moral relativism

[ET Warrior]

I was trying to explain that in those universes out where the evil we see as negative from our experiances and our individual perspectives the inhabitants in those universes will see it as positive

And I was trying to explain that regardless of whether or not they look at 'evil' as a positive aspect or not, that does not make it morally correct.

 

What Spider AL and myself have been trying to convey this entire time, is that just because people believe things to be moral or valid does not make it so. Even if it is something entirely cultural, or 'universal'.

 

Moral people see 'evil' as a negative not because of experiences, but because of logic and empathy. (I'll concede it, AL, I think you're probably right).

 

Even if an entire universe is completely devoid of empathy, that simply means you will have an entire universe of likely immoral inhabitants.

 

Of course I won't ever accept that relativity of morality of those inhabitants located in those universes.

...

How the hell do you know that morality is not relative?

I'm confused.

[Windu Chi]

And I was trying to explain that regardless of whether or not they look at 'evil' as a positive aspect or not, that does not make it morally correct.

 

What Spider AL and myself have been trying to convey this entire time, is that just because people believe things to be moral or valid does not make it so. Even if it is something entirely cultural, or 'universal'.

You are losing me here, ET.

Are you saying what Hitler and Nazis did didn't matter in a logical sense?

Because with the use of logic moral standards are invalid.

 

Moral people see 'evil' as a negative not because of experiences, but because of logic and empathy. (I'll concede it, AL, I think you're probably right).

You give up that easily?

 

So I am guessing, you are saying people come to accept society moral standards of what is negative like evil because of deductive reasoning and their emotions.

 

Human emotions are bias respect to the accurate definition of good or evil in a logical sense, since emotions can't be trusted.

 

So their definition of what is good or evil is inaccurate or invalid respect to a logical morality process.

 

So is that your reasoning why morality is not relative?

Or, what ?

 

Even if an entire universe is completely devoid of empathy, that simply means you will have an entire universe of likely immoral inhabitants.

 

So what are you saying, you don't believe morality is relative respect to logic?

Or, are you talking about Schrödinger's cat dead or alive scenario.

Also they can possibly be moral inhabitants, of course.

 

Of course I won't ever accept that relativity of morality of those inhabitants located in those universes.

I was expressing my anger toward the Holocaust.

By saying that I won't ever accept the Nazis as good people as the inhabitants of those evil universes believe them to be.

 

How the hell do you know that morality is not relative?

I was asking Spider how can he conclude morality is not relative respect to the rest of existence.

Unless you believe, ET that our universe is the only one that exist.

[Emperor Devon]

I do appreciate the fact that you've gone back and have indeed addressed some of my earlier points, Devon. But it's still a bit half-hearted.

 

I had enough of an opinion to post one, but this isn't an issue I'm very thoughtful on.

[Jae Onasi]

You know I didn't mean my example to be interpreted that way, Jae.

I guess you misunderstood my anger toward the Holocaust.

Windu6, there is no way I could possibly misunderstand your anger toward the Holocaust. I got that one loud and clear.

[tk102]

However, as I have pointed out in previous threads regarding the validity of the scientific method, peer review or any other "majority opinion" method of answering difficult questions has serious drawbacks, as well as the advantages you mentioned. In other words, the more intelligent you become, the fewer "peers" you have. Those with the highest reasoning power (in possession of empathy) will always be in a minority, and therefore will be the comparitively moral minority.

Your arguments are interesting here and I think they highlight the limits to which morality can be considered objective. Certainly the most intelluctual minds may be able to find objective truths without the need for peer review. The truths are "out there" as it were, waiting to be discovered. But this is where morality is different. It's not something that you put in a box and label. It is a fuzzy set of values assigned to an action. Because we can't write out an equation or assign an objective numerical property that describes the "morality" of an act, we are forced to concede that morality is subjective. There is no hard and fast way to accurately depict every nuance of either the impetus to act or the way the act is received. All we can describe objectively is the act itself. Morality, as Kant argued, does not lie in the outcome of the act, but in the motive of the act. Because we cannot know the actor's intent directly, we forced to subjective infer it from the act. Therefore the morality of an action whether a priori or a posteriori is relative to the interpretative abilities of those making the judgement.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by tk102:

Your arguments are interesting here and I think they highlight the limits to which morality can be considered objective.

On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.

 

As an objective universal standard is quite simply the only way morality can exist at all, as detailed in posts above. If morality is not a universal standard, it doesn't qualify as morality.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

Certainly the most intelluctual minds may be able to find objective truths without the need for peer review. The truths are "out there" as it were, waiting to be discovered. But this is where morality is different. It's not something that you put in a box and label. It is a fuzzy set of values assigned to an action.

I don't think you have any reasoning to back that statement up. Morality is frankly quite easy to define in clear-cut terms. Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

 

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

There is no hard and fast way to accurately depict every nuance of either the impetus to act or the way the act is received. All we can describe objectively is the act itself. Morality, as Kant argued, does not lie in the outcome of the act, but in the motive of the act. Because we cannot know the actor's intent directly, we forced to subjective infer it from the act. Therefore the morality of an action whether a priori or a posteriori is relative to the interpretative abilities of those making the judgement.

Kant's arguments were undoubtedly revolutionary in his time, but they have dated poorly in many respects. Morality is in fact largely based on the anticipation of likely consequences, otherwise it ceases to be moral.

 

Some cases are clear-cut. Say... "If I stamp up and down on this frog, it will most likely be crushed, and expire. Therefore to stamp up and down on the frog is immoral."

 

Some cases are less clear-cut: "If I release this frog I found in my house into the garden, it might be tortured and eaten by next door's cat. If however I release it onto the street out front, it might be run over by a passing car. The likelihood of the frog dying by cat is slightly less than dying by car (the road is busy) therefore releasing it into the garden is more moral, as it will lessen the chance of any ill-effects to the frog that might occur directly due to my interference."

 

But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered. We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth. We won't always be able to. But that doesn't make the truth "relative".

 

-

 

Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

I'm confused.

Hmm, me too. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Windu being a troll, but a lot of what he does just screams "contrived" to me. Isn't it a Japanese proverb that "artlessness is the most difficult art"?

 

Or was that Michael Crichton.

[tk102]

On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.

Ah, thank you for helping me understand better. Yes, in retrospect, I concede that.

Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

 

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.

Let's look closer at the numbers and see if we can't blame them.

 

Do equations of utilitarianism take into account future generations? Could it be that the most moral course of action for one civilization at war with another is to decimate that civilization in order to bring a homogenous world peace? (or: was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral?)

 

What about free will? How is that taken into account? If someone is screaming and ranting and causing distress to others, is it morally right to sedate that person and give them a painless lobotomy?

 

And are people's comforts and distresses measured equally? Does the comfort of a king outweigh the discomfort of a peasant?

 

How about pleasure/pain over time? If I give a piece of candy to child everytime he cries, I provide immediate pleasure to both of us. But over time, he might become spoiled and fat.

 

 

But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered. We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth. We won't always be able to. But that doesn't make the truth "relative".

 

What coeffecients do we assign to each of these factors in our equation? In fact, what objective equation do really have to begin with? We write our own rules as to what is important and what is less important, about who we empathize with and who we do not. With no objective way to measure morality, the argument of what is the most moral course of action is word-play for politicians. You cannot pretend that it is anything like a mathematical equation. It does not hold the same "truth".

[Windu Chi]

On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.

I don't possibilty believe no human or intelligent life can be objective since it has emotions that determine its behavior toward reasoning. I will say a AI intelligence can possibility be consider totally objective.

If it's programing is not change from day one.

By the human programer.

Morality is frankly quite easy to define in clear-cut terms. Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

 

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.

You can't use math yet to define what is right or wrong, respect to a specific society moral standards.

 

Everybody experiances evolve on different paths.

Everybody view the negative and positive of the societal system from different perspectives.

 

Example: The mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazis before the negative of the Holocaust in Germany, was look apon by the German society as positive.

But for the bigger society system of the Earth it was view as negative or evil.

So, I believe the optimal values are or will be always fuzzy.

 

Kant's arguments were undoubtedly revolutionary in his time, but they have dated poorly in many respects. Morality is in fact largely based on the anticipation of likely consequences, otherwise it ceases to be moral.

So more playing dice with morality.

 

Some cases are clear-cut. Say... "If I stamp up and down on this frog, it will most likely be crushed, and expire. Therefore to stamp up and down on the frog is immoral."

You are being a little to specific here, Spider.

 

 

But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered.

I disagree with you here, Spider.

I believe that the definition of right or wrong will change indefinitely from universe to universe.

With not respect to existence, the definition will change from society to society also indefinitely, of course if the society system last indefinitely.

 

We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth.

So we just play dice with respect to morality.

 

But that doesn't make the truth "relative".

Once again how can you reason that logic respect to existence.

You seem to be using inference reasoning here.

You don't have a complete generalization of morality or truth respect to existence.

 

 

Back down to Earth; from society to a specific society.

Hmm, me too. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Windu being a troll, but a lot of what he does just screams "contrived" to me. Isn't it a Japanese proverb that "artlessness is the most difficult art"?

You know Spider, I guess my aggressiveness in arguments seem to make you think that I want to decive others into less civilize arguments that lead to flame wars.

But by you saying "artlessness".

You seem to want to start a flame war.

 

I am assuming you saying that I have an inability to mask my emotions.

 

Or are you saying that: I lack the skill, the knowledge, is uncultured or to ignorant to mask my feelings.

 

 

 

You know your arrogance is amusing to me.

[ET Warrior]

Example The mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazis before the negative of the Holocaust in Germany, was look apon by the German society as positive.

But for the bigger society system of the Earth it was view as negative or evil.

And as has been said, over and over again, and it is the last time I am going to say it. Just because a specific society deems something as morally positive, does not make that a correct morality. It means the reigning 'morality' of that specific culture is actually amoral.

 

Moral relativism is a contradicting ideal.

[Windu Chi]

And as has been said, over and over again, and it is the last time I am going to say it. Just because a specific society deems something as morally positive, does not make that a correct morality. It means the reigning 'morality' of that specific culture is actually amoral.

 

Moral relativism is a contradicting ideal.

So, you are saying you believe nobody standards of good or evil is correct.

So, everybody moral standards are false.

Because they use their emotions to form standards, so with the use of emotions this make any moral standards invalid.

 

But I guess I am one of those few who relate moral standards to the rest of existence. Which I don't know if anyboby will accurately obtain, so I guess this reasoning will remain fuzzy to me: if moral relativism is a contradiction.

Since there is nothing as of yet that have the accurate laws of morality respect to everything in existence.

 

So, since I believe nothing is impossible I will have to accept that this might be a possibilty.

 

But this argument is not going to hold up for this planet.

So, society will continue to argue this reasoning many indefinite years to come.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.

[Windu Chi]

I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.

Yes, of course Nancy.

This is ET reasoning: The Nazis evil didn't matter because moral standards is invalid, because of our emotions.

Emotions flaw the logical reasoning.

 

You know, Nancy that I won't ever believe the Nazis evil didn't matter, even if I end up burning in hell.

 

The idea of moral standards respect to any individual will be a fuzzy concept to me.

Until we have the documents that will say what are the laws of morality respect to existence.

 

That is my reasoning, Nancy.

 

But until then I will accept the evil that is define now as negative.

[Ray Jones]

Spider AL, the "way to morality" you describe here requires basic skills in logical reasoning and empathy - in other words: a certain level of intelligence is needed on the part of the individual to be able to find the (most?) moral way for its actions. If I understood it right, you also say that the more intelligence there is, the better is the ability to find moral and the better might the possible quality of moral be, but the lack of the ability to find moral does not mean the individual must not be moral - thus acting amoral cannot be "excused" with not being able to act moral intentionally.

 

I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral? Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?

 

Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral?

 

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

 

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?

[Windu Chi]

Spider AL, the "way to morality" you describe here requires basic skills in logical reasoning and empathy - in other words: a certain level of intelligence is needed on the part of the individual to be able to find the (most?) moral way for its actions.

But this reasoning seem to always end up being flawed because of the influence of the emotional state of empathy.

No matter how high the intelligence is of any individual.

But we would see what he would say on this point.

 

If I understood it right, you also say that the more intelligence there is, the better is the ability to find moral and the better might the possible quality of moral be, but the lack of the ability to find moral does not mean the individual must not be moral - thus acting amoral cannot be "excused" with not being able to act moral intentionally.

This sound like a contradiction.

That why is I say it will remain a fuzzy concept.

 

I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral?

This for me will require those laws I have been talking about respect to existence.

 

Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?

Well, for me this will require those same laws for a accurate answer to these type of questions.

 

Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral

I will say, yes it is with his reasoning.

Well, with emotions influencing the reasoning.

Also we will have to find out what the hell totally moral is respect to existence, that is my reasoning.

 

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept?

I would say yes, humans aren't the only intelligence that exist in the universe; here on Earth for example, dolphins and killer whales have high intelligence and emotions, I believe.

We just can't accurately determine their intelligence and emotions, because we can't communicate property with these creatures yet.

Also the they have feelings toward themselves and feelings toward the human trainers who train them to be less wild.

On a local scale anyway.

 

Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality?

I would say yes on his point here.

The ebola virus can't be label as amoral or moral because these basic life forms seems as of now, not to have no emotions or a high enough intelligence, to be responsible for it's actions.

So, it can't be label caring for or not caring for the possible death of the host.

 

Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stomps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next?

My reasoning: I would say no.

Because a elephant have a high intelligence and similar emotions of humans.

Elephants seem to mourn for their dead as we do; I would label that a human emotional state of empathy.

Also on a local scale.

Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

I am guessing yes respect to Spider reasoning.

 

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?

I would say yeah if we want to go off this planet and explore the universe.

And find out what are the laws of morality respect to the rest of existence.

[tk102]

But this reasoning seem to always end up being flawed because of the influence of the emotional state of empathy.

Flawed only in practice, but that does not refute what Spider was arguing. His assertion was that given a set of choices, there is one choice that is objectively the highest moral choice. Whether you can determine that choice or not is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is whether this asertion is true.

 

My argument is that there is no foundation to objectiveness of morality since we have no means of determining moral magnitude that is objective.

[Windu Chi]

Flawed only in practice, but that does not refute what Spider was arguing. His assertion was that given a set of choices, there is one choice that is objectively the highest moral choice. Whether you can determine that choice or not is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is whether this assertion is true.

Well, tk102 to find this ultimate truth we would need those laws of morality repsect to the rest of existence, in my opinion.

That seem to be located in infinity, being respect to existence, or reality, or whatever the hell there else is out there.

So in my opinion, this reasoning is flawed period until we obtain those laws of morality for all of existence.

[tk102]

@windu6: I think if it was possible to quantify moral actions, by maximizing hedons and minimizing dolors, then we'd have something. Maybe on a robotic world where every action could be computed for its net effect upon the robotic society as a whole with some predetermined criteria for what is considered a "positive" effect. Unfortunately, I think that's as close as we can come to objectiveness.

 

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.

[Windu Chi]

@windu6: I think if it was possible to quantify moral actions, by maximizing hedons and minimizing dolors, then we'd have something. Maybe on a robotic world where every action could be computed for its net effect upon the robotic society as a whole with some predetermined criteria for what is considered a "positive" effect. Unfortunately, I think that's as close as we can come to objectiveness.

 

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.

I am ok with good or evil being define in the mind and modified by individual bias too.

Only the creator or creators of existence might have a high probability of being consider totally objective, in my opinion.

But since I believe nothing is impossible I am not sure about this.

Believing nothing is impossible for me, seem to make me have the beliefs of contradictions.

 

So, since I don't yet know of existence, I will continue believing that absolutely nothing is impossible.

Even if contradictions show up in the data.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by tk102:

Let's look closer at the numbers and see if we can't blame them.

 

Do equations of utilitarianism take into account future generations? Could it be that the most moral course of action for one civilization at war with another is to decimate that civilization in order to bring a homogenous world peace? (or: was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral?)

You're asking whether the killing over 200,000 Japanese civilians, (with small proportions of US citizens, Korean indentured labourers and sundry western prisoners of war therein,) was the most moral course of action available to the United States in the "cause of peace"? I don't find that question too tricky. Do you?

 

Let's examine the historical context. Japan at the time was being manhandled into continuing the conflict predominantly by a militaristic elite. A rarified class of warmongering, bushido-obsessed toffs who were perfectly willing to let every single Japanese civilian and footsoldier die even if the effort to defend Japanese soil was totally futile. In their minds- it might be reasonably assumed- the Japanese people existed only to maintain their position and further their nefarious goals. This was of course a long-standing point of view among the Japanese political elite, even prior to the decadent Edo period. And lest we forget it was also (of course) a point of view readily shared by the ruling classes of Western nations throughout history.

 

The result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was that it demonstrated that the West had such monumentally destructive power that they could completely raze Japan without very many casualties of their own. It also demonstrated that the West didn't mind killing swathes of Japanese civilians in an instant. Those are powerful statements to make.

 

But whether those statements of power affected the course of the war is another question. The Japanese, according to contemporary accounts from notable figures on both sides of the conflict, might well have been willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were ever dropped... pending a little negotiation. The moral course of action in the cause of peace would naturally therefore have been to pursue the route of negotiation in a serious way. The US cannot be said to have tried in any serious way to "negotiate" Japan's surrender. Slightly less moral than diplomacy but infinitely more moral than the slaughtering of countless innocents, we have the equally unexplored option of surgical strikes. Rather high quality Commando units had been trained during WW2, especially by the British. However, the assassination of key Japanese officials wasn't on the cards.

 

But of course there were tertiary concerns to the US. The first concern was to cripple Japan's political structure so that their government would be easier to control and westernise following the conflict. The second concern was to demonstrate to the rest of the world (not just Japan, and in particular the soviets) that the US was militarily the most dangerous nation on the planet. The third concern was to save time, money and Allied soldiers' lives by abruptly ending the campaign as decisively as possible. The fourth concern was to take an unusual opportunity to test a new weapon on living targets in-situ. Not one of these concerns can be said to be anything less than amoral.

 

So when confronted with the evidence, it's clear that the bombings were immoral, but it's hardly surprising that they occurred. After all, the policy of bombing civilians common to ALL sides during the war was immoral. Additional factors that make the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings immoral are as stated- that they were an issue not of victory over an aggressor, but of dominance and control over a defeated people, and dominance on the world stage.

 

To provide additional proof that the act was immoral, we apply the "universal standard of behaviour" principle. What if Japan or Germany had dropped the bombs on us? Why, then it would be a war crime. Not because they were expansionist aggressors, but because the intentional targeting of non-combatants to illicit political capitulation is terrorism in its purest form. If it's immoral for them, it's definitely immoral for us.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

What about free will? How is that taken into account? If someone is screaming and ranting and causing distress to others, is it morally right to sedate that person and give them a painless lobotomy?

You describe a hypothetical situation in which irreversible brain injury is inflicted on someone because their loudness is socially unacceptable, and then you imply that discerning whether the act is immoral or not is some way difficult? Surely you aren't being serious.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

And are people's comforts and distresses measured equally? Does the comfort of a king outweigh the discomfort of a peasant?

Actually morally speaking, the discomfort of the peasant carries more weight than the comfort of a king. Because the king has wealth and power, and therefore has extra responsibilities. If a man wishes to be a leader, he has a moral obligation to care for those he leads, if necessary giving up his own comforts to improve the lot of "his team". This is why a moral executive would cut his own wages, before cutting the wages of those staff that work under him. Of course executives are rarely moral people.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

How about pleasure/pain over time? If I give a piece of candy to child everytime he cries, I provide immediate pleasure to both of us. But over time, he might become spoiled and fat.

Well here we have a good example of why applied morality is dependent on our ability to gauge the likely consequences of our actions. Anyone who gives excessive amounts of sugary candy to their children has to be aware that they could be inflicting an injury on the child that won't manifest itself for some months or years. If someone chooses to sacrifice a child's health in order to make the child less noisy, or more "manageable", That's immoral. Very similar to the lobotomy angle, in that respect.

 

Like many other apologists for moral relativity in this thread, you have given me a list of hypothetical situations that you consider to be morally "fuzzy" in some way. I think in this case I've found all of them to be relatively clear-cut questions. But it's worth remembering that even if a moral conundrum was presented to me that was complex enough to render it insoluble by me, that would not make morality relative.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

What coeffecients do we assign to each of these factors in our equation? In fact, what objective equation do really have to begin with? We write our own rules as to what is important and what is less important, about who we empathize with and who we do not. With no objective way to measure morality, the argument of what is the most moral course of action is word-play for politicians. You cannot pretend that it is anything like a mathematical equation. It does not hold the same "truth".

That whole paragraph is completely devoid of any logical reasoning to back up the argument it asserts as truth.

 

You ask what "objective equation" we begin with, and the question of whether there are objective basic moral principles has been answered exhaustively throughout the thread. We begin with a basic understanding that others feel suffering just as we do, and that the lives of others have value, not merely our own life. Therefore through the quality of empathy we arrive at the conclusion that we wish to be moral, by minimising the amount of suffering and death we inflict upon others. We apply our reasoning powers to discern what will cause suffering and death to others, and then we strive to the best of our ability not to engage in such actions. If we find ourselves engaging in such actions by accident, we cease to engage in them. If we find that we have engaged in such actions in the past without fully understanding it, then we make whatever reparations to the wronged parties we are capable of making. These are very simple standards to remember, apply and adhere to.

 

You say that we "write our own rules" when it has been previously demonstrated that- logically speaking- writing one set of rules for oneself and a different set for others is inherently immoral as it is incompatible with the most basic principle of morality, that one must apply a moral standard universally. If one chooses to behave morally towards some people and immorally towards others... ONE IS BEING IMMORAL.

 

As for there being no "objective way to measure morality", you're incorrect. In many circumstances it is easy to measure, when death and suffering are easy to measure and options are starkly different and easy to evaluate. If there are circumstances in which death, suffering and the differences between available options are NOT easy to measure, it is the fault of those doing the measuring, not the "fault of the measurements".

 

And lastly, I do not "pretend" anything. Morality is almost exactly like a mathematical equation, in that every factor involved in "teh weighty moralz conundra" can theoretically be expressed as a simple value, and a logical train of thought emerges with a definite conclusion at the end of it, directly dependent on the relationship between values preceding it.

 

Likely outcome of stomping on frog = Death of frog.

Causing death when that death is unnecessary for continued survival of self != Moral

Death of frog necessary for continued survival of self? = No.

Other courses of action available to self = Not stomping on frog.

Therefore:

Stomping on frog != Moral.

 

Tertiary concerns can also be expressed in mathematical form:

 

But me stomping on frog = fun!

Therefore:

Me = Psychopath.

 

 

This jocular tangent merely points out that some moral questions are clear-cut and easy. Whereas some moral questions can be more difficult. But they only seem "difficult" due to our own inability to comprehend/discern/calculate all the variables involved, not because the variables themselves are in any way "relative". Just as only few people have the wherewithal necessary to comprehend complex mathematical equations, only few people have the reasoning power to process the tougher moral questions.

 

I've said it a dozen times already, and there's little I can do to elaborate on it any more than I have already. Like a lot of other people in this thread, it seems that you have observed the inability of a large proportion of people to calculate complex moral questions, and have concluded erroneously on the strength of that evidence that such a thing as "moral relativity" actually exists.

 

It's like observing that most people can't handle simple mental arithmetic and concluding erroneously that "two and two can equal seventeen, it just depends on your point of view."

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

My argument is that there is no foundation to objectiveness of morality since we have no means of determining moral magnitude that is objective.

And once again, I must contradict you. I have demonstrated that some moral questions are extremely clear-cut and easily objectively evaluated. Once again, some moral questions are tougher than others. But that's due to our stupidity as a species and as individuals. That is why the moral man strives to better himself and increase his wisdom. Because without wisdom, we will often inadvertently act immorally. Therefore to be optimally moral we must be optimally wise.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.

Well no offence, but you're not being moral if you're "okay with morality being subjective." Without a genuine effort to adhere to a universally applied standard of conduct, one can hardly call oneself a moral man. The moral man first wishes to be as moral as possible. This means that the moral man will strive to be as moral, if not MORE moral, than all other people. He will then apply the same standards to himself as he does to others, and vice versa. In addition, the moral man has a right to demand that all other people behave morally towards him, and all other beings. (Otherwise he is in a sense violating his OWN rights.)

 

In other words: If you wish to be moral you wish to do what is right. Therefore you believe there IS a right and a wrong. Therefore excusing others who are doing what you believe is wrong (immoral) because those people erroneously believe their own actions to be moral,.. is immoral.

 

Without the desire to adhere to an objective moral standard, we become the purveyors of nothing more than inequality, and become inherently immoral.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.

The word "Murder" really denotes an illegal killing of another human. Not necessarily an immoral killing. There's a big difference. It's perfectly morally acceptable to shoot a man who is trying to shoot you in order that he might take the wallet from your cold dead... pocket, for instance. The law might deem such a killing to be murder, depending on the circumstances; but sometimes it's moral to kill.

 

That aside, your post seems to be an attempt to find some moral principle that everyone believes in. That's not only futile, it's irrelevant. Not everyone believes the earth to be round, but it is. Likewise some amoral people believe that their immoral acts... are moral. They're incorrect. Their "state of incorrectness" doesn't mean morality is relative.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral? Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?

Well here's the distinction. If you unintentionally commit a moral act- avoiding squishing the frog merely to save your shoe-leather- Your act was moral, but your intent was not. And without the desire to be moral, no matter how many good deeds you do by accident, you as a person will never be moral.

 

Secondly regarding the worm angle, cutting a worm in half doesn't result in two worms. That's an old wives' tale. Cutting a worm in half will most often kill it. In some cases if the cut is very exact, one portion of the worm will heal and survive, but not often. And therefore, cutting a worm in half is immoral.

 

Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral?

In the purely philosophical sense, we can never be totally anything. Because we're human, and intrinsically flawed creatures. Perfection is a goal to strive for, it's never attainable.

 

But in certain circumstances, our choices can be totally moral, when they are clearly the most moral option available to us. When we do the right thing for the right reason and both are easily computed, then we're being totally moral. Choosing not to hit a guy who annoys you is a totally moral choice, with moral action attached. Choosing not to stomp that frog. Choosing to take that injured stray cat you found on your doorstep to the vet instead of throwing it into the canal. (as some people would.) The more complex the situation however, the more difficult it is to be sure that you're being totally moral. But it's your responsibility as a moral man to try to be totally moral in both thought and action.

 

Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

 

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?

I think I've answered this question before in this thread with the simple statements that the ability to apply morality is limited by limited intelligence and reasoning power, and that without the quality of empathy one has no reason to be moral. I don't know that animals other than humans possess empathy. I don't really know that other humans possess empathy. I assume they do, because they tell me so. But animals without empathy won't really want to be moral. And animals without our ability to reason and anticipate likely consequences of actions, won't be ABLE to be moral. Hey, most PEOPLE aren't moral. It's doubtful that many other animals are.

 

Also, the fact that other animals may not be capable of possessing a sense of morality is just as irrelevant as the fact that some humans aren't capable of possessing a sense of morality. So they can't. So what? The moral standard exists outside of individuals, be they man or elephant.

 

And of course, in the final analysis it's a moral truism that those with the most power have the most responsibility to use their power morally. Who has more power than intelligent humans? Who has a greater responsibility to be moral?

 

-

 

As for Windu's comments, I'm not responding to them. Not because I'm being rude, but because I believe- due to many inconsistencies in his writing style, and his perennial steering of every topic back to the same irrelevant yet emotive nonsense- that Windu is a troll. And I don't reply to trolls.

[Windu Chi]

 

As for Windu's comments, I'm not responding to them. Not because I'm being rude, but because I believe- due to many inconsistencies in his writing style, and his perennial steering of every topic back to the same irrelevant yet emotive nonsense- that Windu is a troll. And I don't reply to trolls.

Man, I don't give a damn you don't respond to my comments. I don't know what hell you are seeing in my comments that make you think that I am baiting people into arguments.

 

The arrogance you show in your comments to other people sickens me anyway.

[Emperor Devon]

The arrogance you show in your comments to other people sickens me anyway.

 

From what I've seen, Spider is just responding in a logical manner to other people's arguments. Arrogance is a different thing.

[Windu Chi]

From what I've seen, Spider is just responding in a logical manner to other people's arguments. Arrogance is a different thing.

He seem a little to arrogant to me, Devon.

He keep calling me names, but I am going to be cool about it.

I'm not going to get piss off with him or angry at him.

I'm not going to get into an argument with him.

He seem to want to get into a argument with me, though.

But he do seem to act a little to arrogant toward other people's comments here.

Logical with obvious arrogance attached.

[Nancy Allen``]

The word "Murder" really denotes an illegal killing of another human. Not necessarily an immoral killing.

 

That's exactly what I mean, murder. Not killing in self defense, in fact I strongly support wasting some asshole who threatens your life. I have no problem with that at all.

 

That aside, your post seems to be an attempt to find some moral principle that everyone believes in. That's not only futile, it's irrelevant.

 

As far as something like pedophilia goes not even 1 percent of the world, probably not one member of Al Qaeda or any Nazis or even anyone in the Bush administration would be behind it. I doubt even Palpatine would go there. If you want a moral principle that everyone believes in that's pretty hard to beat. Name one culture that supports it.

[ET Warrior]

Name one culture that supports it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism

 

They do.

 

Once again, I don't point this out to show that morality is relative, more so to show that even though some people believe things are good, does not mean they are moral things.

[Nancy Allen``]

What the hell?

 

These sick bastards really are fighting a losing battle as currupting the ideals of a youth is currupting the ideals of a youth regardless of country or culture. That's not questioning the morality of how pedophiles are percieved, but universally they are the least defensible people out there. Where as militant Islam would be defended by the Muslim world you cannot say child predetors would be, especially to be fair to the Muslim world their strong beliefs in defending children. Pedophiles in the Muslim world are probably stoned to death, I know us in the Western world want to put them to death. Plus all this defence people like NAMBLA throw up, I'm of the same opinion of it as I am of people like Al Qaeda using the Quran to justify terrorism: some of them would know it's bull****, they just use whatever they can to try and justify their actions.