(August 19, 2013 at 8:35 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So?

Do you really think a transparent appeal to consequence is going to sway anyone? You think that argument is novel? It is not.

No. It is not my intention to sway or convert or convince or prove anything to anyone.

I am simply stating very plainly that if each individual determines what is meaningful and what is good, and each individual dies and is no more, then certain conclusions are inevitable as a result of these facts.

However, you entirely miss the actual source of morality and ethics. You have created a false dichotomy between getting absolute morality from outside versus creating for oneself. I reject your dichotomy.

Morals are only meaningful in the interaction of people. They are, in fact, socially constructed - they are the result of negotiation and agreement among people. So no, we don't have six billion people able to create their own morals, we have a considerably smaller number of societies doing so.

And these are the result of an evolution of ideas. Ideas are brought forth and tested by trying them; some survive, some don't.

(August 20, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 8:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: No. It is not my intention to sway or convert or convince or prove anything to anyone.

I am simply stating very plainly that if each individual determines what is meaningful and what is good, and each individual dies and is no more, then certain conclusions are inevitable as a result of these facts.

However, you entirely miss the actual source of morality and ethics. You have created a false dichotomy between getting absolute morality from outside versus creating for oneself. I reject your dichotomy.

Morals are only meaningful in the interaction of people. They are, in fact, socially constructed - they are the result of negotiation and agreement among people. So no, we don't have six billion people able to create their own morals, we have a considerably smaller number of societies doing so.

And these are the result of an evolution of ideas. Ideas are brought forth and tested by trying them; some survive, some don't.

Is this not cultural relativism?

(August 20, 2013 at 6:09 pm)discipulus Wrote: So you are telling me you believe in an afterlife where your virtuous conduct in the present world is rewarded and an afterlife where the men who break the objective moral laws you espouse are punished?

No.

discipulus Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 8:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: No. It is not my intention to sway or convert or convince or prove anything to anyone.

I am simply stating very plainly that if each individual determines what is meaningful and what is good, and each individual dies and is no more, then certain conclusions are inevitable as a result of these facts.

However, you entirely miss the actual source of morality and ethics. You have created a false dichotomy between getting absolute morality from outside versus creating for oneself. I reject your dichotomy.

Morals are only meaningful in the interaction of people. They are, in fact, socially constructed - they are the result of negotiation and agreement among people. So no, we don't have six billion people able to create their own morals, we have a considerably smaller number of societies doing so.

And these are the result of an evolution of ideas. Ideas are brought forth and tested by trying them; some survive, some don't.

Is this not cultural relativism?

No, it's memetic evolution. And convergent evolution is evident in the large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

And these convergent ideas may or may not be objective morality.

(August 20, 2013 at 10:13 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 6:09 pm)discipulus Wrote: So you are telling me you believe in an afterlife where your virtuous conduct in the present world is rewarded and an afterlife where the men who break the objective moral laws you espouse are punished?

No.

Interesting....

So you are telling me that no matter how health conscious you are, the health nut who exercises seven days a week and the lazy cheese puff eating obese gluttonous man will both die....

The health nut may live longer than the glutton, and the glutton may live longer than the health nut...

But they both die and are not judged for how they have treated their bodies and how they have treated others...

Is this what you are telling me?

---

(August 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Chas Wrote: No, it's memetic evolution. And convergent evolution is evident in the large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

And these convergent ideas may or may not be objective morality.

Interesting....in fact...you agree with Lewis then on your observation regarding the fact that there is large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

You then stop and say this is not cultural relativism.

But common consensus morality is simply might makes right, then you are left with cultural relativism. There is no escape.

For you must indeed be aware...that societies are simply collections of individuals at base. Many societies may agree as a whole that it is better to outlaw abortion and homosexuality.

You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

The Allies did this to the Axis powers in WW2.

That was your big reveal?

(August 21, 2013 at 6:43 am)discipulus Wrote: You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

Or they can destroy their cities, kill all of the livestock, destroy all of their valuables, and kill everyone except the virgin girls, who they take as wives.

The Israelites claim to have done this to several nations in the distant past.

(August 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Chas Wrote:

discipulus Wrote: Is this not cultural relativism?

No, it's memetic evolution. And convergent evolution is evident in the large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

And these convergent ideas may or may not be objective morality.

The word objective morality seems pretty shady. Show me an example of any objective morality and I can probably show you a group who contradicts that.

Morality is messy ugly business usually being decided and enforced by the small few in power in any given time or place. Often in the worlds history it was the group with the most swords/guns/ect...

While I can decide locally and internally what moral code I will live by I surely do not dictate that to others even if I try. It takes the power of culture and the group to really shape morality and we undoubtedly do not live at least sociologically in the US like our puritanical ancestors did a while back. I personally have not been to a witch burning or tossing someone in a bag with a wild animal and into a river...

Morality is ugly messy business. Ethically I am opposed to morality.

(August 21, 2013 at 6:43 am)discipulus Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 10:13 pm)genkaus Wrote: No.

Interesting....

So you are telling me that no matter how health conscious you are, the health nut who exercises seven days a week and the lazy cheese puff eating obese gluttonous man will both die....

The health nut may live longer than the glutton, and the glutton may live longer than the health nut...

But they both die and are not judged for how they have treated their bodies and how they have treated others...

Is this what you are telling me?

Why do you keep wanting to insert a post-mortem judge of people's lives?

Whoever is left standing will judge whoever they want with whatever guiding compass they possess...
But that's not what you want to insert. You want that person, who's dead, to be judged by some higher power, and be punished or rewarded according to the way he/she lived.
Why?
Isn't dying enough of a punishment?

(August 21, 2013 at 6:43 am)discipulus Wrote: Interesting....in fact...you agree with Lewis then on your observation regarding the fact that there is large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

You then stop and say this is not cultural relativism.

But common consensus morality is simply might makes right, then you are left with cultural relativism. There is no escape.

Actually, yes there is, and it's this: we live in a physical universe that has consistent physical laws, and can thus state a certain set of objective truths about our experiences within it as living beings. Life is preferable to death, pleasure is preferable to pain, health to sickness, and so on and so forth. We are alive, and thus we know the positive things that are conducive to a better life, and the negative things that aren't. Combined with this is an evolved sense of moral judgment sculpted by our need to survive by banding into groups. Our current moral systems are really just advanced versions of the things that hunter gatherer tribes would have liked.

So, while some of the finer details of morality are subjective, there are a number of central tenets that must be obeyed for a society to function; murder must be illegal, because death is bad and life is good. Ditto for theft and rape and all the other higher order crimes, because those are objectively bad, in that allowing them to run rampant would cause the group to destabilize into adversarial feudal tribes. And so we band together, under mutual agreement that we wouldn't like to be murdered or robbed or what have you, and ensure that our laws are enforced.

Quote:For you must indeed be aware...that societies are simply collections of individuals at base. Many societies may agree as a whole that it is better to outlaw abortion and homosexuality.

Right, and these things are objective too, in that we can foresee the consequences of consistently applying those general principles: while abortion and homosexuality are "soft" issues because the incorrect method of dealing with them won't outright fracture society, we can still think of them in objective terms, and come to the conclusion that outlawing them is wrong. For example, outlawing abortion, if taken to its logical conclusion, violates bodily autonomy in a way we would never allow in other cases where life and death is not in the balance. The same is true for the outlawing of homosexuality, though there are additional rights and privacy violations involved there too.

The only way we as a group can outlaw those things without inviting broad consequences is to selectively, that is to say hypocritically enforce them on minority groups, which is itself a violation of our highly held principle of equality.

Quote:You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

The Allies did this to the Axis powers in WW2.

Of course, one might argue that the Allies were correcting an objective moral evil, like imprisoning a murderer to dissuade other murderers, just on a larger scale...