(May 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(May 7, 2015 at 10:33 am)bennyboy Wrote: And he wasn't wrong.

He was wrong! Per me!   But in all seriousness, why would anyone resist laughing me out of the room if I said the following statement?
"As God of my own existence, I hereby decree myself, and only myself, qualified to decide what is true and false." Or, instead of true and false, "rational and irrational." Or, "scientific and unscientific." Just as we believe there are critics of art who have more experience in determining what is good art versus bad art, and experts in the sciences who are better at interpreting data (which we also determine in large part by the consensus of expertise), and so on and so forth, why wouldn't we also believe there are moral philosophers who have also spent more time analyzing different states of the mind and situations whereby people experienced greater fulfillment out of life so as to trust their judgment (supported by facts and reasons, of course) about ethics in the same way that we rely on other experts?

Okay, about Manson.  He was right in that he had the capability of establishing a moral system for himself (or more amoral, it seems).  He was even persuasive enough to convince a few people to accept him as god of THEIR worlds, as well.  And this is not that different than how Nazi morality allowed the branding of gypseys as baby-eaters, or Jews as shifty, subhuman non-humans.

Whether there are others who have a better grip on morality is irrelevant if we accept that morality is subjective.  I'm free to arbitrarily establish whatever ideas I like about good and evil.  HOWEVER, and this is the big caveat, so is everyone else.  Being god of my own existence won't be much use to me if I have a bullet hole through my head, or if I'm trapped in prison.

(May 7, 2015 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, about Manson.  He was right in that he had the capability of establishing a moral system for himself (or more amoral, it seems).  He was even persuasive enough to convince a few people to accept him as god of THEIR worlds, as well.  And this is not that different than how Nazi morality allowed the branding of gypseys as baby-eaters, or Jews as shifty, subhuman non-humans.

Whether there are others who have a better grip on morality is irrelevant if we accept that morality is subjective.  I'm free to arbitrarily establish whatever ideas I like about good and evil.  HOWEVER, and this is the big caveat, so is everyone else.  Being god of my own existence won't be much use to me if I have a bullet hole through my head, or if I'm trapped in prison.

I don't accept that morality is subjective, and that good and evil are arbitrary distinctions made on the whims of each individual's preferred object of gratification. I think there are things that actually are good and evil, regardless if everyone wakes up tomorrow and decides otherwise.

(May 7, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(May 7, 2015 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, about Manson.  He was right in that he had the capability of establishing a moral system for himself (or more amoral, it seems).  He was even persuasive enough to convince a few people to accept him as god of THEIR worlds, as well.  And this is not that different than how Nazi morality allowed the branding of gypseys as baby-eaters, or Jews as shifty, subhuman non-humans.

Whether there are others who have a better grip on morality is irrelevant if we accept that morality is subjective.  I'm free to arbitrarily establish whatever ideas I like about good and evil.  HOWEVER, and this is the big caveat, so is everyone else.  Being god of my own existence won't be much use to me if I have a bullet hole through my head, or if I'm trapped in prison.

I don't accept that morality is subjective, and that good and evil are arbitrary distinctions made on the whims of each individual's preferred object of gratification. I think there are things that actually are good and evil, regardless if everyone wakes up tomorrow and decides otherwise.

Really?  Are they at least good and evil in context?  Someone gave the example of antibiotics.  A course of antibiotics will kill more organisms (like trillions I guess) than it will save.  So are antibiotics good or evil?

By what standard, goal or principle would good and evil be decided, if not at the whim of a subjective agent?

So, is that electron a particle or a wave? Is ethics subjective or objective? I think it has both aspects.

(May 8, 2015 at 2:34 am)Nestor Wrote: The issue to me is whether "the Good" is something that really exists as a part of this experience that we, as rational animals, understand to be the world…is it possible that … on account of some feature that forms the basis of their nature, can [embodied  beings] intrinsically contain more of this vague notion of goodness than others? Is not the very opportunity of a physical body which possesses the power to contemplate whether something that it calls "the Good" exists delineate a quality of being that is, on account of being part of that body, actually good in some sense?

In short, yes. You have probably noticed in your readings of ancient philosophy, that ‘The Good’ didn’t have the same connotations that it does today. Modern people think about moral principles that if followed make a person virtuous. I think the ancients, started with the idea of virtue and sought to identify conduct required to attain it.

With that idea in mind, I believe the ancient thinkers concerned themselves with the attributes of an exemplary man. In the same way one could think of better or worse examples of triangles, men conform to a greater or lesser degree with the Rational Animal.

(May 8, 2015 at 2:34 am)Nestor Wrote: Are there things that are more worth preserving in a definite state than others because they possess this quality we identify as goodness? It’s difficult to translate this idea into terms that don’t seem too vague or contrived and yet in experience it seems like an obvious aspect of the world, and moreover, one that transcends feeling and is a necessary fact in that it informs virtually every decision beings with some notion of goodness make.

Again I would say, yes. If you start with Aristotle, saying that people do what they think will make them happy. That raises the question of what ideal standard best informs that decision? Everyone to a greater or lesser extent recognizes the 'is' of specific factual traits in nature. From these traits, they choose to either cultivate those traits in themselves as virtues or avoid doing so.

An objective moral standard would be a universally applicable something, like the Form of Man, to which anyone could point as a guide for an ethical life and allows for rational discussion about how to apply it. One could still reject it, but idealy, if the standard were truly objective, one could not supply a good reason not to follow it. An objective standard like this would function like a ruler. You can try to draw a straight line by yourself or you can use the ruler. Your choice. No one is constrained by any external power (like God) to go either one way or the other.

I side step the is-ought problem by saying that people make choices unconstrained by any 'ought' as to whether they want to go down the path of life or down the path of nihilism. 'Should' is not an obligation but recognizing the moral standard and incorporating it into one's life.

(May 8, 2015 at 11:49 am)Pyrrho Wrote: I don't think there is anything that is discovered by reason out in the world, that can serve as the foundation of ethics, or that is "the Good," like some Platonic Form.

Whenever someone brings up the topic of Forms, everyone jumps to the conclusion that all speculation about Forms ended with Plato. He position is called Realism. The opposite is Nominalism / Conceptualism (which most on AF members advocate). These two positions are not the only options. Aristotle and Aquinas developed Moderate Realism. Moderate Realism adequately supports a moral philosophy based on personal virtue.

(May 8, 2015 at 11:49 am)Pyrrho Wrote: The feelings or sentiments which form the basis of this are the foundation of ethics.  Ethical behavior has been observed in nonhuman animals, which further supports the idea that morals are not a matter of reasoning, but of feeling.

This gets back to points made in earlier posts by Hats. Post-Enlightenment culture privileges linear left-brain reasoning and discounts right-brain intuition and creativity. Once someone has cultivated virtuous habits then they can act on them based on instinct, but because they took great care earlier to act according to best reason (not always their own) then the fact that they are based on feelings does not make them any less rational.

(May 8, 2015 at 11:49 am)Pyrrho Wrote: When the first principles are at issue, any assumption of them is simply begging the question.  If that is not enough to convince you to rethink things, consider this:  If you assume some set of "first principles" and build your ethical system on that, upon what basis will you be able to select your system over another system, built on a different set of "first principles" that someone else prefers?

That simply is not the case. Rational thought and the acquisition of knowledge cannot happen without first principles / foundational beliefs. Axioms are necessarily true because their opposites are self-refuting. As such they can serve as foundational principles. For example, something cannot be both A and not-A.

I might not be following, but let that not stop me from adding a comment.

Things can be objectively good, but the context in which things are judged good cannot. Something is good which achieves or contributes to a good goal; and that good goal is judged to be a good goal because it is necessary for a greater, also good, goal. Things obviously required for life might be considered objectively good, since the desire to live is a goal applied to mankind before it even was mankind-- i.e. the nature of evolution itself-- to allow persistent patterns to persist-- may be called an objective morality.

However, even with this, you cannot transcend that context: the context in which humanity, life, and the process of evolution on Earth matter. You cannot really say that existence matters-- of individual entities or even of the universe.

I suspect there is a religious vestige in the idea that ANYTHING is objectively good. There is the assumption that since the universe (maybe deterministically) tended to arrive at the existence of life, then it was an objective process that led to the existence of subjective perspectives, and that ultimately, all morality is therefore object in some sense. However, is it good for the universe to exist rather than not to exist? Yes, we are tempted to answer-- because this was necessary for the existence of life, which we've already established to be good.

But there's a vicious circle here, isn't there?