Which morals could be considered universal and applicable? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13813089
You're a half baked Twain knockoff Chaos and I prefer you over most. =P

[youtube]8rrOdcnFbAY[/youtube]

sus wrote:Overall and in particular, immorality is that which diminishes, morality is that which enhances.


cc wrote:I disagree - it is for the beholder to decide.


sus wrote:...There is no practically discerned difference between what feels good and what is good even if recognition of that feeling is displaced in time and space. Is that too esoteric?


it is for the beholder to live.
#13813100
Suska wrote:...There is no practically discerned difference between what feels good and what is good even if recognition of that feeling is displaced in time and space. Is that too esoteric?


No, my position is esoteric - yours is typical.

It's empathy Suska, something Clemens (an Aspie as well) and I do not possess. Let me give you an example:

Mark Twain wrote:
Of the demonstrably wise there are but two: those who commit suicide, and those who keep their reasoning faculties atrophied with drink.


You will find this and my reply here:

CounterChaos wrote:When he speaks of wise, he speaks of the elimination of the weak from the earth and the perpetuation of the strongest of our species.............


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=134963&start=20

With empathy a middle ground can be found, a social moral code can be felt. Without empathy, there is only black and white - truth and lie - right and wrong. What makes that desirable though? To strip emotions from evaluation - benefits the evaluation by removing a natural bias.

Suska wrote:...There is no practically discerned difference between what feels good and what is good even if recognition of that feeling is displaced in time and space.


I disagree totally with this statement. Tell that to the morbidly obese................. ;)
#13813122
Tell that to the morbidly obese...

But this is very oblique. What do you mean to say here? That too much of a good thing is something or other? This is why the clarification at the end is necessary.

There's no difference between what feels good and what is good even if recognition of that feeling is displaced in time and space.

If food is good in moderation, it then becomes not so good in over-indulgence. This is what makes it a moral question, one feels ashamed that one's own will (or lack) produces one's own suffering.

The hobo from Popeye, Wimpy used to sing a song "I'd gladly sell you tuesday for a hamburger today"

The indulgence is a trading of tomorrow, a displacement of the cost in time. One enjoys the burger for a bit, then get's indigestion, or get's obese. What you get is a mixed affair, it tastes good but there's a limit. It's possible someone doesn't mind being obese, but if they do mind then either they need to get a grip on their appetite, suffer, or get used to it. The main trouble people have is they can occult anything. I recently turned 40. I didn't expect to grow old. It's quite shocking. Someone should put a stop to this immediately. And of course on the other hand, I've heard that's what tends to happen.
#13813139
40?...You're still wet behind the ears......... :D

displaced in time and space....You noticed I left that out... :D It made no sense to me before.

The indulgence is a trading of tomorrow, a displacement of the cost in time. One enjoys the burger for a bit, then get's indigestion, or get's obese. What you get is a mixed affair, it tastes good but there's a limit. It's possible someone doesn't mind being obese, but if they do mind then either they need to get a grip on their appetite, suffer, or get used to it. The main trouble people have is they can occult anything. I recently turned 40. I didn't expect to grow old. It's quite shocking. Someone should put a stop to this immediately. And of course on the other hand, I've heard that's what tends to happen.


I've heard that's what tends to happen. Earlier in this topic I mentioned social manipulation and its effect on morality. (Oh, btw - it's "I'll gladly pay you later for a hamburger today")... :D This is the situation we have with the morbidly obese that I mentioned.

The indulgence is a natural thing - born of our evolutionary past as a means to store energy when times were lean. Morbid obesity was unheard of in our not so distant past - and was even considered a desirable thing when it occurred - especially in women. Males in Africa today pride themselves on how fat their woman is. In modern industrial society though - the land of the Barbie Doll - morality is different.

True, False, or no truth-value?<-------I love that VP thanks..... :D

Again, I say no truth value - yet, we see a stigmatized morality concerning this. We also see physical damage in many cases as a result (Western World). I say no truth value because I know "why" the human species indulges biologically - I also see the "results" of this being irrational behavior as it plays no natural world purpose in modern industrial society; whereas, in Africa it is rational and it does. This irrational behavior then plays a significant role in forming moral values in the West.
#13813147
The moral isn't

eat or not

it's

good or not

to eat is of no value by itself, likewise good has no existence by itself.

Besides you're comparing a health problem with a sexual preference and calling these morals, which they aren't necessarily.
#13813161
Suska wrote:The moral isn't

eat or not

it's

good or not

to eat is of no value by itself, likewise good has no existence by itself.

Besides you're comparing a health problem with a sexual preference and calling these morals, which they aren't necessarily.


Um, I think that is what I said.

"This irrational behavior then plays a significant role in forming moral values in the West." The health problem is the "result" of irrational behavior. The irrational behavior then becomes the underlining factor in the creation of a new moral value.

good or not? I didn't choose one or the other - you the empathetic one assumed I did - or didn't.......... :D
#13813281
I ASKED you if that's what you meant so don't be like that.

Social stigma isn't the same thing as morality. I don't think there's a hard line to be drawn but certainly if you're going to stick with matters of social fashion it's going to look arbitrary. As I've explained at least twice. Morality has a universal basis. I never claimed it has universal expression. The farther you get from the basis the less it has anything to do with morality.

You seem pretty stuck on the idea of fatness having a moral dimension. It's not a strong or clear one until you realize that places like McDonalds are basically predators using past scarcity as a lure. Sugar and fat are rare in the wild. It's a kind of drug really.
#13813283
Tainari wrote:But, the ones who exterminated them were not thinking with that kind of moral compass. The Nazis did not see it as wrong, because they were into nationalism, and the fear mentality that is the essence of fascism.


This is irrelevant. Something can be morally wrong, consistent with many, most if not all people believing it is morally right. The moral properties of an action are independent from peoples' beliefs (this, in fact, is something our intuition tells us).


CC wrote:In 1258, the Mongols attacked the city of Baghdad, and then killed children, women, detained and disabled people (Mongols made no distinction between those who stood against them and those who surrendered themselves to them, both were murdered). 80,000 residents in a period of 40 days. (or so history writes)

True, False, or no truth-value?

We make our own moral truth - we design our own moral lies. We do this knowingly and unknowingly - all to better prepare ourselves, for when we become rats in a box. A socially defensive, survival mechanism. Empathy - prevents you from seeing this VP, just as much as it leads humanity dynamically towards social structures.


The first claim (a historical claim) does have a truth-value; however, it is possible that we do not know (or even in principle cannot know) the truth-value of the claim. I take the truths of historical claim to be on par with the truths of scientific claims (we stipulate that they are true or false by inductive probability, reasoning to the best explanation, etc. We do, however, hold that they have independent truth-values).

You still have not answered my question. Your position holds that the moral claim I mentioned has not truth-value and, if you submit this, then I say that you are simply irrational.
#13813315
truth-value

Epistemological moral skepticism seems to be a perfectly reasonable position to take,

ie. True or false, and moral beliefs can never be known to be true, they still might be justified in some way that is independent of truth.

Why isn't it?
#13813337
Suska wrote:Social stigma isn't the same thing as morality......You seem pretty stuck on the idea of fatness having a moral dimension.


I'm not claiming that it is, just that social stigma can lead to social morality. Just using fat as an example - first thing that came to my head. My whole point was to show that because of an irrational behavior in the chaos of modern industrial society; manner, character and proper behavior (morality) is placed on these individuals. Whereas; you don't see this "same" stigmata in all of the world. Just demonstrating an irrational behavior that leads to a social morality.


VP wrote:The first claim (a historical claim) does have a truth-value; however, it is possible that we do not know (or even in principle cannot know) the truth-value of the claim. I take the truths of historical claim to be on par with the truths of scientific claims (we stipulate that they are true or false by inductive probability, reasoning to the best explanation, etc. We do, however, hold that they have independent truth-values).

:eek: We need to talk VP - we need to talk a lot... :D If you truly believe what I put into italics - that is scary to me. Now, please don't start rattling off about some dead philosophers ideology or something you read in a book. Let's start out with a quick lesson in Barbarian Philosophy - new curriculum "VP"s Salvation"... :D Homework to study: Lesson 1 - The victor gets to write the history books.

I'll grade your paper tomorrow............. :D

You still have not answered my question. Your position holds that the moral claim I mentioned has not truth-value and, if you submit this, then I say that you are simply irrational.


CounterChaos wrote:The only truth to be found - is in the irrational.


I did answer it VP and it looks to me like Ingliz has the same mindset as well. I find that the irrational for the sentient being - is the path to truth. Here's the kicker though - the truth can be - irrational.

CounterChaos wrote:We make our own moral truth - we design our own moral lies. We do this knowingly and unknowingly - all to better prepare ourselves, for when we become rats in a box. A socially defensive, survival mechanism. Empathy - prevents you from seeing this VP, just as much as it leads humanity dynamically towards social structures.


I recommend the word dynamic a second time to you my friend............. :)

In a nutshell - just as much as it (empathy), leads humanity dynamically towards social structures. ---- dynamics is irrational, so true - false is based on irrational dynamics........... ;)

Your empathy (all who possess it) makes you susceptible to influence and firm in your established beliefs.
#13813346
ingliz wrote:Epistemological moral skepticism seems to be a perfectly reasonable position to take,

ie. True or false, and moral beliefs can never be known to be true, they still might be justified in some way that is independent of truth.

Why isn't it?


It is different to say that we do not know the truth-value (or cannot know the truth-value) of a sentence than it is to say that a statement has no truth-value (in the latter case you are saying that the sentence is meaningless). If we take the sentence "torturing children for fun is wrong" and think that it is meaningful then we are, at least, realists about the truth-values of moral claims and this is enough to believe in the objectivity of moral claims. I submit that the sentence is meaningful, it has a truth-value. This view is also consistent with a type of epistemological skepticism: that we cannot know whether the sentence is true or not (although I think we can know such things). Even so, one can be a skeptic, in this sense, but still a realist about the truth-values of those sentences and, therefore, a moral realist.

CC wrote: I did answer it VP and it looks to me like Ingliz has the same mindset as well. I find that the irrational for the sentient being - is the path to truth. Here's the kicker though - the truth can be - irrational.


But why doubt your moral intuitions but latch on to other metaphysical intuitions? I will respect your position on morality so long as you are also an idealistic solipsist (that you and only yourself exist), if not then you are being inconsistent. I see no more reason to doubt our moral intuitions that to doubt the objective existence of the external world, or the objective existence of the past, or the objective existence of other minds. You either have to doubt all your intuitions, to be consistent, or show me that there is more reason to doubt one and not the other. That being said, 'rationality' and 'irrational' is not a property that applies to truth-values, so one cannot say that "the truth may be irrational". If what you mean to say is that we may need to be epistemically irrational in order to conclude true statements, then there is little sense in conversing with others and you are no longer doing philosophy.
#13813393
Vera Politica wrote:But why doubt your moral intuitions but latch on to other metaphysical intuitions? I will respect your position on morality so long as you are also an idealistic solipsist (that you and only yourself exist), if not then you are being inconsistent. I see no more reason to doubt our moral intuitions that to doubt the objective existence of the external world, or the objective existence of the past, or the objective existence of other minds. You either have to doubt all your intuitions, to be consistent, or show me that there is more reason to doubt one and not the other. That being said, 'rationality' and 'irrational' is not a property that applies to truth-values, so one cannot say that "the truth may be irrational". If what you mean to say is that we may need to be epistemically irrational in order to conclude true statements, then there is little sense in conversing with others and you are no longer doing philosophy.


You are looking at this like a math teacher VP - you have this set of rules that you follow so stringently that it leaves no room for personal growth - no room for exploration. It's like you are resolved and comfortable with your intellectual fate. You think maybe you are just too comfortable?

I'm not going to even reply to this paragraph - to me it is just too generalized and meaningless. All the meat of what I've written has been ignored.

I will take the time to put into order my main points about morals, maybe you will - catch a drift?

Tainari88 wrote:I always am curious on how many concepts that are socially constructed are considered universal and how many are really cultural mores and vary according to cultural values---is morality universal in some ways? Or is morality subject to only the society specifically requiring it?


CC wrote:In my opinion, morals are a product of the evolutionary process. We are born with certain traits.


CC wrote:Of course morally good - is in the eyes of the beholder - the sentient beholder.


CC wrote:There is no doubt that our cognitive defenses are more advanced - that's all it really is though - defenses. No different than the fleetness of a horse or the camouflage of a chameleon.


CC wrote:Social manipulation as I said before, is just that - it creates a set of moral values, a guide to follow. The sentient being can follow these - espouse them - die for them - kill for them. In my opinion they are secondary to basic inherited character traits and something we as social creatures pass on to our youth - as a form of defense.


VP wrote:Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.


CC wrote:We make our own moral truth - we design our own moral lies. We do this knowingly and unknowingly - all to better prepare ourselves, for when we become rats in a box. A socially defensive, survival mechanism. Empathy - prevents you from seeing this VP, just as much as it leads humanity dynamically towards social structures.


Tainari88 wrote:We are an irrational and an illogical species many times.


CC wrote:A truth in my eyes - we need the dynamics of the irrational to adjust our social structure. A defensive survival mechanism.


VP wrote:Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.


CC wrote:The only truth to be found - is in the irrational.


CC wrote:Irrationality controls it all. There is no direction - there is only dynamics.


Suska wrote:Overall and in particular, immorality is that which diminishes, morality is that which enhances.


CC wrote:I disagree - it is for the beholder to decide.


CC wrote:In a nutshell - just as much as it (empathy), leads humanity dynamically towards social structures. ---- dynamics is irrational, so true - false is based on irrational dynamics.
Your empathy (all who possess it) makes you susceptible to influence and firm in your established beliefs.



Suska wrote:CC, I find it difficult to understand you but it seems that you're suggesting that morals are natural and then that they are social.


Summary: I began by pointing out the following:

'In 1258, the Mongols attacked the city of Baghdad, and then killed children, women, detained and disabled people (Mongols made no distinction between those who stood against them and those who surrendered themselves to them, both were murdered). 80,000 residents in a period of 40 days. (or so history writes)'

By today's moral standards - this was a massacre, a horrible event - one to be punished, demonized and fixated upon our minds in every history book we read - for our entire life. Forty days after the slaughter began - the Mongols were laughing, cheering and celebrating themselves around their campfires. Do you think they thought twice before they slaughtered all those people?

Did the Mongols lack empathy? No. A Mongol warrior would try and save his drowning son or tribal friend like any other. These are Natural Morals - a product of our evolutionary being.

What about Social Aquired Morals? Where do those come from - what role do they play? The Mongols just conquered an entire city - to them it was a good thing - something celebrated by drink and song.

I've heard the word "intuition" thrown around. Like it is some kind of a Natural Moral. Sorry, but no. Intuition is nothing more than a reflection of an individuals current morals. You can have a natural intuition based on your evolutionary traits - call it instinct if you will. You can also have a social intuition - based on your socially acquired morals. Natural Morals - allow for blood-lust. Socially acquired morals can be adjusted to not.

Socially Acquired Morals are "dynamic" (constantly changing), Natural Morals are "fixed" ( a human smile is a universal moral language).
Individual empathy allows for familiarity and unified reasoning, yet also allows for flexibility and dynamics. Just like the human species - Social Morality is constantly evolving - through social contact- through struggles and challenges. If Modern Industrial Society came crumbling down - we would maintain our social morals as long as we could - if the struggles became great - we would turn out of necessity to blood-lust.

rational ..........as it applies to social morals - I contend that this word is irrational. Some - would wish to preserve social moral norms and imprison us within them, ignoring the fact that social morals are dynamic. A good example of this is the debate on religion/atheism.

There is no such thing as "Truth" in Socially Acquired Morals....that is irrational. Socially Acquired Morals are dynamic (constantly changing)....This dynamics is irrational as well....there is no reason - no direction. It is part of the evolutionary process and directly reflects on such.

CC wrote:Your empathy (all who possess it) makes you susceptible to influence and then firm in your established beliefs.
Last edited by CounterChaos on 17 Oct 2011 02:26, edited 1 time in total.
#13813435
torturing children for fun is wrong

Is it meaningful? I doubt it.

Is it true? Maybe, but not because you assert it. The words "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil", are purely emotive and lend no objective validity to a sentence whatsoever.
Last edited by ingliz on 17 Oct 2011 01:49, edited 2 times in total.
#13813454
Ingliz wrote:Is it meaningful? I doubt it.

Is it true? Maybe, but not because you assert it. The words "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil", are purely emotive and lend no objective validity to a sentence whatsoever.


I think you've misunderstood what I said. If a statement is not meaningful it is because it has no truth-value -- it can neither be true nor false.

What I am asserting is that the sentence in question does have a truth-value, it is either true or false. This is a form of realism (a realism about truth-values) and, thus, objective.

So you cannot hold that a sentence is meaningless, yet still think it could be true (or false).

CC - I will get to your post at another time.
#13813460
I think you've misunderstood what I said

No, I don't think so.

As a statement, the sentence is meaningless, but does this "fact" negate what could be a metaphysical truth? I am not sure.

Therefore, I suspect the sentence is meaningless because it tells me nothing in and of itself, but I recognise that I could be wrong, insofar as for all I know there may be an all knowing God, who is privy to the truth, sharing that knowledge with mankind.

If there is, it would not matter that the insertion of the ethical word "wrong" into a sentence does nothing to inform us as to its truth value. God has spoken.
Last edited by ingliz on 17 Oct 2011 12:33, edited 1 time in total.
#13813609
Ingliz wrote:No, I don't think so.

As a statement, the sentence is meaningless, but does this "fact" negate what could be a metaphysical truth? I am not sure.

Therefore, I suspect the sentence is meaningless because it tells me nothing in and of itself, but I recognise that I could be wrong, insofar as for all I know there may be an all knowing God, who is privy to the truth, sharing that knowledge with mankind.

If there is, it would not matter that the insertion of the ethical word "wrong" into a sentence does nothing to inform us as to its truth or falsity. God has spoken.


I see. However, I do not hold the statement to make any metaphysical assertion and think it true or false in the ordinary way.

The view you hold seems common outside of philosophy -- but was dominant in philosophy from the early 20th century up to about the 1960s.

I still submit that thinking moral claims are meaningless is about the same as denying the existence of the external world. Both are rationally held for good, intuitive reasons.
#13813618
I still submit that moral claims need not be 'true' to be useful, and can be justified in ways that are independent of truth.

up to about the 1960s.

It was around that time I stopped dabbling in philosophy.
#13813643
Ingliz wrote:I still submit that moral claims need not be 'true' to be useful, and can be justified in ways that are independent of truth.


I do not deny their utility nor think that they must be meaningful in order to be useful. This, however, was never the subject of this discussion and I do not think it is all that relevant. Finally, it is obvious that the utility of something is independent from its being objective, or true or what not. I am not concerned with the utility of moral claims, however, but on whether they are meaningful and this is the point. To deny they are meaningful is to deny a moral intuition that is epistemically on par with intuitions concerning the reality of the external world, or the reality of other minds, etc.

It was around that time I stopped dabbling in philosophy.


:lol: Why is that?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]