say, restraining a violent person against their will? K. But wouldn't the process of restraining that person also entail violence? If we conclude that violence is immoral under any and all circumstances regardless of place, time, or culture (which would also cover such technicalities as to whether or not someone is wearing a badge or uniform), then isn't there a moral dilemma in having to fight immorality with immorality? I'm not arguing that restraining a violent person against their will isn't necessary and practical for a civilized society. It's just what we have to do, a necessary evil. As I said, humans have been winging it all these eons. Whatever we do, it will never be perfect.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 12:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But wouldn't the process of restraining that person also entail violence? If we conclude that violence is immoral under any and all circumstances regardless of place, time, or culture (which would also cover such technicalities as to whether or not someone is wearing a badge or uniform), then isn't there a moral dilemma in having to fight immorality with immorality? Well in answer to your first question, no. Excluding such uses as when we speak of the violence of a storm, in an interpersonal context "violence" is the unjust or excessive use of force. I see no moral problem with employing appropriate force when necessary in order to quell violence. The consequences of not doing so are obvious, and claims that the two are equivalent just perpetuates the old Kindergarten Argument: "It doesn't matter who started it" (you're both staying after school). The operative phrase in your proposal is: "If we conclude." But why would be conclude that? A moral absolute is a standard against which actions can be judged, so what is the standard there? Given the all too real need to stop violence by force on occasion, and the consequences of not doing so, by what standard could we "conclude" that not doing so is moral? And what would be "moral" about such a standard? You know the old saying about good men doing nothing. K.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 1:26:35 PM)
quote: When power determines what is moral and what is not, might makes right. Oh, is that a new concept to you? quote: If there is nothing intrinsically wrong about forced enslavement, or kidnapping, raping, and murdering children, then there are a lot of people in this world who should just shut up. The good and bad of these activities have been defined differently in history and by culture. Consequently, they are relative values by the evidence of human history. A "moral absolute" is a utopian oxymoron. There is no intrinsic value to human life except that we assign it and of course we are biased by our own self-love.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 1:32:38 PM)
quote: The operative phrase in your proposal is: "If we conclude." But why would be conclude that? A moral absolute is a standard against which actions can be judged, so what is the standard there? Given the all too real need to stop violence by force on occasion, and the consequences of not doing so, by what standard could we "conclude" that not doing so is moral? And what would be "moral" about such a standard? You know the old saying about good men doing nothing. You see, there's the rub. What is an insurgency to the powers and elites is a revolution to the oppressed. The standard depends upon whose shoes you are wearing.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 1:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I do understand what you are saying and agree... I just like to make things simple and say" We know when something is moral and when is not" We feel it and do not have to articulate it... that is IF... we have that shred of humanity you speak of. You mean like "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it." ????

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 1:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Three month old children react to these situations in a common manner according to this research... There is no language... there is no symbolic communication yet we all recognize these reactions as moral or good as opposed to an opposite reaction that we would perceive as evil or bad... This is all the counts... WE KNOW IT TO BE SO All the talk of what is absolute moral and what is not is just rigmarole. Butch These children have had time to observe and absorb cultural rights and wrongs from their parents. The evidence for intrinsic moral values is specious in these experiments.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/22/2014 1:47:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Can a moral absolute exist irrespective of its own articulation or lack thereof? How might a moral absolute exist outside of language (or other means of symbolic representation and communication)? I'm afraid I can't see this, or else I'm not understanding it. There are all kinds of things that are real regardless of whether or not they are (or even can be) articulated. Words only stand for things, they are not the arbiters of whether or not a thing exists. K. All kinds of things are real, you say. But human values are constructs and are language dependent. They do not exist outside of language unless they arise as emotions like fear.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875