RE: Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.
June 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm
(This post was last modified: June 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
-Good ole life and liberty. Those two are present in some systems, though not all, and we consistently violate both of them when the legal structure built around our morality has been violated.
Would it be fair to say that if a person did not adhere to this objective morality that they no longer deserved consideration as a moral agent? What then? Not really a problem for objective morality, obviously, I'm just interested.
-Like I said, I'll give you the alive bit, hows about free to act? Deja-vu time.
-You're screwing with me right? I didn't realize that we were actually discussing facts yet, we hadn't gotten past your definitions, caveats, and propositions.
-But does the concept as we are now describing or refining it match observations of the object we are attempting to describe with it? There are only so many ways I can word this.
-You say that we do, but I think the jury is still out on that one Genk. That's not the striongest criticism inm any case, we could act in accordance to any given moral principle completely by accident (or even in ignorance of that principle). Your definition for objective morality and moral agents seems to me to imply not only the rules of the game but the process one must use to arrive at conclusions that are in accordance with the rules of the game. Hard, scary determinism rears it's ugly head here.
-I wouldn't doubt that we seem to perceive our actions as rational, reasoned, or considered, and I wouldn't doubt that we perceive ourselves as capable of looking back upon our actions or spit-balling our potential future actions, but you have to escape determinism Genk. You have to show that we aren't just rationalizing things after the fact. You said that this morality would be based in demonstrable facts and observations, not "hey, don't you agree with me?" or "hey, we seem to think this is the case, for the most part, so lets run with it". Maybe I'm not making myself clear here, I'm very, very friendly towards the idea, but I'd like to see some of those things you said this morality would or could be.
-Two distinct statements, yes, but very much related to the morality in question, and our ability to be moral agents. Look at all of the possibilities you've just offered. I'm assuming that your position is B, now explain to me why b is the case, and not a, c, or d.
-I hereby define blueberry waffles as a small firearm designed to be held in one hand. Here's the trouble, blueberry waffles already carries connotations, other definitions have been offered, why should you choose mine over theirs (and is it possible that when i say "blueberry waffles" I'm actually referring to something else entirely? You say morality is a guide, but someone in the field of evolutionary biology , specifically someone who studies the possible reasons for our behavioral tendencies with regards to the same might tell you that morality is the expression of behaviors which have led to survival advantages over other populations ( I only choose this because we see it so often on these boards, there are countless ideas as to what morality is, in addition to their being countless ideas as to what is moral or immoral). You could still say that morality -should be- a guide, even if it currently isn't, but wouldn't that kind of a distinction be useful? Im not asking you to prove to me that bachelors are unmarried, because that is an issue that rests on definition alone. I'm asking you to prove to me that your definition of -morality as a guide- is more accurate than any other definition of morality, because the definition of morality (what it is and isn't) isn't so decided as you seem to be insisting (as far as I'm aware, obviously).
Bachelors are unmarried by definition.
Morality is a guide by your insistence.
Would it be fair to say that if a person did not adhere to this objective morality that they no longer deserved consideration as a moral agent? What then? Not really a problem for objective morality, obviously, I'm just interested.
-Like I said, I'll give you the alive bit, hows about free to act? Deja-vu time.
-You're screwing with me right? I didn't realize that we were actually discussing facts yet, we hadn't gotten past your definitions, caveats, and propositions.
-But does the concept as we are now describing or refining it match observations of the object we are attempting to describe with it? There are only so many ways I can word this.
-You say that we do, but I think the jury is still out on that one Genk. That's not the striongest criticism inm any case, we could act in accordance to any given moral principle completely by accident (or even in ignorance of that principle). Your definition for objective morality and moral agents seems to me to imply not only the rules of the game but the process one must use to arrive at conclusions that are in accordance with the rules of the game. Hard, scary determinism rears it's ugly head here.
-I wouldn't doubt that we seem to perceive our actions as rational, reasoned, or considered, and I wouldn't doubt that we perceive ourselves as capable of looking back upon our actions or spit-balling our potential future actions, but you have to escape determinism Genk. You have to show that we aren't just rationalizing things after the fact. You said that this morality would be based in demonstrable facts and observations, not "hey, don't you agree with me?" or "hey, we seem to think this is the case, for the most part, so lets run with it". Maybe I'm not making myself clear here, I'm very, very friendly towards the idea, but I'd like to see some of those things you said this morality would or could be.
-Two distinct statements, yes, but very much related to the morality in question, and our ability to be moral agents. Look at all of the possibilities you've just offered. I'm assuming that your position is B, now explain to me why b is the case, and not a, c, or d.
-I hereby define blueberry waffles as a small firearm designed to be held in one hand. Here's the trouble, blueberry waffles already carries connotations, other definitions have been offered, why should you choose mine over theirs (and is it possible that when i say "blueberry waffles" I'm actually referring to something else entirely? You say morality is a guide, but someone in the field of evolutionary biology , specifically someone who studies the possible reasons for our behavioral tendencies with regards to the same might tell you that morality is the expression of behaviors which have led to survival advantages over other populations ( I only choose this because we see it so often on these boards, there are countless ideas as to what morality is, in addition to their being countless ideas as to what is moral or immoral). You could still say that morality -should be- a guide, even if it currently isn't, but wouldn't that kind of a distinction be useful? Im not asking you to prove to me that bachelors are unmarried, because that is an issue that rests on definition alone. I'm asking you to prove to me that your definition of -morality as a guide- is more accurate than any other definition of morality, because the definition of morality (what it is and isn't) isn't so decided as you seem to be insisting (as far as I'm aware, obviously).
Bachelors are unmarried by definition.
Morality is a guide by your insistence.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
