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

It is currently December 17th, 2017, 3:22 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 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 31st, 2007, 1:05 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
Coming from your point of view, I understand why you say subjective truth is meaningless without objective truth, but the real question it raises is, "Is the truth even meaningful at all?"


We can already see universal truth in this world that isn't subjective. For instance, all men have the capacity for good and evil, that's a universal truth. All people lie, that's a universal truth.

spazmaster666 wrote:
But what if it ISN'T really true? What if the reality you see around you is merely a construct of your imagination? What if there was nobody else in the whole universe but you, and you're simply talking to illusionary people and eating illusionary food? What if you lived in only a tiny bubble of reality that existed only as far as your immediate surroundings, and that the moment you moved out of sight or range, the area ceased to exist?

Suppose you decided on a whim to call your friend. You ring their number, and hear them answer, and you presume that they were always there. What if they WEREN'T there? Perhaps the moment you thought about calling your friend, your mind conjured them into existence, complete with all the personalities and characteristics that you believe your friend to have, and put them there just in time to answer your phone call.

Can you truly, absolutely, say for certain that truth exists in a universe where you say things are true, because you believe them to be true?


If you want to deny that reality is reality then fine, that's up to you. However, understand that such philosophy leads to nothing meaningful. I can sit there and deny reality all I want, but it will not result in anything good. I think a key aspect for philosophy is the pursuit of good. Yes philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge, however, ultimately that pursuit of knowledge is for the sake of good and betterment of humanity. This philosophy that reality isn't really reality and so forth is not a very constructive philosophy. Because if we do not assume that the world we perceive is real, then we cannot even begin to discuss more important philosophical ideas, such as morality or the nature of human will.

Sure, you could call the "perception" of reality a philosophy idea, but it's ultimate goals are completely opposite that of the core goals of philosophy which is why I tend not to go down that line. When it comes down to it, without objective truths, logic, reason, and philosophy have no grounds to stand on.

Now I'll discuss why morality is objective and what exactly it means that morality is objective.

Adict, you claim that morality is subjective because the concept of right and wrong differ from person to person and that moral codes differ personally as well as culturally. However, I have to ask the question: is that morality?

First we need to define what "morality" is. There are different definitions, many modern ones which more define "ethics" rather than morality. (let's not get the two confused here) For instance, the concept that different cultures have different moral views really isn't a matter of morality but rather cultural normality. Cultural normality is good enough to explain arbitrary concepts like manners or formality, but not something which is universal to all humanity such as morality.

In my view, morality is "the existence of objective morale codes and the application of these codes in a particular situation and circumstance" Because the moral codes themselves are objective (or you can call it universal) morality itself is objective/universal. However, how moral codes are applied in a given situation may not be constant.

For instance, let's take an example of a universal moral code: murder is wrong. Murder, as defined, is "unjust killing." Now certainly killing is not a moral evil by itself as I'm sure almost every culture has a morally justified reason to kill. Also, the concept that unjust killing is wrong is also universal within every culture.

However, in some cases killing is obviously not murder. If you kill in self-defense, in the defense of others, in a just war, or in cases in which it is the lesser of two evils, then killing is morally justified if not morally good. Hence even though murder is an objective moral code, since not every killing is murder, the application of that code will vary on the situation. This may seem to make morality subjective but in reality, it is not.

Let's take another example: lying. Now intentional lying or deception, is a pretty universal immorality. However, not telling the truth is not necessarily a lie. For instance, during WWII, if the Nazis came by and asked you if there were any Jews in your house and you told them no, even though there were, that is not a lie. This is because the Nazis had no right to know in the first place. The same can be said for theft. Taking something which that person had no right to have in the first place is not necessarily stealing (the lesser of two evils also applies here for instance in the case of the man who must steal in order to feed his starving family)

Finally, looking upon things from a broader point of view, it would seem that because morality is so much rooted in human nature, that to pass it off as something that is subjective according to the individual or to the culture (cultural normality) does not seem to be an adequate nor accurate explanation. Because it is clear that all humanity have fundamental traits in common, and many essential moral codes are based upon those fundamental traits. Even so-called "religious" moral codes such as say the Ten Commandments, are not arbitrary. They are based upon human nature.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 31st, 2007, 8:06 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
spazmaster666 wrote:
However, understand that such philosophy leads to nothing meaningful.


Correction. Nothing meaningful insofar as achieving goals within this reality. ;) If this reality is, as I posit, merely an intellectual construct, then is not realising the truth better than simply continuing to exist within the illusion? (I'm always reminded of my mother here. When I was growing up, she was always complaining about why I wanted to spend so much time playing video games. "They don't do anything for you!")

However, I am in agreement with you on one point. Knowledge and philosophy should be used for the betterment of society. I don't claim to understand why this reality is here or what its true nature is, but it must be here for some purpose. To that end, I support open discussion and debate in an effort to understand that purpose. I'm perfectly aware that my particular views on reality could be dead wrong, which is why I'm intrigued to hear your side of things as well.

spazmaster666 wrote:
Now I'll discuss why morality is objective and what exactly it means that morality is objective.

Adict, you claim that morality is subjective because the concept of right and wrong differ from person to person and that moral codes differ personally as well as culturally. However, I have to ask the question: is that morality?

First we need to define what "morality" is. There are different definitions, many modern ones which more define "ethics" rather than morality. (let's not get the two confused here) For instance, the concept that different cultures have different moral views really isn't a matter of morality but rather cultural normality. Cultural normality is good enough to explain arbitrary concepts like manners or formality, but not something which is universal to all humanity such as morality.

In my view, morality is "the existence of objective morale codes and the application of these codes in a particular situation and circumstance" Because the moral codes themselves are objective (or you can call it universal) morality itself is objective/universal. However, how moral codes are applied in a given situation may not be constant.

For instance, let's take an example of a universal moral code: murder is wrong. Murder, as defined, is "unjust killing." Now certainly killing is not a moral evil by itself as I'm sure almost every culture has a morally justified reason to kill. Also, the concept that unjust killing is wrong is also universal within every culture.

However, in some cases killing is obviously not murder. If you kill in self-defense, in the defense of others, in a just war, or in cases in which it is the lesser of two evils, then killing is morally justified if not morally good. Hence even though murder is an objective moral code, since not every killing is murder, the application of that code will vary on the situation. This may seem to make morality subjective but in reality, it is not.

Let's take another example: lying. Now intentional lying or deception, is a pretty universal immorality. However, not telling the truth is not necessarily a lie. For instance, during WWII, if the Nazis came by and asked you if there were any Jews in your house and you told them no, even though there were, that is not a lie. This is because the Nazis had no right to know in the first place. The same can be said for theft. Taking something which that person had no right to have in the first place is not necessarily stealing (the lesser of two evils also applies here for instance in the case of the man who must steal in order to feed his starving family)

Finally, looking upon things from a broader point of view, it would seem that because morality is so much rooted in human nature, that to pass it off as something that is subjective according to the individual or to the culture (cultural normality) does not seem to be an adequate nor accurate explanation. Because it is clear that all humanity have fundamental traits in common, and many essential moral codes are based upon those fundamental traits. Even so-called "religious" moral codes such as say the Ten Commandments, are not arbitrary. They are based upon human nature.


Alright, so from what I understand from your post, is that morality is a group of shared values that all humans, regardless of their race, culture or ethos, should adhere to. Is that correct?

Because if so, then I would posit that humans have only one moral code: self-preservation and the preservation of one's interests. If you think about it, all these moral codes that you speak of, they're all actions that people would not want to have done to themselves. Do not steal from others? Well, of course you don't want people to steal from you. Don't lie to others? You wouldn't like it if everybody went around lying to you, right? Murder? That should go without speaking. Nobody wants to die. Therefore, by supporting a moral code (and a set of laws based off those codes), they are, in effect, protecting themselves from such actions being done to them.

_________________
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 1st, 2007, 12:00 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
Because if so, then I would posit that humans have only one moral code: self-preservation and the preservation of one's interests. If you think about it, all these moral codes that you speak of, they're all actions that people would not want to have done to themselves. Do not steal from others? Well, of course you don't want people to steal from you. Don't lie to others? You wouldn't like it if everybody went around lying to you, right? Murder? That should go without speaking. Nobody wants to die. Therefore, by supporting a moral code (and a set of laws based off those codes), they are, in effect, protecting themselves from such actions being done to them.


Actually fundamentally, the most basic moral code is this: do not harm.

As for self-preservation, that isn't really universal as it doesn't explain the countless number of people who have sacrificed themselves to save others or to protect others or in defense of their values, believes, etc.

And also, the point of my post about morality was that for morality to exist, it must be objective, otherwise morality does not exist. There is no such thing as "subjective morality." If you want to argue that morality doesn't exist, that's fine. But if you want to argue that morality is "subjective" that is very problematic IMO.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 1st, 2007, 12:29 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Spaz you're correct in your last post. But so is Zaxares. Yes the underlying truth of morality in general is to not intentially cause suffering to others. However even self sacriffice is a form of self preservation or preservation of one's own happiness. If one of your loved ones die it will cause you suffering, in some cases intense suffering. The same resolutes in acting on your base instincts and ignoring your imposed moral leanings would cause a great deal of guilt, thus cause you suffering.

Now if you want to discuss the 'fact' that morality is subjective to an indivigual then fine. You sau everybody considers murder to be wrong, yet in the middle east to kill an infidel, a non muslim, is a good thing. Indeed for much of human histpry to kill someone that is different from you was a good thing. Further more sycopaths have no consept pf what is right and what is wrong. Also look at the dictoniar it has a clear definition that morality is perseptive based. In addition if there such a thing as a universal law of morality then animals would also obey this morality, which they don't.

Now you're probably going to state that humans are above animals. I don't not agree, though animals often fight they rarely kill their own kind. In fact after the fight it is displayed that the matter is settled. Further more animals take no more then they need to survive and do not harm their envierment. Animals steal yes, they do not war, nor rape, molest, intensively beat nonprey, they do not lie and they do not usually murder their own kind. Why? Because such actions lessen their ability to survive Thus I would have to agrue animals are supperior 'morally' to humans.

Now then onto the perpose of Philosophy. I can understand your point of veiw, however all of us have our own reasons for doing something. Hence the compliction of life. I like philosophy not for the better of humanity or even for the better of myself, I follow philosophy merely because I enjoy it and because I'm currious no other reason, no noble intent or anything like that.

_________________
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 1st, 2007, 2:23 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
Spaz you're correct in your last post. But so is Zaxares. Yes the underlying truth of morality in general is to not intentially cause suffering to others. However even self sacriffice is a form of self preservation or preservation of one's own happiness. If one of your loved ones die it will cause you suffering, in some cases intense suffering. The same resolutes in acting on your base instincts and ignoring your imposed moral leanings would cause a great deal of guilt, thus cause you suffering.


Self preservation is certainly a factor in many things that humans do, since we instinctively have a strong desire to live, and that's not really a bad thing since it indicates a strong value of life. However, it is not sufficient to explain or understand morality.

Quote:
Now if you want to discuss the 'fact' that morality is subjective to an indivigual then fine. You sau everybody considers murder to be wrong, yet in the middle east to kill an infidel, a non muslim, is a good thing. Indeed for much of human histpry to kill someone that is different from you was a good thing. Further more sycopaths have no consept pf what is right and what is wrong. Also look at the dictoniar it has a clear definition that morality is perseptive based.


Sociopaths usually have a psychological disorder that makes them different from a healthy individual. However, I would argue that even a sociopath is not completely devoid of moral intuition, its just that for a sociopath, because they have a mental dysfunction, it severely handicaps their ability to tap into their inherent understanding of moral principle which we like to call the human conscience. As for dictators, murderers, criminals, etc. I would argue even those people have a conscience, but often they are so consumed in their particular pursuits or obsessions (it could be money, it could be power, etc) that their conscience is ignored or suppressed. However, we've seen even the worst of criminal repent and regret their actions. This shows that even people who seemingly do not have no moral fiber or a very twisted sense of morality may not be that way after all.

Quote:
In addition if there such a thing as a universal law of morality then animals would also obey this morality, which they don't.


How do you know they don't? I'm not saying that animals have moral intuition, but there is no real way for us to know either way. So using that as an argument against moral objectivity is pointless.

Quote:
Now you're probably going to state that humans are above animals. I don't not agree, though animals often fight they rarely kill their own kind. In fact after the fight it is displayed that the matter is settled. Further more animals take no more then they need to survive and do not harm their envierment. Animals steal yes, they do not war, nor rape, molest, intensively beat nonprey, they do not lie and they do not usually murder their own kind. Why? Because such actions lessen their ability to survive Thus I would have to agrue animals are supperior 'morally' to humans.


Like I said, there really is no point in bringing animals into this. We cannot prove either way whether animals have an innate sense of morality like humans. We don't know whether or not animals are capable of higher thinking, we don't know if they possess a soul. Most of our observations would suggest otherwise, but just because we don't know whether animals follow morality or not doesn't mean we should automatically assume that they don't.

Quote:
Now then onto the perpose of Philosophy. I can understand your point of veiw, however all of us have our own reasons for doing something. Hence the compliction of life. I like philosophy not for the better of humanity or even for the better of myself, I follow philosophy merely because I enjoy it and because I'm currious no other reason, no noble intent or anything like that.


Well I also like philosophy because it's a stimulating and enjoyable topic. However, the goal of philosophy, essentially, is to do good. We may choose to enjoy it or we may not, and we may use it to better mankind or we may not. Just like science philosophy can be used either way. However, I would argue that the inherent purpose of philosophy, just like the inherent purpose of science, is to increase our understanding of our world to better not only ourselves but also humanity in general.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 1st, 2007, 3:14 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
It's been a few days... this is gonna be long... 8)

The Adict wrote:
the mind is a construct of reality

Sometimes I believe there is no such thing as "objective reality", since the reality that is brought to us by other persons (i.e. different from perceived phenomena) is based on their subjective reality.

spazmaster666 wrote:
certainly it is not possible that everything is relative and that everything is subjective.

We must find examples... which I am not good at. :roll:

If we have one stone and add another, we'd say we have two stones.
Imagine there was no plural in our language. The stones would then - possibly - be perceived as "stone", a mass, a phenomenon, which can occur in different quanities, but quantity would be without meaning, and "two stones" would just be "more stone".

Suppose we have a chair and a desk. Two singular objects, but "two pieces of furniture".
Imagine we didn't have the category "furniture". The two pieces would remain "one chair" and "one desk".

Our language would lead us to interpret reality in a different way, making it subjective.
But, please, somebody find better examples. At least one that says truth can really be objective.
Like gravity?

Zaxares wrote:
If everybody who lived through World War II was killed, everybody who even KNOWS about WWII was killed, and all evidence and historical text relating to the event were destroyed, could we say for certain that WWII happened?

I guess WWII would still be reality, but in the case you described it would be of no importance at all.

spazmaster666 wrote:
all men have the capacity for good and evil, that's a universal truth.

Good and evil are subjective concepts that have been turned into conventions depending on cultural background. From some point of view, the family that was butchered last night might have been a brood of sinners plotting armageddon.
(I'm exaggerating here of course.)

spazmaster666 wrote:
I can sit there and deny reality all I want, but it will not result in anything good.

Because your cultural background tells you to perceive it that way.
To further the cause of nothingness, un-creation... isn't that labelled "Satan's scheme" or something in the western world? The end of all creation, turning into nothing is what Buddhists call "salvation".
Well, you're the specialist when it comes to Heaven and Hell... :)

spazmaster666 wrote:
For instance, let's take an example of a universal moral code: murder is wrong. Murder, as defined, is "unjust killing." (...) the concept that unjust killing is wrong is also universal within every culture.

But "unjust" is defined differently. If I kill the one who killed my brother, maybe people would show a little sympathy, but in western terms revenge is a lower reason and therefore unjust, isn't it? But such behavior would be perfectly alright in some regions. Or the pay of "blood money" as compensation, which would be deemed immoral in the west - I mean "I killed your brother because he dishonored my family, but I want to live so please name your price." How does that sound?

spazmaster666 wrote:
a just war

Ooh, dangerous term. Who dares define whether a war is "just" or not?
Are Intifadas "just wars"? Certainly not in the eyes of Israelis. Subjective.
Against Iraq? Afghanistan? Serbia? On Terror?

spazmaster666 wrote:
intentional lying or deception, is a pretty universal immorality

What is a lie?
Back in Japan the landlord visited me to shoot a picture.
I offered him herb tea. He took a sip, said "Mmm, good tea"... and never touched the rest of it. :lol:

My teacher once worked as an interpreter for business people.
A group of Japanese businessmen came to Bavaria and was invited to dinner.
It mostly consisted of (fat) sausages and (fat) meat without any staple food like noodles or rice or bread. It was most unpleasant for the Japanese but the senior among them ordered the others to eat up in order not to insult the host. They puked and had diarrhea for three days, but still they said it was delicious.

I'd say these are lies, but by cultural convention the liar is acquitted.

spazmaster666 wrote:
the case of the man who must steal in order to feed his starving family

If he does that in a poor community he might still be severely punished because he is exchanging his family's hunger for the suffering of someone else.
And still it remains a matter of interpretation. Of course I agree with you that such a case of theft is understandable, but I cannot remember the Ten Commandments having an according amendment. So, a purist will see the greater evil in breaking divine law.

spazmaster666 wrote:
Actually fundamentally, the most basic moral code is this: do not harm.

Hm... okay. My individual freedom ends where yours begins.
But still, as you mentioned, people have a notion about what is the greater evil or the greater good.
If your boss thinks somebody else can do the job better and thinks of his company losing profits as the greater evil compared to your being left on the streets you'll be fired. But if he thinks money cannot compensate for a good conscience you'll stay on.

The Adict wrote:
Further more animals take no more then they need to survive and do not harm their envierment. Animals steal yes, they do not war, nor rape, molest, intensively beat nonprey, they do not lie and they do not usually murder their own kind.

Hm... I fear that might be a clichée.
The single animal maybe does not exploit nature in an exaggerated way, but animals (plural) do.
If conditions are great (food, water) a herd will expand up to the point where it cannot be maintained by the environment. The herd might migrate, but eventually due to lack of food resources the herd will shrink until it meets the conditions of the environment again. They just don't do that consciously and without greed for profit. They just want to live, but sometimes it cannot be.

Some ape tribes have feuds - wars, so to speak.
Ants go to war.
Dolphins rape.
Chimpanzees molest out of jealousy and are able to tell lies.
Cats play with their prey and kill it without necessity. It's a form of training, but still cruel to the mice.
If murder = unjust killing:
Does the male spider deserve to die for fertilizing the female?
Do the cubs of the rival lion deserve to die?


Sorry for typos - I don't have time for a spellcheck right now...

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 2nd, 2007, 1:22 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
42317 wrote:
Our language would lead us to interpret reality in a different way, making it subjective.
But, please, somebody find better examples. At least one that says truth can really be objective.
Like gravity?


However, there must be something that exists objectively. To say that everything is subjective would be to say that you can get something out of nothing.

Quote:
Good and evil are subjective concepts that have been turned into conventions depending on cultural background. From some point of view, the family that was butchered last night might have been a brood of sinners plotting armageddon.
(I'm exaggerating here of course.)


Good and evil are not subjective. The way people perceive it or the way people feel about what is good and what is evil may vary. However, something that is good is always good and something that is evil will always be evil. I remember a good quote from Chesterton: "Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about." That is basically what objectivity is.

Quote:
Because your cultural background tells you to perceive it that way.
To further the cause of nothingness, un-creation... isn't that labelled "Satan's scheme" or something in the western world? The end of all creation, turning into nothing is what Buddhists call "salvation".
Well, you're the specialist when it comes to Heaven and Hell... :)


I'm talking about the fact that assuming that the reality we perceive is reality is necessary in order to use logic, reason, and scientific deduction. Philosophy and science are pointless if we do not accept that what we perceive is real.

Here's the thing about morality (I'll talk about it more generally this time to make things easier to grasp). The problem lies, IMO, in the idea that because many people argue and disagree about ethical or moral justifications for things like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc that people assume that implies that morality is subjective. However, if this really were true then moral judgments would be nothing more than judgments of personal taste. Asking whether or not killing is wrong would be like asking whether you like apples or oranges. That's what subjective means after all. Subjectivity reflects attitudes, opinions, and beliefs. Hence if morality was subjective then two people could disagree on a particular issue and both would be considered correct. Disagreeing about the morality of rape would be the same as disagreeing about whether Burger King is better than MacDonald's. In other words, subjective morality would be something that we ourselves invent, just like opinions and attitudes are things that we form.

But is this really true of morality? Is it really something that each person invents for themselves? This doesn't seem to be case. So then what about objective morality? Well objective morality would entail that moral judgements don't depend on the opinion, attitude, or even beliefs of a particular person/group, etc. They are independent of any personal opinion. It would be something like 2+2 = 4, an objective truth that is true whether you think so or not. Hence, objective morality is not something invented by each person, but something that each person recognizes.

As I mentioned above because there is much disagreement over what "morally correct" or "morally acceptable" we tend to think that moral and ethical questions are relative to the individual, the culture, etc. Yet if you've ever been to a seminar or conference about the philosophy of morality and ethics, there are few who will defend the notion of moral relativism. This is because even though most moral philosophers will agree that it is difficult to provide a foundation for objective moral obligation, they would still agree that those obligations nevertheless exist. That doesn't seem to make sense at first, but as we've all probably experienced, our own reactions and expectations concerning morality do not fit into this idea of subjective morality.

For instance, say someone robs you in the street. Now obviously you believe that what he did was wrong. Even if the assailant were to claim tha the actions were "right or good" for him, we would not accept such a claim. We would still assert those actions were wrong and that he deserves punishment. And ironically, the offender would feel the same way if someone else did the same to him. If we really believed that morality was subjective, then we would accept the idea that neither party is in the wrong. But this simply is not how we react in a situation when we are wronged by another party.

Everyone would probably agree that torturing babies for fun or raping five year old children is morally wrong. But not only that. We also believe that everyone should agree with this moral judgment. If we really believed that morality is relative we would be willing to concede that it can morally acceptable to torture babies for fun, for someone to attack us and steal our belongings, etc.

Hence, even without arguing for the the existence of universal moral codes, because each of us would admit that we universally think certain actions to be morally wrong and that we also think everyone should agree this assertion, we actually do believe that objective moral obligations do exist.

The only way out of this would be to assert that such actions would not be morally evil. However, can one really argue convincingly that torturing babies for fun can be morally acceptable. Or that genocide is morally acceptable? Or that slavery and oppression are morally acceptable? Not likely.

Now that we've seen how our own reactions to morality and ethics probably contradict the concept of moral subjectivity, let's talk about another important issue: cultural normality, or cultural relativism.

The underlying concept behind cultural relativism is that different moral principles exist in different cultures, and hence there can't be objective moral principles which apply to all cultures. Therefore, morality must be culturally relative. However, such a claim uses fallacious logic and misleading data to prevent us from making legitimate moral claims or judgments, and leads us to some very strange conclusions. If we actually looked at the "data" for instance, we'd see that moral commonalities are far more abundant than moral differences.

The differences, in fact are not the rule, but rather the exception. Compared to the moral commonalities found among different world cultures, moral differences are well in the minority. Certainly they are given a spotlight because they are the exception, which makes them more interesting to study in a class about human history or anthropology. But as I've said in the previous most, most of the variation can be accounted for by the variations in moral reasoning and how common moral principles are applied in give situations. The so-called disparity claimed by cultural relativists is far smaller than they would claim.

And besides, it doe not logically follow that just because some moral principles or applications of those principles may differ between cultures that common, or transcendent moral principle are nonexistent. Logically what follows from this: Culture A believes that a certain action is wrong, while Culture B believes the same action to be right? Well not much really. It certainly does NOT follow that there is no objective moral truth concerning this action. In fact, Culture A may be right concerning the morality of the action, and Culture B is wrong. As the common saying goes "just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true." Just because two cultures do not agree about the morality of a certain action does not mean that there is no objective principle involved. If you don't believe in gravity, you will still fall and splatter yourself all over the pavement if you jump from a 20 story building.

In fact, if morality was culturally relatively, then forget about evaluating cultures morally. Condemning the Nazis would be pointless. Forget about universal human rights as well. Criticizing another nation or culture for their actions would also be pointless.

And alas, cultural relativism presents a big problem for reformers who want reform a society from within. According to cultural relativism, a culture does what is right for its particularly society, and trying change that would be immoral, even if such laws or practices within the country are despicable in moral terms.

In the end, even though a lot of us may think that morality is subjective, moral relativism simply goes against our inherent views about morality and ethics. Finding the foundations for objective moral principles is difficult, but even so it would seem a far more in accordance to our nature, logic, and reason than relativism. I remember Pope Benedict speaking about the dangers of moral relativism when he was first became pope a few years ago. I remember thinking that what he's saying really isn't necessarily as no really believes in moral relativism, not even the so-called "moral relativists" themselves.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 2nd, 2007, 1:06 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Ahem long post coming, I think. First off Spaz I think you got your terms mixed up morality is what a group of people believe to be correct and stems from the concious this changes from colture to colture. Conscience is something that stems dfrom the subconious and differs very little from person to person. I suppose a better way to say morality is subjective is to say that there are exceptions to every rule. Spaz pointed out that Sochio and sycopaths feel conscience guilt. That is simply not true. You never heard Hitler or Stalin on their death beds weeping in regret for killing millions of inoccent people nor most of the major nazi party members. If morality was truly universal then there would be no difference in law or punishment nor moral exalution, slavery would be excepable as would trial without jury. Also there is a difference in subjective and preference. Further more there was a time in many socities that things such a rape and murder were a matter of preference. Morals change over time, if you know history you know the truth of this and thus the truth that morality is subjective. Also does ever martial action have to have a purpose? Can't we just do something because we enjoy it? I think so and I think it's rather arrogent to presume that we can change humanity on a large scale for any ammount of time. Can it be done but let's face it I don't think any of use have the strength of personality or charaisma to pull it off.

And No Spaz I haven't gotten threw your last post, guys can we keep them a little shorter? Please I'm getting tired of reading 5-10 pages of people ranting to make their point. State your view and a few examples and move on please. You can post more then once on a point.

42317 and Spaz, you're both right I was simply using animals as an example. But thank you for pointing them out. Also in terms of souls, we can't prove that things exist to begin with, in humans or animals. I'd also like to point outt that in many if not most nonwestern coltures believed humans and animals were more or less equals.

Now then 42317 I get your points those are actually pretty good examples I think. However what your post brought up was not only the subjectiveness but also the inate limitations that lanuage and our understanding has. I'd like to explore this more and let the subjectiveness/obejectiness arguement rest, we're just spinning out tires and not getting any where. And more to the point I'm getting bored. And siting a quate, yes me :shock: shokcing. "It is foolish to listen to those who refuse to listen to you." So lets agree to disagree on the matter of morality.

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


Last edited by The Adict on June 2nd, 2007, 1:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 2nd, 2007, 1:15 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
spazmaster666,
I read your latest posts, but I have not enough time to go into it.
I just want you to know that I perfectly understand your position, but I like offering a different point of view even if it does not represent my personal opinion.

The Adict,
you cry about the posts being long? Well, this is the Philosophy thread... and, hey, I thought you wanted to be one of us!?

(Just teasing, man, just teasing...) :D

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 2nd, 2007, 1:23 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Thanks, 42317. I only spent the last twenty minutes trying to read threw three posts I think that's a little ridusclous. 42317 is excused because he hasn't post of the thread for a awhile but Spaz you've been posting everyday, we get your point already stop making your post longer everytime I'm going to start ignoring them all together. pant pant I'm tired not I'll be back later to post more.

_________________
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 2nd, 2007, 3:33 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
Let’s cool the jets here. Spaz is free to write his posts as long as he wants, he isn't breaking any rules. You are free to not read them if they are too long for you to journey through. Let us not forget though, we have been very tolerant of your poor spelling and grammar, which does break the rules, and to which you so boldly claim, "Me got poor spelling and grammar, sorry but you're going to have to deal with it."

Let’s be civil here, it is perfectly fine to politely ask Spaz to shorten his posts and stay more to the point and/or not restate the same point over and over. You don't need to make it confrontational from the get go.

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 2nd, 2007, 8:09 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Addict, if you haven't read my entire post yet, I think it would probably be best that you read the rest of it before I reply to your post since a lot of the points you bring up are addressed in the second part of my post, including how our reactions to moral issues contradict the idea of moral relativism and that using cultural relativism to conclude moral relativism is logically fallacious.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 3rd, 2007, 7:20 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
The Adict,
the boss is right here. If you sit in a group that discusses a topic that drags on and on and you're bored or something you can leave. That's okay. As I said in another post: Nobody will think you're stupid. Nobody will look down on you.
You don't have to worry so much and you don't have to force yourself.
Hell, I'm having hard times too, digging through the high-brow language of Spaz! :D
There are sharp people around, but I have remained in and returned to Animetric because I trust the others and in all the many months there was never a reason to feel offended.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: June 3rd, 2007, 12:29 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Yes I know I know, all of that. And I do apologize for my bad spelling and grammar in my sig, reason I haven't changed it. I've been trying to work on it, but I don't have great spelling obviously and a large vocabulary most of which I don't know how to spell so when I try to use my vocabulary to its fullest exstent I usually und up misspelling everything, like am right now, sorry *bow bow hands palms together over head bow bow* And 42317 thanks for the reassurance, not needed but thanks. I was just making a humble request as the founder of the thread that's all, I had no intentions of stepping on people's toes. Thous hI have noticed I've been rather aggressive in my last few posts, again sorry just having family problems, sorry for taking it out on you guys.

Also to spaz, huh? Okay I think I get it but not sure, been a long time since I've heard any body use those words let alone use them myself. So in other words after all this time, you agreeing with me? :?: huh? I think I need to spen the next twenty minutes going threw your post, I can't read that fast, yep me an idoit with a big mouth.

_________________
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 3rd, 2007, 1:06 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
The Adict,

Don't worry about it man. Just trying to make sure we don't have any hard feelings between people or flame wars starting. Thus why I tried to diffuse the situation as soon as it started. Things just end up working out better when you are polite to other people.

Now the philosophy debate can continue.

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
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 ... 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