Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 17, 2013 at 8:27 am (This post was last modified: April 17, 2013 at 8:32 am by genkaus.)
(April 1, 2013 at 11:09 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:
I walked inside a store to buy a candy bar. My eyes begin to dart about as I canvas the shelf and weigh my options. I do not like peanuts because i've never found them to compliment anything i've eaten before, not that I have personal feelings of discontent toward the little nuts, it's just that I prefer them not to be on my candy bar. Caramel is however something that I feel adds to the treat's appeal to me and so it is that I have began to exercise one of my abilities to discern Good and Bad. Clearly this has nothing to do with morals, I am just illustrating that I have choices and the categories of Good and Bad have different applications to which they are useful, no?
Good and Bad as they apply to preference are not something hereditary, unless it's an alergy i've acquired genetically, but a filter that is a direct result of my personal experience.
If when I was was younger, peanuts were an everyday staple in my childhood diet, I may be more likely to prefer them in my candy bar. This is not a wild theory, it would be a perfectly acceptable explanation for one's preference to peanuts. This is just a small example of bias, or that which is percieved by an individual to be "better or worse" for their own personal reasons. Simply a matter of opinion.
Lets take a step in a different direction. I sit down in a movie theatre and forget to get popcorn. So, I get up and leave my jacket in the seat before I head to the concession stand. Why is it that I expect to find my seat unoccupied by anything other than my jacket when I return with my popcorn? Suppose I come back to find someone sitting in my seat and my jacket on the floor. Did the person in the seat not understand the rules? So, of course I explain to him that what he did wasn't right. I told him he was in my seat and my jacket was there to mark that the seat was occupied. He told me that this rule didn't apply because it was opening night and the theatre was crowded. Where are these rules written? Why was this understood by him and not by me?
Why did I felt as though i'd been wronged in some way? Clearly the situation dictated that certain behavior was not to be expected due to the extenuating circumstances to which I was not aware.
Was the person now occupying my seat more experienced in these types of scenarios, were his rules different?
Did a lack of experience on my part lead me to assume a certain behavior was standard regardless of how many people wanted seats? To me, the fact that I was there first and left my jacket made that particular seat unavailable. For anyone to put my jacket on the floor and sit there anyway was wrong to me.
This person saw things differently, and to them, I was wrong to assume that such a thing was acceptable, given the turn out of people that were trying to find seats. Afterall, it was opening night! If the seat was so important to me, why did I leave to get popcorn?
Why does this matter?
Is this an example of morality? Sure! It is certainly not as serious as a question of when it is okay to kill someone. But, everyone has a different idea of when such a thing should be placed in the category of murder.
Murder is a defined term. Once a death has been classified as murder the idea that it is not a crime has been dismissed. It has now been agreed by a group of people to be definitively wrong.
Lets compare this to the movie theatre incident.
If both parties were able to explain their side of the story, would everyone agree on which person was right?
It would be silly to assume yes.
The movie theatre is a perfect example of 2 people with different ideas of what acceptable behavior is. You could find countless other opinions of what other avenues could be explored to resolve the issue or different opinions from other people on what sort of reaction is warranted should such a thing ever happen to them.
Not everybody percieves things the same way. This illustrates relative morality. The way we percieve any situation is determined by the impression left on us by past events and the way those events affected us individually. Every experience we have in life leaves behind an impression, Negative or Positive. Those impressions are used to handle furture experiences and interactions and the choices we make in them.
Peanuts or no peanuts, seat saving or fend for yourself, murder or self defense. Fight or flight.
Its the very root of our instinct to make judgements for what will be most beneficial.
The very fact that something as simple as a trip to the movies can have so many different opinions shows that there is no objective take on an incident, that is to say, no absolute right decision.
We as a society have rules that are to be followed and each of those rules has very specific expectaions of how they are to be adhered.
We put rules in place that protect the well-being ourselves and our families, and if such things are to be effective, they should be enforced. The very reason we hold trials is because the line of interpretation will always be relative to the individuals in question and the situation at hand.
As we change, so do our rules. As our rules change our expectaions of compliance change, as this changes, the perception of "right and wrong" is directly affected and expectedly changed. This is historically illustrated (see Slavery, Holocaust, human sacrafice, crusades, woman rights, rape, voting rights, gay rights, etc.).
As long as no 2 people (or 2 groups of people which is a whole other conversation) share the same life experiences there can be no 2 people that agree on what is Good or Bad or what is Right and Wrong.
Our ability to make the call on such a thing is molded by our experiences and it will be those experiences that set the standard for tomorrow.
Absolute morality is a nice thought, but the rules of logic tell us that if something is absolute, then it must BE TRUE in itself regardless of perception and cannot be contingent upon anything else.
The words "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad" are products of a thinking mind disserning that which benefits the mind and/or the vessel of its thoughts.
In the absence of a thinking mind or the vessel, such things are no longer relevant in the absolute sense. However, as long as the mind and body exist, it is apparently clear that such things are valuable and relavent inspite of their impossibility to be viewed as "objective" on a cosmic absolute scale.
The woman that has her child shot in a school by a complete stranger is affected by the incident and so it is relevant to her that such a thing does not happen to her other children.
The idea of absolute morality is that such a thing is wrong apart from the any individuals opinion of it. The question I have for them is, why would it matter? What reason would there be to place a label on such an incident in the absence of a thinking mind? It doesn't make the incident any less tragic at the time of occurence nor does it erase the effects it has on those who remember it. But long after the universe is gone, why would it be necessary to think it HAS to matter in order to know that we are capable of understanding that it is not acceptable NOW? There is no survival necessity for such a thing or any logical explanation of any kind.
There is no reason to say-Either something is good or bad on a cosmic level, or it doesn't matter!-This is a waste of thought. Morality is not absolute, it is relative to our existance and experience. Such a thing on an absolute level is an absurd concept that has no logical grounding. If we want to live and be happy, we must have a standard to be upheld by those that surround us and enforced by all of us. It's a social contract that is the product of an intelligent mind recognizing that-that which is good for one is good for the hurd. The crucial survival value of such considerations drives us to uphold the standard. It is this instinct we've developed that we rely on. Our experiences mold the perception and our perception is the scale. As experiences change, so does the perception, as perception changes, so does the scale. That which is determined by the scale as right or wrong now may show different results later (see history again).
Certain things may not change, but in the absence of minds, all value and relavence is absent as well. This is not a insensitive hedonistic interpretation (AH! I'm defending my morals!).
But we are here together. We seek happy lives for ourselves and for the future of our children. If such a thing is to be obtained it will be by the methods we've developed through the evolution of our minds. There is no need to assign value for these things on a cosmic scale. Such a value could only be asserted by the proof of a cosmic mind. The value cannot be assumed and then used as an argument for the cosmic mind that would give it relevance. It is reasoning in a circle.
If someone says that after the universe is gone it doesn't matter that their wife was murdered, they are by no means saying that if there wife was murdered it wouldn't matter to them now! Lol, its having the ability to realistically approach the subject and take your current emotions out of it. Afterall, what we are speculating here IS a state that lacks emotions! Why should any of it matter after we are not here to consider it?!! It doesn't.
While you seem to have gotten the basic right, you ignore certain aspects of morality that make it not as subjective and arbitrary as choosing a candy bar or movie theater etiquette. Even if morality does require conscious consideration - thus making it non-absolute and irrelevant in a cosmic sense - that still doesn't render it subjective or at the whim of an individual's or group's opinions.
Certain things you say here show me that you are not wholly unaware of the rational aspect required for morality. For example, you recognize that morality is required to lead a long and happy life. At the very least, you seem to say that it addresses the the question of survival. These questions are dependent on a person's opinions only beyond a certain point. At the very least, what you need to survive and to be happy can be determined objectively and are not simply up to that person's opinions. Therefore, even if the society's morality is based on a social contract, if it goes against the rational requirements for one's survival and happiness, it would be wrong.
(April 1, 2013 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Texas Sailor: The very fact that something as simple as a trip to the movies can have so many different opinions shows that there is no objective take on an incident, that is to say, no absolute right decision.
Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act. If someone in a situation had limited knowledge, and a perception, but acted according to good will, of what he perceives honestly and has the moral spirit behind the action, I would say it's objectively moral, even his action was misguided (ie. he reasoned wrong).
I would say regardless of anyone's opinion, the person in situation x with perception y, was right to act upon with z. To me total relativism means, even if a person is in situation x with perception 7, there is no right or wrong to act upon z.
So for subjectivity to have some validity, there still needs to be an objective regardless of anyone's opinion thing.
However, I would say the problem with objective morality is that it's defined in a impossible way. Morality needs perception, so it's not wrong regardless of everyone in opinion. I would say we have to make "the possible perfection vision" of a human or sentient life form or creator.
Whether it exists or not, morality would be in tune with that possible being's perception.
The human that is right with everything he sees and judges, in every situation, although most likely imaginary, it cannot be that morality contradicts his opinion to be objective. So I feel objective morality has to be redefined.
What ultimately boils down to the need of God, is the very "spirit" of "goodness". I mean spirit metaphorically, and not talking about supernatural soul. I mean the force behind the intention, which has various degrees.
Once we can agree the spirit has a basis, and we can agree on "good will" in general towards others, a lot of morals can be derived from reason and logic, and they would be correct.
In this case, you are putting the cart before the horse. How would you "imagine" this perfect possible being when the very idea of its perfection requires a moral code for it to be perfect by? How do you determine "good" will or intention without a particular morality to judge it as good?
(April 1, 2013 at 11:31 am)Drich Wrote: You do understand that Jesus defines our 'morality' as self righteousness right?
You do understand that your Jesus's self righteousness, i.e. his morality, is as irrelevant to the discussion as your own, right?
