Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently December 16th, 2017, 11:52 am


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 6th, 2007, 9:19 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
spazmaster666 wrote:
You have just proven my point. It doesn't matter what type of "moral upbringing" you may have gone through. It doesn't matter whether it is based on Western or Eastern moral philosophy. It doesn't matter which religion may be involved. Hence even if we were to theorize that morality is relative, it would be impossible for any of us to hold such a position since doing so would compromise our own moral codes. So in the end it becomes both a logically unsound, impractical, and useless philosophy.


It may be logically unsound, impractical (at least in a social cohesion manner) and incompatible with our current model of existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is false.

spazmaster666 wrote:
You are missing the point here. The point here isn't about which moral codes are correct. The question I asked has to do with why we expect others to follow our moral codes. IMO, the answer is that we instinctively hold on to moral objectivity, even when we may outwardly toute a theory of moral relativism.


My point wasn't about which moral codes are correct. My point was that moral codes are something which are TAUGHT, and that once they are taught, it is exceedingly difficult, if not downright impossible, to think about the world from the point of view of another moral code. If one has been taught from birth that certain moral codes are true and correct, if they have been so deeply ingrained into one's psyche that they form the basis of your whole model of thinking, one will never be able to escape the belief that one's moral code is fundamentally and intrinsically true.

spazmaster666 wrote:
There are still societies that exist in this day and age that has no problem with human slavery. You are still trying to argue that somehow cultural relativism or moral beliefs can be used as a basis to prove moral relativism. Even if everyone today, for instance, still thought that slavery was moral, that does not make it a moral truth. Which is why I keep saying that what anyone may think or believe has nothing to do with what is true and objective.


So if every society in the world accepted slavery as the natural way of things, and assuming that widespread slavery continued to exist to this day, and the slaves themselves believed that they were destined to be slaves, does that mean that slavery is still immoral?

If nobody in the history of mankind ever came up with the thought that "Hey, maybe slavery is wrong!", if that line of morality was never invented, never existed, how could it still be true? I still say that our model of morality is only "true" because the majority of the human race now believes it to be true.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 6th, 2007, 11:44 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
My point wasn't about which moral codes are correct. My point was that moral codes are something which are TAUGHT, and that once they are taught, it is exceedingly difficult, if not downright impossible, to think about the world from the point of view of another moral code. If one has been taught from birth that certain moral codes are true and correct, if they have been so deeply ingrained into one's psyche that they form the basis of your whole model of thinking, one will never be able to escape the belief that one's moral code is fundamentally and intrinsically true.


Some standards of morality are taught to us, but we don't always listen to everything we hear now do we? If our reasoning as well as our experiences in life contradict what we are taught about morality, would be still cling to those concepts blindly? In addition, if we are being taught what is moral and what is not, then clearly we are not a society that believes in moral relativism. Also most of the things we know in life have been either taught to us or we have had to learn from sources other than our own brain. We are taught that 2 x 2 = 4. Does that now mean that isn't an objective truth just because it was taught to us?

Zaxares wrote:
So if every society in the world accepted slavery as the natural way of things, and assuming that widespread slavery continued to exist to this day, and the slaves themselves believed that they were destined to be slaves, does that mean that slavery is still immoral?


If the moral truth is that slavery is wrong, then yes it would still be wrong even if everyone believes it to be right. It's an extreme example, but I'm just emphasizing what "objective" means.

Quote:
If nobody in the history of mankind ever came up with the thought that "Hey, maybe slavery is wrong!", if that line of morality was never invented, never existed, how could it still be true? I still say that our model of morality is only "true" because the majority of the human race now believes it to be true.


Well then in effect you are saying that morality is just a concept our minds invented and thus have no practical bearing to the world around us. However, our day to day experience sharply contradicts such a view. Our experience tells us that morality has very much to do with the world we live in and in fact is often defined by our very nature as human beings. Furthermore what you are arguing is intersubjective morality, not subjective morality.

And addict, I see that you're also arguing on the basis of moral progress, even though the very idea of moral progress presupposes the existence of moral absolutes (since for "progress" to have any meaning we must assume that good exists and that we also know what that good is, otherwise, what are we progressing toward?)

Oh, and just for the record, I'm not arguing that morality is absolute, simply that some moral absolutes do exist.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 7th, 2007, 10:35 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Spaz spaz, your argument is becoming more and more irrationial. One if you are told something over and over and over again repeatedly even if you know it's dead wrong for days, weeks, months and years sooner or later you WILL accept it as truth, this is the essance of brain washing. Further more I'm to the point that I just don't get what your talking about. Objective morality does not exist, history teaches us this, why do we believe that our currect morals are right and the old morals are wrong, we are taught that. Also I am NOT arguing moral progress in the least I am merely pointing out that many of the things we believe to be wrong were perfectly acceptable at one point in time and each one of those time it would have been impossible to convince them they're wrong. If you want to prove that at least one moral rule is absolute then find one that hasn't at sometime, somewhere been acceptable. I'll look up and if you're right I'll agree with you, however if you can't stop being stuborn stop bugging us about something you can't prove and move on. :evil: And by the way I doubt you will be able to. Why the world is vast with an extremely wide veriaty of cultures, times that by the length of time and well I can next to garrantee I can find at least one if not more cultures that found it acceptable thus making it a mut point.


Now then I would like to apologize for all misspellings, agresstion and bad grammar as there are a lot of runnons. Time to brag about things I should not be proud of. All my runnons make perfect sense more or less they just come off as wordy, that's what make me the king of runnons. I once wrote a sentance with 123 words into and it sitll made perfect sense, don't ask me how though. :oops: :? :shock: :oops:

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 7th, 2007, 1:29 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
Spaz spaz, your argument is becoming more and more irrationial. One if you are told something over and over and over again repeatedly even if you know it's dead wrong for days, weeks, months and years sooner or later you WILL accept it as truth, this is the essance of brain washing.


You treating humans like animals that are incapable of rational thinking or reason. Yes being taught something over and over can leave us with a strong impression. However, if our practical experience and reasoning contradicts that teaching then we'll we have a problem. i.e. someone could teach you that murder is okay over and over again. But your practical experience and reason will probably tell you otherwise. Does that mean you will continue to think that murder is okay, despite your experience and reason telling you otherwise? Indoctrination can only go so far.

The Adict wrote:
Further more I'm to the point that I just don't get what your talking about. Objective morality does not exist, history teaches us this, why do we believe that our currect morals are right and the old morals are wrong, we are taught that. Also I am NOT arguing moral progress in the least I am merely pointing out that many of the things we believe to be wrong were perfectly acceptable at one point in time and each one of those time it would have been impossible to convince them they're wrong. If you want to prove that at least one moral rule is absolute then find one that hasn't at sometime, somewhere been acceptable.


Killing without a reason, not including one's own pleasure reason I would conclude is a moral absolute. However, even if I could not give you a moral absolute that does mean that they don't exist or can't exist. I cannot prove that moral absolutes exist since "proof" would involve gathering empirical evidence. But logic and reasoning and my observation of human moral behavior points me to the existence of moral absolutes.

And you keep saying that morals are taught. I agree that morals in general are taught to us. However, that fact does not preclude the existence of moral absolutes, nor does it disapprove objective morality. I'd like you to show otherwise.

It seems to me that your argument is along the lines of moral principles being value judgments. And since value judgments are subjective (i.e. arbitrary) then moral principles must also be subjective and hence morality must be subjective (moral subjectivism is a subset of moral relativism). Zaxares argument expands on this a little into the idea that once moral principles have become standardized, they become intersubjective. However, neither of these arguments proves that morality is subjective or disproves that morality is objective. They make the assumption that morality is a value judgment. I happen not to make that particular assumption.

The Adict wrote:
I'll look up and if you're right I'll agree with you, however if you can't stop being stuborn stop bugging us about something you can't prove and move on. :evil: And by the way I doubt you will be able to. Why the world is vast with an extremely wide veriaty of cultures, times that by the length of time and well I can next to garrantee I can find at least one if not more cultures that found it acceptable thus making it a mut point.


I've already given you one. I gave you a better worded one above as well. Also realize that you have not proven that morality is subjective in any of your posts. All you've been able to prove is that moral beliefs are subjective and that cultural relativism exists. And as I have explained, neither of those concepts can be used to logically, and certainly not practically, prove moral subjectivism.

I would also like to see a practical argument from you on how moral relativism can be practically applied in everyday situations. However, I doubt that you can. ;)

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 7th, 2007, 7:58 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
Just a question before we proceed further, what exactly is intersubjective morality? The term is new to me. :?:

Also, you've stated a number of times that moral beliefs are subjective, but morality is not. What do you define as the difference between moral beliefs and morality?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 8th, 2007, 5:02 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
Just a question before we proceed further, what exactly is intersubjective morality? The term is new to me. :?:


Intersubjective morality is defined as moral obligations that derive their force from the fact that they are agreed upon by a majority of people.

Zaxares wrote:
Also, you've stated a number of times that moral beliefs are subjective, but morality is not. What do you define as the difference between moral beliefs and morality?


Beliefs of course are always subjective. However, moral beliefs being subjective does not make morality subjective. Morality involves objective moral principles. Moral beliefs do not. Moral beliefs are merely a person or group's view of whether a particular action is right or wrong. Morality is not what anyone thinks is right or wrong, but what ACTUALLY is right or wrong.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 8th, 2007, 1:43 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Dark One wrote:
in ancient sparta the reason you were beat if you were cought stealing wasn't that you weren't suposed to, it was because you weren't good enough at it. Stealing was seen as part of the training a youth had to get through to become a soldier.

Actually the boys were let loose on the poor farmers, way-below-warrior-status peons.
Looked more like "looting" to me than "stealing", which I perceive as something done secretly.
Still, I guess that point is yours.

Dark One wrote:
lets just take the example of William Wallace, you know, the whole FREEDOM shouting and that. in reality it was a lot worse then seen in the movie and public executions and torture were a big public display. people did come, cheer, had popcorn and left to tuck their kids in.

Another point for you. People just love a good show, especially when it displays that other people are worse off.
Right now I miss the following emoticon: :puke:
Maybe I'm still being too idealistic about humans and their distorted behaviorisms...

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 8th, 2007, 2:20 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
:?: :?: :?: But spaz your missing the point that I've made that what is good and evil are again based on one's own beliefs. Also I would like to point out that many gangs, raiders, mobs the huns, viking, and mongols all had no problem with killing people for the hell of it. So not good enough. Any way I'm letting it go. Spaz you're not even listening to us.

Again I quote "It is foolish to listen to those who refuse to listen to you." you keep making the same argument over and over despite the evidence that proves over wise. But given your I'm guessing Catholic background I'm not surprised after all you've never moved beyondthis conspet that what is right is right and not in the over all perpass of what makes something wrong, or precieved by the general concess of most human beings to cause guilt. One because it cause the suffering of another hense once one understands the suffering action then causes them suffering thus self preservation and our desire to keep ourselves from pain has the greatest inpack on what we believe is right and wrong. And yad yada yada, I going to stop talking about it now.

I am sorry for all my misspallings and gramarical mistakes.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 8th, 2007, 4:05 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: April 9th, 2007, 11:38 pm
Posts: 99
I think Spazmaster is doing an admirable job trying to meet conflicting arguments with sound, intelligent responses. Simply saying that he's not listening and missing the point over and over won't make you any more right or convincing. Assuming he's arriving at these conclusions because he might be of a certain persuasion isn't helping your case any either.

_________________
Image
^.^ I <3 Hikki! ^.^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 12:22 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
:?: :?: :?: But spaz your missing the point that I've made that what is good and evil are again based on one's own beliefs.


People's beliefs about what is good and what is evil are. I've already agreed that personal beliefs, whether it is about good and evil or anything else are subjective because they are matters of opinion. You could also call them value judgments. However, the question that I raised was whether or not morality is based on opinion. And by looking at the evidence, which includes our reactions to moral issues as well as logical evidence, this does not seem to be the case. Note that I'm not trying to prove that morality is objective, as I don't think I can. I'm just pointing out that the evidence seems to lead us toward a more objective view of morality rather than a subjective view. (i.e. subjective morality does not make sense logically or practically)

The Adict wrote:
Also I would like to point out that many gangs, raiders, mobs the huns, viking, and mongols all had no problem with killing people for the hell of it. So not good enough. Any way I'm letting it go. Spaz you're not even listening to us.


I would disagree that they believed they were killing just for their own pleasure, but leaving that aside, even if that were the case, you still haven't proven that morality is subjective. Again you have just proven than moral beliefs are subjective.

Also I would like to point again that while operant conditioning has a very strong influence on our view of certain issues, it's influence is limited when we develop sufficient ability to reason and to use logic (logic is based upon axioms, and hence is not influenced by bias)

The Adict wrote:
Again I quote "It is foolish to listen to those who refuse to listen to you." you keep making the same argument over and over despite the evidence that proves over wise. But given your I'm guessing Catholic background I'm I'not surprised after all you've never moved beyondthis conspet that what is right is right and not in the over all perpass of what makes something wrong, or precieved by the general concess of most human beings to cause guilt. One because it cause the suffering of another hense once one understands the suffering action then causes them suffering thus self preservation and our desire to keep ourselves from pain has the greatest inpack on what we believe is right and wrong. And yad yada yada, I going to stop talking about it now.


First off, I'm not Catholic, and never in this argument did I bring up a theistic basis for morality, as that is an entirely different argument (theistic objective moral theory is a very different topic) While I do believe in God, I do not need to argue objective moral theory from a theistic point of view. Practical experience and logic are enough.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 12:52 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Yes Kesshi you're right but it's still true. Any way not going to talk about morals anymore. Also in that case sorry spaz, not that I have anything against catholics my uncle's one, I only thought so since you quoted a pope a while back. Also me dum dum what is 'operant conditioning'?

To 42317 personally yeah I think you are a little idealistic on human nature. But that is only from my point of view as I've seen personally the ugly side of humanity and with a good deal of knowledge of history well let's just say, Elfin Leid didn't even come close to just how ugly and demonic humans can be. But that's a depressing subject, let me just say human's will do whatever they have to to obtain pleasure and the preservation of their ego and happiness. This may not be news but the lengths to which they'll go for these things whether down the path good or evil is immeasurable.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 1:22 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Also spaz it fact, Humans are animals. As such they be counted on to in general react in a certain way to certain situations. This is what make strategy, literature, politics, soceity, communtiction, philosophy, maniplation of a human being possible. In other words if you know what those reactions to a sitution are it is a rather simple thing to make a human or even a nation your puppets without them ever being the wiser. This is truth, it is an ugly truth but from my standpoint a truth none the the less. Not all truths are beautiful, some are ugly and depressing.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 2:43 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
Also spaz it fact, Humans are animals. As such they be counted on to in general react in a certain way to certain situations. This is what make strategy, literature, politics, soceity, communtiction, philosophy, maniplation of a human being possible. In other words if you know what those reactions to a sitution are it is a rather simple thing to make a human or even a nation your puppets without them ever being the wiser. This is truth, it is an ugly truth but from my standpoint a truth none the the less. Not all truths are beautiful, some are ugly and depressing.


Here's the problem with your arguments Adict. You speak about your opinions as if they were fact. They aren't. They are opinions, and by your own reasonings they are subjective, and hence cannot be fact or truth. The most they can be is subjective truth. And this ultimately is the problem with the subjectivist: how can everything be subjective and yet he can still make the statement that "everything is subjective?"

On the other hand, I'm not touting my opinion as fact. I admit that I probably can't prove the morality is objective. However, the point here isn't to prove something either way, as I don't think we can yet prove morality in an empirical matter. Nor is the point to conclude the nature of morality based on our own beliefs. The point is to the look at the evidence, whether it's empirical, logical, and practical. And the evidence seems to imply that morality is objective, even if we may believe that morality is subjective.

As for operant conditioning, it is defined as "is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior."

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 4:16 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
My last post was not opinion. It was fact humans are animals, that's a biological fact. Further more speak to any phycologist, strategist, profsional artist, politicion or scam artist or people from any number of fields that human interaction is required and they'll agree with what I said, well maybe not exactly. They's have to be pretty jaded and cynical but if they're being truth full they will. Hmmm did I just call myself jaded and cynical? :?: Operant conditioning is manipulation, "a rose by another name is still a rose" manipulation is manipulation no matter what it is called. The name is not what defines a thing. Also a fact.

Also site my post a few entries back, "There is no law or truth without exception. There for there is no such things as a so called 'absolute' truth as it is not absolute making it subjective if not opinion then to situation." Not oppinion, fact. Spaz you've used it yourself a few times in your arguments. Though this truth is less of a truth or fact so much as comman sense.

As for morals "It is foolish to listen to those who refuse to listen to you" I'm tired of going round and round about it. Your never going to connvience me I'm worng and you're right nor vice versa.

Also if you're saying I'm wrong most of the time merely because I don't have a wealth of book learned philosophy from people far smarter then I ever will be. I'd like to point out they arrived at their truths the same way I do mine, with their eyes, ears and deduction.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 9th, 2007, 10:02 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Look Adict, I'm not trying to "prove" that you're wrong and "prove" that I'm right. I'm just telling you what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that moral subjectivism simply isn't a very logical nor practical theory. I think what you're missing here is that this discussion is not about who's right, it's about what the evidence shows. That's it. Philosophy isn't about opinions or trying to prove that you're right and trying to prove someone else wrong, it's about using logic and reasoning to come to the best conclusion. In this case, objective morality simply makes more sense practically and logically.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group