New Member/Morality

I see your point as well. I realize there are things a vast number of things people enjoy. But as a whole, the spectrum of morality is subjective. These vast number of things people enjoy, seem like more of a natural occurance rather than a morality issue.

I guess we've beat this topic to death. Why don't you start off with another?

Hehe Agreed :)

I consider morality to be essentially subjective, because I honestly don't see how it could be otherwise.

By which I mean, I know in my heart that certain things are wrong; torturing babies, for example. Why is it wrong? Well, because it hurts people. Why is hurting innocents wrong? Well, we can explain how societies that discourage this kind of behavior are more succesful then those that don't, and therefore it's in your best interest not to hurt innocents.

The problem I have with this is that baby murdering would still be wrong, even if you were in a situation which pretty much assured that it wouldn't do you harm. Even if you get away with it, that doesn't make it right.

Now, the way Christians tend to handle this is to appeal to an absolute authority; Morality stems from god, who has the final word.

The problem with this is that it means that god could, if he wanted, declare baby torture to be a moral activity. And frankly, I can't see how anybody could ever convince me that this was true. how would god demonstrate that he has the authority to override deep-seated moral principles? I can't think of a way.

In other words, we're stuck with moral reletavism, whether we like it or not. Fortunately, humans mostly tend to be on the same wavelength about morality.

Oh, and as for the other question, I'd say, yes, there most probably is truth.

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220. I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.

lurker wrote

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220. I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.

The statement "Action A. is good" is not a statement of truth, but of subjective opinion, in the same way that the statement "Star Wars was a good movie" is not a statement of truth.

One man may say "Star Wars is one of America's greatest filmmaking accomplishments," While another may say "Star Wars was juvenile crap".

Neither of those statements can be proven true in the same way that a statement like "whales have hair" can be proven true.

Little Earth Stamper wrote

The statement "Action A. is good" is not a statement of truth, but of subjective opinion, in the same way that the statement "Star Wars was a good movie" is not a statement of truth.

One man may say "Star Wars is one of America's greatest filmmaking accomplishments," While another may say "Star Wars was juvenile crap".

Neither of those statements can be proven true in the same way that a statement like "whales have hair" can be proven true.

It's not about proving which statement is true or false. You don't need to know the answer in order to follow the logic.

I'm making a truth claim with each statement so I don't see anything wrong with the initial statements themselves. From what you are saying I think your response would fall in line with #2 - morals don't exist at all, it's just an illusion, a matter of taste/preference.

Your reasoning sounds pretty good until I think about it in those terms. "Joe isn't doing anything wrong. He just prefers raping women over dating them. He dislikes the whole dating scene."

Doesn't sound right to me. How about you?

Sounds like evidence of moral subjectiveness to me

[Rhinoqulous]

lurker wrote

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220. I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.

Some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Language Games can explain conflicting truth claims. It's too complicated to go into here, but a Language Game is a Form of Life, and a "Truth" is a rule relevant to a particular Form of Life/Language Game. So if you accept this interpretation of Language Games, both societies would be making "true" statements, but only as they pertained to their own society.
Rhinoq

Rhinoqulous wrote

Some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Language Games can explain conflicting truth claims. It's too complicated to go into here, but a Language Game is a Form of Life, and a "Truth" is a rule relevant to a particular Form of Life/Language Game. So if you accept this interpretation of Language Games, both societies would be making "true" statements, but only as they pertained to their own society.
Rhinoq

I totally agree with you about the word games we all play. Lawyers have made a career out of it! In the case of morality, there are plenty of instances where the answer to a moral question is highly subjective because we don't have a clear answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer beyond our reach.

Then we come to the more clear cases of morality. Here logic and life experience tell me that there is only one correct answer to the question "should I rape another person?". My experience tells me that if you answer "yes" then you are wrong, not as a matter of preference, but as a matter of absolute fact - you're wrong. In instances like this, language games don't seem to enter the picture. I can't imagine anyone saying the answer to this question is a matter of preference - like choosing vanilla over chocolate.

[Rhinoqulous]

lurker wrote

I totally agree with you about the word games we all play. Lawyers have made a career out of it! In the case of morality, there are plenty of instances where the answer to a moral question is highly subjective because we don't have a clear answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer beyond our reach.

A Language Game is NOT a word game, it is a Form of Life. Christianity is a Language Game, as are all other religions. American Society/Culture is a Language Game, etc. The rules of Language Games are agreed upon by players (members of a society/religion/Form of Life), and once the rules have been set, they are no longer subjective.

Then we come to the more clear cases of morality. Here logic and life experience tell me that there is only one correct answer to the question "should I rape another person?". My experience tells me that if you answer "yes" then you are wrong, not as a matter of preference, but as a matter of absolute fact - you're wrong. In instances like this, language games don't seem to enter the picture. I can't imagine anyone saying the answer to this question is a matter of preference - like choosing vanilla over chocolate.

If you had been raised in a society/culture where woman were not considered to be "persons", you would have no problem with this rape scenario. But, as you said, you have been raised in our current Form of Life, and hence rape is a violations of a rule.

Rhinoq

Rhinoqulous wrote

If you had been raised in a society/culture where woman were not considered to be "persons", you would have no problem with this rape scenario. But, as you said, you have been raised in our current Form of Life, and hence rape is a violations of a rule.

I see your point though it seems all cultures are gravitating toward the position where rape is wrong so there seems to be this underlying sense of morality inside us that says it's wrong. I still maintain that there is a correct answer to the question of rape regardless of how enlightened a particular culture may be. I find it hard to accept as fact the idea that raping is strictly a matter of taste/lifestyle.

Continuing on....

I'd expect those of you who think this way to not judge anyone, even christians, yet you constantly do. Why? That's the part that bugs me. On the one hand you say morality is relative, on the other hand you say this other group was evil/immoral/wrong.

I adhere to a fixed set of morals even though I may not understand everything clearly. Because of this I judge you, me and everyone else by this standard. I may be wrong about morality being absolute (I don't think I am) but at least I am behaving consistantly.

[Philboid Studge]

lurker wrote

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220. I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.

It seems like you are locked into the words "moral" and "immoral," treating them as absolutes and expecting us to do the same. I can say that certain societies/cultures were (or are) horrible -- by my way of thinking -- but absolute right or wrong don't enter into it.

Ponder the Arnold Bennett line: "All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." It doesn't matter whether it was the Canaanites tossing babies onto pyres or Nazis pushing Jews into ovens, these people really thought they were doing the best thing. (The Canaanites were just following their religion.)

I can judge their behavior to be horrible, if only because I wouldn't want me or mine treated in such ways. I don't see why my judgment would bug you. YOU, on the other hand, have no business judging anybody, lest ye be judged!

Philboid Studge wrote

It seems like you are locked into the words "moral" and "immoral," treating them as absolutes and expecting us to do the same. I can say that certain societies/cultures were (or are) horrible -- by my way of thinking -- but absolute right or wrong don't enter into it.

Ponder the Arnold Bennett line: "All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." It doesn't matter whether it was the Canaanites tossing babies onto pyres or Nazis pushing Jews into ovens, these people really thought they were doing the best thing. (The Canaanites were just following their religion.)

I can judge their behavior to be horrible, if only because I wouldn't want me or mine treated in such ways. I don't see why my judgment would bug you. YOU, on the other hand, have no business judging anybody, lest ye be judged!

I think we're nearing the end of this discussion - or maybe we've already gone past the end. Anyway, I can only say that I disagree with most of you.

Regarding your "judge, lest ye be judged" comment. Clearly jesus required people to make moral judgements so how does this verse fit into the equation. I like the way this commentator summed it up.

"He (jesus) is warning us about a fault-finding spirit, a negative attitude that causes us to pick at others for the things we do not like in them, to accuse them, blame them and complain to them because they do not live up to our expectations. This preoccupation with faults expresses itself in a twofold way: First, we are inclined to emphasize the faults of others rather than their strengths. Second, we are inclined to emphasize the faults of others rather than our own. The one word that sums it up is criticism.

I think judging is a good thing, however we should not get too carried away with it. Christians are just as guilty as non-christians so it's not like I'm any better than you. The moment I start acting like I'm better than you is the moment I've crossed over the line that jesus was talking about.