moral relativism

[Ray Jones]

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.

Ah yes, I see, I agree.

 

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.

Okay. Bad example. [/O'Neill]

 

But.. in theory, with a space worm, maybe..? No?

 

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.

I think many animals feel empathy, especially the "higher developed" ones. Primates for instance and elephants, why not. I think empathy (and morality) becomes an aspect when a "social together" and also the ability to act independent to or despite of instinctive impulses exists. And the more complex the social interaction is, the more instinct-independend the train of thought is, the more "we" can expect empathy and some kind of desire for being moral, at least within this group of individuals.

 

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?

God?

 

However, these two questions lead me to the conclusion that whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will "destroy" life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so.

[tk102]

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.

 

The two assertions here:

1. Morality is the minimization of the suffering of others (up to and including death).

2. Morality is objective.

 

lead us to conclude:

The suffering of others must be objective in order that its minimization can be considered objective.

 

So we must only use objective tools to measure the suffering of others. In some cases it is pretty simple to do this. This action kills a frog that action does not. A computer program could be written around that logical determination. We can use our reasoning, logic, calculations, forecasting and all other traits that a computer might use to make a decision. But we're missing something…something human.

 

Oh here it is. In the quote above, "quality of empathy" plays a role in determining the amount of suffering. That's quite human. But can "empathy" be considered objective in its measurements? Doesn't familiarity and love skew the amount of empathy felt towards a person, an animal, or even a species? If so that would make empathy a subjective quality (eg. I love different people than you do). Is it immoral to allow love into the equation? If we disallow such emotions, doesn't that make empathy "empty"? We might as well use a computer (or be a Vulcan).

 

Maybe all people should be loved equally? All animals? All plants? All bacteria? That would make empathy more objective. And maybe to some people maybe killing a fly is as immoral as poaching. But then, if empathy is a constant it can be "factored out" of our morality equation and ignored. We're back to the computer brain again.

 

Let's say we have a scenario that is not a simple either-or situation, but one that's more continuous in its shades of possible choices. If we look at the second assertion (morality is objective), we should expect any third party to arrive at the same moral conclusion as ourselves if we all have the same objective evidence and understanding of that evidence. But also, somehow, we must all have this same quality of empathy irregardless of whatever predispositions we arrived with so that the factors in our equation will be the same. That is, you must love the same people, animals, and plants as I do and to the same degree and vice versa. I think it suffices to say that we have no way of knowing whether emotional states are identical between two people, much less controlling them to become so.

 

If we allow that, then it follows that two individuals even with the most powerful abilities of cognition and desire for morality, when faced with the same circumstances may arrive at different choices because they bring with them different sets of emotional ties to the targets of their action.

 

I chose not to describe a particular example here in an effort to save time that could better spent on the core argument and less upon trying to serve up or deconstruct a particular scenario.

 

Aside: Spider AL, I am impressed by your post, by its consistency and its entirety. Your arguments can stand on their own, so it isn't necessary to point your language in second person quite so often. It detracts from what would otherwise be a pleasant argument.

[ET Warrior]

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

I'd prefer if you didn't try to explain my reasoning, because it seems evident that you do not understand what it is that I am saying.

[Windu Chi]

I'd prefer if you didn't try to explain my reasoning, because it seems evident that you do not understand what it is that I am saying.

Well, ET tell me what you mean.

 

You said, that morality from anybody's perspective is invalid.

I read about the emotivism stance on moral relativism, so I am guessing that is your reasoning.

Since we have emotions or feelings for each other any moral standards will always be invalid.

Because the bias of individual emotions.

 

Now, if that isn't your reasoning then tell me what it is.

 

And don't ignore me like that arrogant guy, Spider AL.

 

Also don't get offended by how I use that statement, I just feel so strongly about the Holocaust.

I didn't mean your reasoning to be interpreted that way.

 

 

 

Moral relativism might be consider a contradicting ideal on a small scale respect to the society of Earth or to specific individuals here.

But we can't determine if this contradiction is true until we know if there is a ultimate law or laws of morality throughout existence.

Where we can relate that reasoning with those morality standards.

 

Also our moral standards don't even account for the societies that may populate the Milky Way, so our moral standards are already bias on that large scale of the galaxy.

I'm not sure if there is such a law or laws, since the laws of it will probably have infinite definitions to account for existence.

 

So, I disagree that moral relativism is a contradiction in respect to the larger scale of existence.

Until we know if those laws exist and if they do exist, then until we can obtain that law or laws to test that theory.

 

In my opinion !

 

The possible logical contradiction of moral relativism might just be the way to go in the light of the infinite existence of reality.

[Totenkopf]

You do realize that by arguing in favor of moral relativism, Windu6, that your constant anti-nazi screed seems a little neurotic. W/o objective standards of morality, there is no reason not to kill people if you've the power to do so. It's not "nice", but then why should that matter. With no definite good or evil, all actions are basically amoral in nature and equally "good" or "bad". Subjective morality is a thinly veiled defence for people who feel that they should be ablee to do ANYTHING they like, regardless of the consequences of such actions. It is somewhat symptomatic of increasingly narcisistic cultures.

[Windu Chi]

You do realize that by arguing in favor of moral relativism, Windu6, that your constant anti-nazi screed seems a little neurotic. W/o objective standards of morality, there is no reason not to kill people if you've the power to do so. It's not "nice", but then why should that matter. With no definite good or evil, all actions are basically amoral in nature and equally "good" or "bad". Subjective morality is a thinly veiled defence for people who feel that they should be ablee to do ANYTHING they like, regardless of the consequences of such actions. It is somewhat symptomatic of increasingly narcisistic cultures.

Well, I hate the evil of the Nazis that much so if it makes me seem neurotic, then so be it.

 

 

As for the topic; the possible contradiction of moral relativism just is going to have to be accepted as a conclusion to live with.

Since we don't know the morality of existence.

 

The only people I am going to believe with some confidence, that are amoral are the ones that lack no emotions or contain no empathy.

 

I don't think there is no practical way, not an impossible way to be objective in defining the principles of right or wrong or good of evil.

Since we all have emotions and linked good or evil feelings for each other.

And any development of morality standards seem to stem from these properties.

 

I agree, that it is just is going to have to be a choice to follow the path of the light or the path of the darkside for the individual.

[Totenkopf]

Well, if we're to operate via Lucasian logic (re SWRoS), then you can't be a moral relativist if you're sith, only jedi. Kinda funny when the "good guys" can't differentiate good from evil.

[Windu Chi]

Well, if we're to operate via Lucasian logic (re SWRoS), then you can't be a moral relativist if you're sith, only jedi. Kinda funny when the "good guys" can't differentiate good from evil.

I don't know if one can differentiate between good or evil.

Since we don't know if a choice of morality is the way or no choice of morality.

We are not sure if we live in a evil universe, where evil is suppose to rule all.

Or a neutral universe, where it is suppose to be left as a choice of the specific inhabitants to form their own morality standards; good or evil.

This will remain an uncertainty, in my opinion until we obtain the rules of existence that will possibly tell us which interpretation is the truth.

 

I believe we live in a neutral universe; so good or evil vied for power or a neutral that influence both *cough* Kreia.

Unless I'm missing something else.

[ET Warrior]

So...your stance on morality is that the UNIVERSE itself dictates what is a proper morality?

 

Could you perhaps clarify that because it makes approximately no sense to me at the moment.

[Nancy Allen``]

The Force? Or maybe it's the times he's referring to: Dirty Harry was a vigilante cop in the 70's but was regarded as a hero by the time Sudden Impact was made.

[Totenkopf]

W6:

I don't know if one can differentiate between good or evil.

----------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't get that impression from your holocaust posts. You consistently label Hitler and the Nazis as mankind's greatest evil. So, if you can apparently make that distinction, why do you think others cannot?

[Windu Chi]

So...your stance on morality is that the UNIVERSE itself dictates what is a proper morality?

Maybe, we don't know if the universe is a living entity, ET.

I am assuming with your strict use of logic you probably won't ever accept that possibility.

 

Could you perhaps clarify that because it makes approximately no sense to me at the moment.

Well, my belief is the possible existence of the Force.

 

All the matter in the universe is linked in the Quantum-Vacuum(zero-point field region) of spacetime.

By the interaction of all the wavefunctions of all the living inhabitents in the universe, through the Quantum-Vacuum's and inertia quantize standing wave or fluctuating mass fields and energy fields fluctuations(Quantum Field Theory) of all the matter present in the universe.

So the theory that is out there is that our collective consciousness is linked through this Quantum-Vacuum.

 

My theory of the physics of the Force:

 

Electrons that are the lowest forms of matter that can transmit information, they can transmit this information faster than light to other electrons throughout the universe.

This effect is called Spooky action at a distance.

It is also called quantum entanglement, this is when two different electrons have different spin states that if one spin state is change for one particle the other electron spin state will change simultaneously.

The space seperation distance don't matter, their states will change faster than light no matter how far they are apart.This effect can be interpreted as the influence Obi-Wan Kenobi had through the Force when Alderan was destroyed by the Death Star in Ep VI:A New Hope.

The disturbance he felt obviously was transmitted faster than light.

 

So electrons and all matter is linked throughout the universe by the manipulation of a hidden variable that is maybe the hyperspace of science fiction.

A extra dimension of space where electron quantum leap orbital energy transitions is theorize to take place in, as define as the orbital transitions that occur inside the atom when the atom interact with photons.

 

Our consciousness which work by the physics of electromgnetism, can be thought as information or entropy that maybe can be exchange through all the collective consciousness of all the life in the universe.

By way of the vacuum energy fluctuations of this hyperspace of the Quantum-Vacuum.

So like cells in molecular living matter, the collective consciousness of the living beings in the universe may work in mutual cooperation to make the universe information content act like a living entity that have different quantum chaotic entropy states, like for example the molecular living cells biochemistry states.

Also a similar example, is when cells absorb or expel biochemical energy or change the configurations of biochemical states as the cells interact with their environment.

 

This collective consciousness of the quantum linked chaotic states of this collective entity, may have different influences on the consciousness of each specific inhabitent's emotional potential energy states and the mutual empathy information kinetic energy exchange of the consciousness electromagnetic field energy values.

The information kinetic energy exchange of the consciousness electromagnetic field energy occurs between specific individuals, because of the of the feelings we have for each other. Feelings in my definition is the information kinetic energy exchange of the mutual consciousness of individuals.

 

So depending on the configuration of quantum linked chaotic entropy states and the effects it's influences will have on the emotions and empathy of the inhabitents of this universe.

Any changes to the quantum entropy states will have specific effects on the life in the universe that can cause major changes to the emotions of a linked collective consciousness of that life that can inturn also have major effects on empathy states between the life individuals, in which these action effects can be possibly interpreted as good or evil entities; for Star Wars the lightside energy or the darkside energy.

 

 

Also since good or evil maybe left as the choice of the specific inhabitents, the quantum chaotic energy configurations states can affect the specific inhabitents emotions and feelings in such extreme ways that the collective consciousness of all the life in the universe may develop specific entities, that will have probably also have definite quantum choatic entropy energy locations spread throughout the universe that can either be define as evil in some locations or define as good in other locations throughout the universal entity. That will depend on the level of evil thoughts and the level of good thoughts throughout the linked consciousness of the life forms, that the universal entity is made of and manipulation by the life forms specific consciousness that whole universal entity is affected by.

 

This is another possible explanation for good or evil, in my opinion.

Well, in a Quantum Physics definition.

 

This is why I have been believing for while that the Force maybe a real entity in this universe because of the quantum entanglement of matter.

 

For people who are clueless or don't understand the concept of the Force:

 

What I am trying to say that our thoughts and other life forms thoughts that are linked by quantum entanglement , be they good or evil thoughts probably make the universe function like a living being as a whole.

The concentration of the level of good or evil thoughts throughout the universe will create specific regions throughout the universe that will be polarize to more evil or more good that is dependent on the connected interacted consciousness of all the life in the universe.

These specific regions will determine the relative moral standards, that will be in the alignment of either positive good or negative evil standards for the life forms in those specific regions.

Also since our collective thoughts will also interact with the nonliving matter because our thoughts functions via the electromagnetic field energy of the Milky Way's elecromagnetic field, that is also linked Quantum Mechanically by entanglement, to all the protons, neutrons and electrons that all elemental matter in this universe at least, is made of.

 

The stars and the planets of the this galaxy will have those same concentrations of the so called good energy or evil energy, that is spread chaotically through our universe for the specific galaxies and the specific life forms all those galaxies contains.

 

This explanation of course, can be understood to Star Wars fans at least, as some planets strong in the darkside or some planets strong in the lightside.

[Windu Chi]

W6:

I don't know if one can differentiate between good or evil.

----------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't get that impression from your holocaust posts. You consistently label Hitler and the Nazis as mankind's greatest evil. So, if you can apparently make that distinction, why do you think others cannot?

Well, in my bias emotions and empathy filled opinion.

I am going to accept the Nazis as the greatest evil of mankind.

Because of my own moral relativism.

I don't give a damn if they aren't accepted as the most evil by some others.

But for everybody else, I am and others who have as much rage as me of the evil of those demons.

People who is mad as me will just have to keep reminding people throughout the world every now then.

To make sure that evil never happen again.

But that is naïve thinking because this evil will probably happen again.

The world just keep repeating history.

 

Their possible reasons are they don't want to, don't care or those others don't believe that they were pure evil as I and others do.

[Windu Chi]

The Force?

Yes, Nancy you guested it before anyone else here did.

You must have paid great attention to my post in that ,"God answers prayers" thread.

[Spider AL]

Okay, Windu's a darned troll. In my considered opinion, and based on considerable evidence, he is consistently hijacking threads. He is then self-consciously ranting on about insane drivel, in order to attract some sort of ire or attention... or whatever trolls desire.

 

Look, if I'm totally wrong, he's still incoherent and more than a little unhinged. If I'm right, then he's actively malicious.

 

Please, please please, do something about this person, mods.

 

Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

However, these two questions lead me to the conclusion that whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will "destroy" life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so.

Couldn't agree more. A surfeit of intelligence doesn't just confer the ability to be moral, it also confers the responsibility to be moral. And I think that's mainly due to the fact that opportunity equals responsibility. The rich have a greater responsibility to use their money morally than do the poor. The strong have a greater responsibility to use their strength morally than do the weak. And the intelligent have a greater responsibility to be moral people than do the muppets.

 

If you CAN be moral... you MUST be moral. Or... erm... you're immoral.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

So we must only use objective tools to measure the suffering of others. In some cases it is pretty simple to do this. This action kills a frog that action does not. A computer program could be written around that logical determination. We can use our reasoning, logic, calculations, forecasting and all other traits that a computer might use to make a decision. But we're missing something…something human.

 

Oh here it is. In the quote above, "quality of empathy" plays a role in determining the amount of suffering. That's quite human. But can "empathy" be considered objective in its measurements? Doesn't familiarity and love skew the amount of empathy felt towards a person, an animal, or even a species? If so that would make empathy a subjective quality (eg. I love different people than you do). Is it immoral to allow love into the equation? If we disallow such emotions, doesn't that make empathy "empty"? We might as well use a computer (or be a Vulcan).

Wrongu! That quote of mine doesn't say anything of the sort. The quoted paragraph has- quite clearly- contained within it the phrase: "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."

 

Empathy doesn't play any sort of role in "determining" the amount of suffering that another creature is enduring. I've made it very clear in my previous posts that sense and reason are the only tools for determining whether a creature is suffering, and to what degree. Empathy is the ROOT of morality. Not the totality of morality. I'll go through my statements once more:

 

Empathy leads us to realise that others suffer and that the lives of others have value. (Not merely our own life.) Logic and reason are then employed to determine:

 

1. What actions will cause a creature suffering or death (so that we can avoid those actions);

2. Whether we are currently causing any creature suffering or death (so that we can desist.)

3. Whether we have caused suffering or death in the past (so that we can make amends.)

 

Logic is also employed to come to the inevitable conclusion that morality must be a universally applied standard, or it is not morality.

 

Empathy is the beginning of morality. Without empathy one has no REASON to become moral. Without empathy there can be no sense that other creatures have intrinsic worth. But since morality must be a universal standard, it must be a set of principles that are logically arrived at.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

Let's say we have a scenario that is not a simple either-or situation, but one that's more continuous in its shades of possible choices. If we look at the second assertion (morality is objective), we should expect any third party to arrive at the same moral conclusion as ourselves if we all have the same objective evidence and understanding of that evidence.

Exactly. And the reason that two people- with the same desire to be moral- may arrive at two different conclusions, one more moral than the other, is that one of them has a lesser comprehension of the available evidence.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

But also, somehow, we must all have this same quality of empathy irregardless of whatever predispositions we arrived with so that the factors in our equation will be the same. That is, you must love the same people, animals, and plants as I do and to the same degree and vice versa. I think it suffices to say that we have no way of knowing whether emotional states are identical between two people, much less controlling them to become so.

You're confusing "love" with "empathy". Love is feeling affection for another creature. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another creature. Very different. I don't have to "love" a snail to feel empathy and a sense that its life has intrinsic value, because its life is like my own life. One can empathise with creatures one dislikes very much, in fact.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

If we allow that, then it follows that two individuals even with the most powerful abilities of cognition and desire for morality, when faced with the same circumstances may arrive at different choices because they bring with them different sets of emotional ties to the targets of their action.

Any man who wishes to be moral but allows his emotional baggage to affect decisions which should be logical and sensible... isn't being moral. As I've said a dozen times at least. It may be understandably human to allow your emotions to rule you... but it ain't moral.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

Aside: Spider AL, I am impressed by your post, by its consistency and its entirety. Your arguments can stand on their own, so it isn't necessary to point your language in second person quite so often. It detracts from what would otherwise be a pleasant argument.

I get a sense that you have some grievance that you wish to make me aware of, but I really think you could be clearer. After all, if I am to address your arguments directly, (and distinctly from the arguments of others,) it is most expedient to refer to "you".

[tk102]

You're confusing "love" with "empathy". Love is feeling affection for another creature. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another creature. Very different. I don't have to "love" a snail to feel empathy and a sense that its life has intrinsic value, because its life is like my own life. One can empathise with creatures one dislikes very much, in fact.

Ah, the light bulb went on for me here. I completely understand now. So perfect empathy would be almost akin to telepathy where the person would know the experience of suffering of another. And to the extent which we're capable of experiencing empathy is the extent which we are able to accurately apply our actions in a moral way. That makes sense.

 

The ability to break out of our own limited experience makes objectivity of morality possible. Empathy is the tool to do that.

[Prime]

Windu6, please attempt to read what others are saying and do not spam the thread with posts that (to me anyway) are unintelligible and in any case irrelevant to the topic being discussed (how the imaginary concept of the Force works, etc.), as well as multiple posting. As Spider AL points out it is at worse trolling and at best spamming.

 

In either case, please stop. This is your warning.

 

This is a good debate, and I'd like to see it stay that way...

[Windu Chi]

Windu6, please attempt to read what others are saying and do not spam the thread with posts that (to me anyway) are unintelligible and in any case irrelevant to the topic being discussed (how the imaginary concept of the Force works, etc.), as well as multiple posting. As Spider AL points out it is at worse trolling and at best spamming.

 

In either case, please stop. This is your warning.

 

This is a good debate, and I'd like to see it stay that way...

I was not spaming or trolling go right ahead agree with that flamer Spider AL.

I was talking about the topic of moral relativism.

But since that is your opinion I will delete the post.

I thought that I was on a star wars fourm.

Oh well !

[Prime]

I was not spaming or trolling go right ahead agree with that flamer Spider AL.

AL was not flaming. You were at the very least spamming.

 

But since that is your opinion I will delete the post.

That is not your job. Leave the thread management to the moderators. I have undeleted the post so that responses remain in context.

 

I thought that I was on a star wars fourm.

But you are in the Senate Chambers, which are for serious topics and discussion only. The discussion of how the Force technically might work does not in any way fall in that category. If you wish to discuss Star Wars topics there are many other sections that are much more appropriate.

 

In any event, the matter is closed. If you want to discuss it further, my PM box is at your disposal.