ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: AbominableMowman on June 14, 2013, 08:24:34 pm
-
Mod edit (Brenden): Very open discussion/debate of morality here - feel free to mention anything about it/go off on any tangent and we won't consider it off topic :)
Good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell.
How would you define 'good' and 'bad'?
Just curious about what you guys think.
Instead of trying to think of actions as good or bad people should strive to be amoral. Society and religion impose a lot of moral codes and values on us, most of which we don't even understand. Being consistent with our own morals instead of following moral systems that are imposed on us seems like a better choice.
-
I think you might want to revise the way you define amoral :P
-
What do you think determines where people go? Like, does an atheist go to hell simply by virtue of being an atheist, even if they live a Christian way of life? (Or whatever morally righteous way of life you choose?). P.S not attacking you, I'm just curious.
i'm pretty sure amongst religious scholars, not religious nutters, that it is generally accepted that everyone, no matter who you are or what you have done, will have the chance to enter heaven as long as you repent your sins.
-
i'm pretty sure amongst religious scholars, not religious nutters, that it is generally accepted that everyone, no matter who you are or what you have done, will have the chance to enter heaven as long as you repent your sins.
Well, if we take the Bible as true, blasphemy and suicide are two things you can't repent from.
Also - when do we repent? Do we get the chance to repent once we're dead, or do we have to do it before we die?
-
I think you might want to revise the way you define amoral :P
If a human rejects the idea of 'morality' they could be amoral.
-
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/amoral?q=amoral
Definition of amoral
adjective
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something:
an amoral attitude to sex
Why should we strive to be unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something, though?
-
Well, if we take the Bible as true, blasphemy and suicide are two things you can't repent from.
Also - when do we repent? Do we get the chance to repent once we're dead, or do we have to do it before we die?
Every scholar will tell you that the Bible is not a literal truth, even the New Testament. It's filled with metaphor and symbolism. Also, we have to remember that the Bible was written for a purpose--didactically--and the author of passages within it that claim what you said may have been writing for a different type of culture or community. Remember, the Bible was collated over numerous years, by many, many authors, schools of thought and etc. As you see with political parties, there are various ideological differences or factions, however, they are united under the one cause. I believe that the Bible acts as a model (which is different for other people or cultures) for us to follow how to live our lives. Moreover, I don't know of any passages in the New Testament which speak of blasphemy and suicide as unrepentable. Jesus says that he is the 'replacement of the Old Law, the replacement of the Feasts' (John 7:28)....He says is the 'new commandment and covenant' (john 15 or 13)... Therefore, the New Testament is the new order and new model for the Christian community.
I think that God wants us to live a good life, for others, however, I think we are truly judged when we die. Although, you know what, I have no idea what happens when we die, so I just try to do my best and try to impact society in a positive way.
-
Every scholar will tell you that the Bible is not a literal truth, even the New Testament. It's filled with metaphor and symbolism.
I agree with most of your post, but I would say that parts of the Bible are meant to be viewed symbolically, others literally ( like Acts and other chronological accounts) :) I think you've got to be genre specific.
However, there is indeed truth to metaphor.
-
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/amoral?q=amoral
Why should we strive to be unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something, though?
Because morality itself doesn't exist.
definition of morals: standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong
If morals are principles that define what is right and what is wrong, how can we be sure of what morals to follow? There are no universal rules that tell every one of us what morals we should live by. In fact the very idea of morality itself comes from what a particular society dictates.
So instead of being concerned with morals, we should be concerned with the consistency of our actions (which could be seen by others as immoral).
Immoral =/= amoral
-
Because morality itself doesn't exist. If morals are principles that define what is right and what is wrong, how can we be sure of what morals to follow? There are no universal rules that tell every one of us what morals we should live by. In fact the very idea of morality itself comes from what a particular society dictates.
So instead of being concerned with morals, we should be concerned with the consistency of our actions (which could be seen by others as immoral).
Immoral =/= amoral
If there was no objective morality, there would be no such thing as " moral progress".
-
It's a non sequitur to say that because there are no universal rules for morality that morality doesn't exist or that there can be no standards of behaviour. There can be individual standards/principles of morality.
I'll be clearer...
Being consistent with our own morals instead of following moral systems that are imposed on us seems like a better choice.
contradicts
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something
Edit: I mean, you can't say that morality itself doesn't exist and then say that we should be consistent with our own morals without being contradictory.
-
Maybe I should rephrase that, I meant being consistent with our own actions not morals:P
-
Maybe I should rephrase that, I meant being consistent with our own actions not morals:P
Well, aren't you just advocating that consistency of action is a worthy moral principle?
-
So... we should follow our desires regardless?
-
So... we should follow our desires regardless?
Are you asking a general question or questioning Ab.Mowman?
-
To the Mowman
-
is it bad to feed roast chicken to pigeons?
-
is it bad to feed roast chicken to pigeons?
Bad but so, so good.
ok but lezbe real here dats messed bro
-
Um... I'd rather eat it.
-
Or you could use it as feed, and then eat the pigeons. Best of both worlds.
-
Well, if we take the Bible as true, blasphemy and suicide are two things you can't repent from.
Also - when do we repent? Do we get the chance to repent once we're dead, or do we have to do it before we die?
blasphemy is unrepentable, because if you a blasphemer, and actively argue against god, odds are you wont want his sympathies, hence you cant repent, blasphemy and swearing are two different things, contrary to popular belief
and suicide is unrepentable because (and this will answer your other question), to repent, the steps sort of go somethinglike: you do something, realise its bad, feel genuinely sorry for it, and ask for forgiveness, and understand why it was bad and how, if its a bad habit you try to curb it as best you can and pray for strength to help you, and if its a one off thing you dont let it happen again.
suicide is unrepentable because a) youre sort of throwing away the gift of life youve been given and its really disrespectful, like if you blow up somebodies car, you are probably the worlds biggest dog and just did a really fucked up thing yeah, but eventually you could pay it back, and you might not even fully comprehend the feelings of others if youre young and dumb, but if someone else saves up for ages, and buys you a car, and then you say "lol fuck you" and blow it up, its on like an entirely different level of cold heartedness if you get what i mean?
but that first point is arguable, the main reason is b) in order to be forgiven, you must repent whilst alive, and realise the badness of your actions, so lets put in a big example here and say murder, the steps go something like this
get really angry -> kill somebody -> be really sad and think oh fuck oh fuck -> realise what youve done, probably cry about it, say how sorry you are, show remorse -> pray for forgiveness, talk to a priest and let him know how bad you feel, -> reform -> the sin has been forgiven provided you are being sincere about it all -> youve grown as a person
whereas if you commit suicide its more like
kill somebody -> its you -> go straight to after life-> no chance to repent
see, there was no time to repent in there, everyone would repent in the afterlife because they would see the folly of their actions in their human life, therefor everyone would be forgiven, and that wouldnt work because then people who are really mean would just want to escape so they would repent too, so it is up to you to ask for forgiveness now whilst alive to show that youre sincere
sorry, i have nothing to add to the morality argument, i was just answering brendens question
-
But then Alex, don't you just disagree with that on a moral level? (and no need to apologise for the post, I kept the religious talk in this split thread because I saw it as a prelude to the morality discussion)
I mean, if Heaven and Hell exist, aren't they some sort of representation of what you deserve on a moral level?
And so, if someone lives their life on Christian principles quite well, eg. they give basically everything away and keep just enough for themselves to survive, they forgive, they love, etc etc etc, and essentially just live in the way that Jesus did - you could hardly say they deserved to go to Hell. But if they blasphemised - does that make someone an entirely immoral agent? I mean, going by your definition, Hitler could theoretically be in Heaven right now. It seems incongruent to me to disallow an almost perfect moral agent entrance to Heaven but allow it to Hitler or very immoral agents who repented.
-
Alex, you should follow the New Testament, if you are Judeo-Christian-to my knowledge, no where in the New Testament does it say those who commit suicide or are blasphemous cannot repent.
Technically, if you have ever exclaimed 'Jesus Christ' in anger, that is blasphemy.
-
Well, aren't you just advocating that consistency of action is a worthy moral principle?
Consistency of action is not necessarily a moral principle (although it could be).
Consistency of action = integrity
The difference between integrity and morality would be that integrity means a person is consistent with his actions and accountable to himself, while moral values are thrust upon people by society.
btw im talking about personal integrity here (integrity can often be confused with morality, though philosophically they can mean different things)
I think i've been reading too much camus
So... we should follow our desires regardless?
regardless of what?
Or you could use it as feed, and then eat the pigeons. Best of both worlds.
Or you could use it as pigeon, and then eat the feed.
-
But moral values aren't necessarily thrust upon people by society. I mean. You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning. I mean, I have a friend who grew up in the same postcode, society, school as me, and she says abortion is immoral and I disagree.
And consistency of action = integrity I think just makes it closer to a moral principle. I don't see how someone believing in morality means they're not accountable to themselves, whereas if they were amoral and had integrity they would be accountable to themselves instead.
I think you're actually making an argument for virtue ethics here lol.
-
Moreover, FYeti, if you think morality doesn't exist you lose the privilege of saying things are wrong on a moral level. Eg. If someone stones a woman to death over showing skin in a country where that is legally okay, would you disagree in saying that's morally wrong?
-
Re: Lolly, okay, so what if moral progress isn't a thing either?
But moral values aren't necessarily thrust upon people by society. I mean. You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning. I mean, I have a friend who grew up in the same postcode, society, school as me, and she says abortion is immoral and I disagree.
And consistency of action = integrity I think just makes it closer to a moral principle. I don't see how someone believing in morality means they're not accountable to themselves, whereas if they were amoral and had integrity they would be accountable to themselves instead.
I think you're actually making an argument for virtue ethics here lol.
I think the issue here is that nobody has really defined what morality actually is. What are we actually talking about here? What IS this morality that is under scrutiny?
Moreover, FYeti, if you think morality doesn't exist you lose the privilege of saying things are wrong on a moral level. Eg. If someone stones a woman to death over showing skin in a country where that is legally okay, would you disagree in saying that's morally wrong?
That's kind of tautological - "if morality doesn't exist then you can't invoke morals". More broadly though, depending on what you're defining as moral I think we can still reasonably condemn that law without saying that it's "morally wrong". A political theorist could, for instance, just say that it's a bad policy because it isn't in people's interests in that society (or that the calculus of valuing outdated laws over individual freedoms doesn't add up on the utility scale), which is illegitimate in turn because governments are generally designed to maximize interest-fulfillment.
-
Yeah having reread this thread, I really do want to emphasise this discussion makes no sense unless people can actually define what morals really are. Not necessarily what is good and what is evil (or whatever binary labels you want to use), but more like, what IS this whole morality thing are trying to discuss?
-
Okay I see the confusion. I am refuting A.Snow's assertion that we should be amoral in saying that there is some moral standard without offering what the standard should be. In re: Alex and Heaven/Hell, I flip to using moral and immoral as synonyms for good and evil.
In saying You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning
I should have said we differ in our moral standards. Here, I am saying that we are free to choose our own (edit: perception of) moral standards, whatever they may be.
I'm struggling to define morality just as a concept all by itself (so I guess I see the need to define it). Can we just say standards that guide behaviour? (or even thought if you swing that way) - but I'm not sure you're looking for such an open definition.
A political theorist could say that, but what if in this scenario it is in people's interests? Say, utility is maxmised by adhering to the "don't show skin or die" rule, even among the females of that society (that other females not show skin or be killed) and the only time there is low utility is the low utility of an isolated individual that accidentally shows skin and knows they're about to die.
-
Okay I see the confusion. I am refuting A.Snow's assertion that we should be amoral in saying that there is some moral standard without offering what the standard should be. In re: Alex and Heaven/Hell, I flip to using moral and immoral as synonyms for good and evil.
In saying I should have said we differ in our moral standards. Here, I am saying that we are free to choose our own moral standards, whatever they may be.
I'm struggling to define morality just as a concept all by itself (so I guess I see the need to define it). Can we just say standards that guide behaviour? (or even thought if you swing that way) - but I'm not sure you're looking for such an open definition.
A political theorist could say that, but what if in this scenario it is in people's interests? Say, utility is maxmised by adhering to the "don't show skin or die" rule, even among the females of that society (that other females not show skin or be killed) and the only time there is low utility is the low utility of an isolated individual that accidentally shows skin and knows they're about to die.
Yep, that's way too open. What is the purpose of these standards? Do they guide individual action or collective action? If we don't fulfill morals, does society need to punish us, or is there some sort of intrinsic value to them that will just affect our lives without external influence? And are morals things that are inflexible - ie. is it ALWAYS acceptable or unacceptable to abort a fetus, or does it just vary on a case by case basis? If so, how do we prioritise certain values - what are the first principles? Does morality have hierarchical values or do you just do cost benefit analysis?
And sure, if that was the case then maybe that's the conclusion they would have to accept. I think the obvious response though is that that is extremely unlikely,and unlike with abstract philosophers, political theorists are justified in grounding their theories of how governments operate in reality in, well, reality. (you could also just do some different political theory analysis, eg. Look at something more like Rawls in terms of how social justice is best served with reference to a veil of ignorance etc)
-
hmm...i beg to differ. the concept of morality isn't that vague. a moral code is a code that dictates we ought and ought not do. it's not the nature but the contents that should be scrutinised.
-
I'm actually curious what Morality essentially is?
I've always interpreted it as our unconscious biological need for survival and 'morality' helps us achieve towards that goal, 'Co-operation' etc etc etc
-
Yep, that's way too open. What is the purpose of these standards? Do they guide individual action or collective action? If we don't fulfill morals, does society need to punish us, or is there some sort of intrinsic value to them that will just affect our lives without external influence? And are morals things that are inflexible - ie. is it ALWAYS acceptable or unacceptable to abort a fetus, or does it just vary on a case by case basis? If so, how do we prioritise certain values - what are the first principles? Does morality have hierarchical values or do you just do cost benefit analysis?
Well, wouldn't we have to break down what standards we were talking about in order to articulate a purpose? Eg: Purpose of virtue ethics is to become a 'good' person, purpose of consequentialism is to bring about good consequences, however you define the measure, and so on?
It seems those questions are actually questions to be debated from the perspective of different moral standards rather than as an assist on a definition of morality :P
And sure, if that was the case then maybe that's the conclusion they would have to accept. I think the obvious response though is that that is extremely unlikely,and unlike with abstract philosophers, political theorists are justified in grounding their theories of how governments operate in reality in, well, reality. (you could also just do some different political theory analysis, eg. Look at something more like Rawls in terms of how social justice is best served with reference to a veil of ignorance etc)
Yeah fair enough. (Rawls is the guy who said the law should stick to society and not interfere with the individual -- yeah? ???)
I'm actually curious what Morality essentially is?
I've always interpreted it as our unconscious biological need for survival and 'morality' helps us achieve towards that goal, 'Co-operation' etc etc etc
Hm, that's something I've never entertained. I've always seen morality as a sense of good.
-
^nit sure if Rawls has said that, but it sounds like something he probably would say - political theorists tend to be like that.
And maybe you're right, bright sky,but I think the issue is when we say ought or ought not that is also a bit ambiguous. Ought we follow morals because it is intrinsically better? Because it is better for us as individuals? I think this matters as well.
Anyway, Brenden, what do you think is moral/immoral? How does your moral system work? I think this might be a more meaningful discussion, if we can see a system in its totality, and discuss from there without any argumentation concerning ambiguity.
-
And maybe you're right, bright sky,but I think the issue is when we say ought or ought not that is also a bit ambiguous. Ought we follow morals because it is intrinsically better? Because it is better for us as individuals? I think this matters as well.
well the question you pose is a moral one, and falls right under the heading which i have just defined. we either ought to follow a moral code/principle or we ought not. that is not ambiguous. brenden's definition above also suffices; morality = sense of good, where good = that which we ought to do. but anyway i'll try not to stagnate such a meaningful discussion on morals.
-
Well, I'm still fleshing out what my sense of morality is after introductory Phil, so it might well change in the future (and I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise). (Would also like to point out the irony that I am procrastinating my Philosophy exam revision by discussing Philosophy).
From what my understanding is, I think I'm a moral realist and by extension a virtue ethicist. Which is pretty illogical as an atheist really, which is one of my big considering points, for I think the best argument for God is (from my perspective anyway)
P1. There is an objective morality.
P2. There can be no objective morality without God.
Conc. God exists.
Obviously it's easiest to reject this argument by rejecting P1, but I just don't swing that way. So I've been spending most of my time thinking about how objective morality exists without God, and so I sometimes come close to rejecting objective morality but I'm still maintaining it for now.
I like virtue ethics because I think it explains how I moralise generally in that I think about what type of person I'd like to be when I make my moral decisions. But virtue ethics can get a bit ad hoc in arguing. I mean, you could pretty much say "ah-ha! That would be valid, however, I think it is a virtue that we act to bring about the best consequences measured by utility!"
But I believe that intentions must matter and some things are intrinsically wrong -> Virtue Ethics.
I actually think I accepted virtue ethics and then moral realism, rather than the other way around.
What about you, do you hold a label?
Another problem I've been struggling with is supererogation. It seems plausible that abstaining from meat is a moral thing to do, or that the Good Samaritan is 'very moral', but then, why is there sufficiently moral and then perfectly moral. Like, surely we should be striving for moral perfection rather than to be 'somewhat' moral, but I'm struggling with my definition of moral perfection. Like, is it moral perfection just to do no harm? It seems as if we can improve on 'doing no harm' (eg. Good.Sam), and if there is improvement to be made then we must not be at moral perfection yet. But then obvs supererogation places big requirements.
(As you can see, I'm still confused on things and fleshing stuff out, which means my head hurts 24/7. Yes. 24/7. I dream philosophical confusion)
-
Well, I'm still fleshing out what my sense of morality is after introductory Phil, so it might well change in the future (and I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise). (Would also like to point out the irony that I am procrastinating my Philosophy exam revision by discussing Philosophy).
From what my understanding is, I think I'm a moral realist and by extension a virtue ethicist. Which is pretty illogical as an atheist really, which is one of my big considering points, for I think the best argument for God is (from my perspective anyway)
P1. There is an objective morality.
P2. There can be no objective morality without God.
Conc. God exists.
Obviously it's easiest to reject this argument by rejecting P1, but I just don't swing that way. So I've been spending most of my time thinking about how objective morality exists without God, and so I sometimes come close to rejecting objective morality but I'm still maintaining it for now.
I like virtue ethics because I think it explains how I moralise generally in that I think about what type of person I'd like to be when I make my moral decisions. But virtue ethics can get a bit ad hoc in arguing. I mean, you could pretty much say "ah-ha! That would be valid, however, I think it is a virtue that we act to bring about the best consequences measured by utility!"
But I believe that intentions must matter and some things are intrinsically wrong -> Virtue Ethics.
I actually think I accepted virtue ethics and then moral realism, rather than the other way around.
What about you, do you hold a label?
Another problem I've been struggling with is supererogation. It seems plausible that abstaining from meat is a moral thing to do, or that the Good Samaritan is 'very moral', but then, why is there sufficiently moral and then perfectly moral. Like, surely we should be striving for moral perfection rather than to be 'somewhat' moral, but I'm struggling with my definition of moral perfection. Like, is it moral perfection just to do no harm? It seems as if we can improve on 'doing no harm' (eg. Good.Sam), and if there is improvement to be made then we must not be at moral perfection yet. But then obvs supererogation places big requirements.
(As you can see, I'm still confused on things and fleshing stuff out, which means my head hurts 24/7. Yes. 24/7. I dream philosophical confusion)
Why do intentions matter? And why are some things intrinsically wrong? What are some examples of said things?
I'd outline my perspective in detail but I'm on my iPad. I don't think my "morality" really has a label though, maybe something approximating Platonism mixed in with a bit of aestheticism and Nietzsche. I think I see morality and "the good" similarly to Hamlet, actually.
-
I have a strong intuition that they do and haven't spent much time thinking of an argument. Hm. Take a scenario where a Student X is sitting at his desk and sticks his foot out to trip Student Y, who walking in front of X's desk, and Y falls over and feels embarrassed. Imo X has committed an immoral act. Take another scenario where X is actually just having a conversation with his friend and realises he has a cramp in his calf, so he extends his leg just as Y happens to be walking by, and Y trips and feels embarrassed. It's just implausible to me that these scenarios are moral equivalents, and the only difference is the varying intentions of X. You can hardly blame X the Second for stretching his calf, but you'd be right in saying X the First was being a prick.
Why are some things intrinsically wrong? Again, intuition. But this one is the hardest for be to justify without using God. I think, oppression based on arbitrary factors (race, gender, sexuality) is just wrong regardless of the time or culture because it is just inherently wrong. But I don't know how to answer -why- it is intrinsically wrong (other than because it is intrinsic hahaha). I was going to leave it for Lolly to think about/answer but I also like that it affords moral progression, because I think we HAVE progressed morally from slavery or from whatever other horrible thing from the past you can choose, and I believe we will progress morally as we legalise gay marriage and racism declines etc.
That's pretty cool, I think I might be studying Plato Sem 1, 2013.
Edit: On thinking about this more, (at 5.30 am ???) moral realism is stranger for me to hold than I thought. I came about this by considering the probable views of a religious girl who graduated with me. A conversation between us might go like this, where B is Brenden and G is Girl.
B: Do you think X is immoral?
G: Yes, I do think X is immoral.
B: Well, why do you think X is immoral?
G: Because God says that it is immoral.
B: But what about it is immoral? I mean, why does God say it is immoral; what properties does X hold that make it immoral?
G: I do not need to answer those questions, because God says it is immoral, and that's all there is to it.
This hypothetical question would leave me rather dissatisfied. But what G is saying when she says "Because God says that it is immoral" is actually "Because there is an objective moral fact that states that X is immoral".
And I would still say what about it is immoral etc.
And so, I have become G in this conversation, however, I lack God as a justification for moral realism and I'm stuck simply repeating "there is an objective moral fact about the matter".
But objective moral facts can't explain my morality, because my moral intuitions are actually just intellectual formations; I don't have them by virtue of being human. Someone less educated, or more educated, or from a different culture (I'm definitely not advocating relativism, here) would have different moral intuitions, so I cannot say that I have moral intuitions because of objective moral facts. Indeed, I (did?) believe there are objective moral facts by virtue of intellectual progression, with a belief that I am progressing closer to objective moral facts, when in reality I'm creating a conception of objective moral facts that fit where I have progressed to. I mean, even if objective moral facts had properties that made them objective moral facts, eg, 'we should not murder because it makes people unhappy', there is still has to be a moral property (utility) attached to the objective moral fact (well, for it to be defensible for me without God anyway, if I don't want to sound like a broken record repeating 'because it is an objective moral fact'). So, I may as well discard the objective moral fact and maintain whatever property I thought it was based on. But I do like virtue ethics... and now I have to think about virtue ethics without moral realism... Unless I wake up in the morning (night?) deciding that moral realism is okay again.
Hmm.
*I sincerely apologise to anyone unfortunate enough to decide to read my dawn scrawlings. If that made no sense... Good luck next time. I'm not even sure it made sense to me :o ... In fact, why did I even write that down?
-
1. I probably value intentions as well in terms of individual morality, but I'd still point out that intuition is an awful justification for anything philosophically. Why should we trust our intuitions? It would have been intuitive for a Roman to say crucifying Christians was fine, it seems (or for the 18th century Englishman to say women shouldn't vote). Trusting intuitions is what actually leads to a relativistic construction of morality.
2. You could say that what you justified as moral progress can again easily be explained not as morality but rather in terms of political philosophy - that is, that these changes aren't progression in morals but rather more successful policy changes that create better relationships between government and people.
3. And yes, exactly - it's actually a very difficult position to defend. I'd say to have any coherent moral realist viewpoint, it would be useful to start off with the very first principles - that is, metaphysics. What is your metaphysical position on reality? That might help you understand your meta-ethics by extension.
-
But then Alex, don't you just disagree with that on a moral level? (and no need to apologise for the post, I kept the religious talk in this split thread because I saw it as a prelude to the morality discussion)
I mean, if Heaven and Hell exist, aren't they some sort of representation of what you deserve on a moral level?
And so, if someone lives their life on Christian principles quite well, eg. they give basically everything away and keep just enough for themselves to survive, they forgive, they love, etc etc etc, and essentially just live in the way that Jesus did - you could hardly say they deserved to go to Hell. But if they blasphemised - does that make someone an entirely immoral agent? I mean, going by your definition, Hitler could theoretically be in Heaven right now. It seems incongruent to me to disallow an almost perfect moral agent entrance to Heaven but allow it to Hitler or very immoral agents who repented.
if it straight up worked like that i would think its wierd, but repentence and being sorry for something are pretty similiar
like if someone has their perfect christian life, and they blasphemised, they would probably be upset about it and think "oh crap zz that was bad" (especially in contrast to the perfect christian life), they would be sorry, probably repent, then it would be okay
whereas with hitler if you kill millions of jews without batting and eyelid you most definetly aren't going to be sincere about any apology or repentence, plus he killed himself so yeah
but if you read scriptures there are plenty of mostly righteous people who do some bad things, but its out of character for them, and they actively try to better themself, so its all good i would think
God would know whose putting in the effort, who isnt, whose evil, whose nice, why you do bad things etc
once again sorry for the seemingly out of place post LOL just answering questions
-
can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?
-
1. I probably value intentions as well in terms of individual morality, but I'd still point out that intuition is an awful justification for anything philosophically. Why should we trust our intuitions? It would have been intuitive for a Roman to say crucifying Christians was fine, it seems (or for the 18th century Englishman to say women shouldn't vote). Trusting intuitions is what actually leads to a relativistic construction of morality.
2. You could say that what you justified as moral progress can again easily be explained not as morality but rather in terms of political philosophy - that is, that these changes aren't progression in morals but rather more successful policy changes that create better relationships between government and people.
3. And yes, exactly - it's actually a very difficult position to defend. I'd say to have any coherent moral realist viewpoint, it would be useful to start off with the very first principles - that is, metaphysics. What is your metaphysical position on reality? That might help you understand your meta-ethics by extension.
1. Yeah, I think I kind of disregarded intuition as reasoning in my little dawn-insight. There was a bit of fallacious reasoning on my behalf where realism = intuition but intuition = realism which I should have identified sooner.
2. While it's a valid explanation and it fits nicely in the lock, I just don't think that gets all the pieces, y'know? I mean, yes, the government/governed relationship and better and xyz and everything that goes along with that, but whatever occurred I still think there's moral progress even by proxy. Slavery is immoral, and whatever progression maybe happen to abolish slavery, we have progressed there as well as morally, because.. welll... we aren't enslaving people lol.
3. I've never done any reading on metaphysics and I've been confused as anything about it since you asked me why I was different from my laptop screen in IRC a while ago :P. If it assists understand metaethics I might have to go into it, because I think ethics, meta or applied, might be the field I'm super keen on.
Thank you alex :)
can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?
Well, up until last night I thought it was objective :P. I saw it pretty similar to mathematics. (But I was still fleshing it out, evidently, so my explanation will probably be dissatisfying). Mathematics ultimately exists independent of humanity but it's a language we use to describe things. This is sort of circular. Like, numbers are a human construction but regardless of what we've constructed there are still objective amounts, percentages, wavelengths and whatever else you freaky people calculate. And so I was thinking like, our morality is a descriptor we put on nature, ultimately perception or construction but synonymous with objective moral facts if you get me. I believed that mostly because I perceived morality as constant across time. Eg, I see what it 'right' today as right 1,000 years ago, but they were just immoral in their justice system and society etc.
On your second question. It depends what you define Christian as. I mean, some people like to get really deep into it and just say that Christianity is synonymous with love and love is the only rule and whatever else. And that's pretty sweet. My jimmies are settled, sure, love is great, I agree, if we love shit, the Good Life, here we come. I do like some tales of the New Testament as far as moral truths go. The Good Samaritan, for example -- I'm still trying to figure that one out (as above). But, simple answer, no, morality =/= Christian manner
-
can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?
I believe that "morality" is a construct, but that constructions are real, insofar that "reality" itself is all just a construct, so I am a moral realist in a sense, but also at the same time not really. Does that make sense?
My reasons for believing this are also pretty much embedded within what I've just said (although justifying why "reality" as we understand it is a construct is a bit more laborsome, and I'm not sure I have the mental energy to do it atm).
Well, up until last night I thought it was objective :P. I saw it pretty similar to mathematics. (But I was still fleshing it out, evidently, so my explanation will probably be dissatisfying). Mathematics ultimately exists independent of humanity but it's a language we use to describe things. This is sort of circular.
Interestingly, I actually see "truth" as analogous to mathematics, and I think generally speaking acting in accordance to "truth" (which is in itself probably what I value as most important of all) corresponds to most of the things that we generally see as "moral", although that isn't necessarily because there is a sort of objective value attached to "truth", just that acting in accordance to "truth" tends to catalyse more beauty in the existences of the many, which is why in turn it often corresponds to what is "moral" (ie. what we would like upon society).
2. While it's a valid explanation and it fits nicely in the lock, I just don't think that gets all the pieces, y'know? I mean, yes, the government/governed relationship and better and xyz and everything that goes along with that, but whatever occurred I still think there's moral progress even by proxy. Slavery is immoral, and whatever progression maybe happen to abolish slavery, we have progressed there as well as morally, because.. welll... we aren't enslaving people lol.
But can you see how even your justification is kind of circular? I completely understand your feelings (and you're doing valiantly here - please don't feel I'm attacking you, more just interrogating you :p), but you haven't really given a reason for why the government theory analysis doesn't hold other than "I FEEL LIKE THERE IS MORE". How can you be certain that you're not just confusing "moral" objectively with what is inscribed as "moral" because it fits the framework of government that best serves the interests of the people as a whole?
-
Alex, you should follow the New Testament, if you are Judeo-Christian-to my knowledge, no where in the New Testament does it say those who commit suicide or are blasphemous cannot repent.
Technically, if you have ever exclaimed 'Jesus Christ' in anger, that is blasphemy.
Mark 3:29
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—
Luke 12:10
“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
as alexx said, this isnt because some sins are forgivable, and others arent. its because actively choosing to reject god implies rejection of forgiveness and salvation as well.
EDIT: saying 'jesus christ', with as bad an intention as you like, wouldn't constitute blasphemy. the next verse in Mark explains why Jesus said this. it was because the pharisees had just rejected christ saying that he was demon possessed.
-
I believe that "morality" is a construct, but that constructions are real, insofar that "reality" itself is all just a construct, so I am a moral realist in a sense, but also at the same time not really.
If Reality is a Construct, Constructions are Real,
Therefore
Morality is a Construct
And then you allude to the statement
1. Truth is analogous to Mathematics (Maths is a construct)
2. There is a connection between Truth and Morality
3. Truth isn't objective per se
4. Acting in accordance to Truth catalyzes Beauty
5. There is a correspondence between Truth and Morality
Therefore Morality is not objective per se
And Acting with Morality Catalyzes Beauty
So can Morality be destructive?
-
If Reality is a Construct, Constructions are Real,
Therefore
Morality is a Construct
And then you allude to the statement
1. Truth is analogous to Mathematics (Maths is a construct)
2. There is a connection between Truth and Morality
3. Truth isn't objective per se
4. Acting in accordance to Truth catalyzes Beauty
5. There is a correspondence between Truth and Morality
Therefore Morality is not objective per se
And Acting with Morality Catalyzes Beauty
So can Morality be destructive?
Corresponds was probably the wrong word. Correlates is better - things that lead to "truth" usually get perceived as moral, but that doesn't mean it has to be the case (just that it happens kind of incidentally, although I have reasons for suspecting why this is often the case, as I've explained already).
Also, the key to the first part is more just that "construct" and (quotation marks) "reality" are one and the same, and so therefore morality is "real" in the bracketed sense, even though it is also a construct. "Reality" and reality (or let's say, Truth) are actually two different things for me, although "reality" is kind of a manifestation of reality.
I would also be happy to accept that Truth can be perceived as destructive sometimes as well. In fact, a part of Truth is destruction, possibly.
-
Morality being a Construct and Reality or one leading to the other or both occurring at the same time is quite contextual and interesting PoV to think about; I won't go further with this.
What is Truth?
In Fate/Zero (In the mood for anime)
Surely, Kiritsugu's perception of Truth was in contrast to Kotomine's Truth
Or in Full Metal Alchemist
The Truth was not exactly what People thought it was when they reached the Gate?
-
Whenever I see a discussion about morality I always remember this quote "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Great words from a great man
-
Mark 3:29
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—
Luke 12:10
“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
as alexx said, this isnt because some sins are forgivable, and others arent. its because actively choosing to reject god implies rejection of forgiveness and salvation as well.
EDIT: saying 'jesus christ', with as bad an intention as you like, wouldn't constitute blasphemy. the next verse in Mark explains why Jesus said this. it was because the pharisees had just rejected christ saying that he was demon possessed.
yeahhhh buddy you know whats going on
*goes to +1*
*realises that there is no up or downvoting on this board*
*is sad*
-
I believe that "morality" is a construct, but that constructions are real, insofar that "reality" itself is all just a construct, so I am a moral realist in a sense, but also at the same time not really. Does that make sense?
Yeah I've been thinking over the last day that realism is sort of inescapable. I mean, even if I maintain virtue ethics and say that's the best way to moralise universally (but not necessarily objectively)... aren't I just saying that there is ONE objective fact, and that is that we ought to act in a way that is best for our internal well-being? Or if I subscribe to utilitarianism, aren't I saying there is ONE objective fact about morality, and that is, whatever brings about the most utility is what is moral?
Interestingly, I actually see "truth" as analogous to mathematics, and I think generally speaking acting in accordance to "truth" (which is in itself probably what I value as most important of all) corresponds to most of the things that we generally see as "moral", although that isn't necessarily because there is a sort of objective value attached to "truth", just that acting in accordance to "truth" tends to catalyse more beauty in the existences of the many, which is why in turn it often corresponds to what is "moral" (ie. what we would like upon society).
When you say act in accordance to truth, what do you mean? Are you saying integrity is a catalyst for beauty?
But can you see how even your justification is kind of circular? I completely understand your feelings (and you're doing valiantly here - please don't feel I'm attacking you, more just interrogating you :p), but you haven't really given a reason for why the government theory analysis doesn't hold other than "I FEEL LIKE THERE IS MORE". How can you be certain that you're not just confusing "moral" objectively with what is inscribed as "moral" because it fits the framework of government that best serves the interests of the people as a whole?
Hahaha yeah I see that. Heh, interrogate away; no one ever got anywhere without being challenged.
Alright. Here's what I've come up with. I've taken your meaning of interest to be similar to the way a preference utilitarian defines a preference, but I think you're also meaning 'serves the interests' as a general 'is good for the thriving of the community' or something similar to this. I've taken both definitions and melded them because I believe you might say that my second definition should be an extension of my first definition in re: government frameworks.
Note: any use of 'preference' is inclusive of my second definition, so when I say 'preference' I am also saying that things are in the best interest of whatever/whoever I'm talking about. If I use preference in a different way to this, I will make a note of it.
I will now argue that the government theory analysis is incomplete. The government theory analysis is focused externally on the preferences of society, however this may be measured. Perhaps advancement would be better quality of subsistence, less economic diversity (in the form of less poverty and more wealth) or what have you. However, this doesn't encompass the internal moral states of people. I am arguing from a virtue ethics perspective. As an extension of morality loosely being equivalent to internal well-being, people will be on a path to self-actualisation (as defined by the OED). So, realising internal 'moral' potentials is what would categorise a self-actualised person here -- as people fully realise the virtues they subscribe for their inner peace and well-being -- as opposed to someone fully realising their skill at basketball etc. So slavery will be immoral because it acts as an inhibitor for the moral self-actualisation (in terms of virtues, I realise self-actualisation is ambiguous so keep my definition in mind) of all parties involved. And so, in the scenario I earlier conceived where everyone has preferences for slavery (or stoning a woman?) - even if they have a preference for the destruction of X, or they have a strong hate of X or they subscribe to something we now find horrid, their immorality lies in the lack of universal love that is required for a morally self-actualised person. And so with the abolition of X horrible things, we move closer to moral self-actualisation (virtues etc), and thus we have real moral progress rather than a political progress that is only progression because it increases overall subsistence, opportunity, or whatever you want to define by the political progress.
*Also won't make a reply on this thread for a little while, Lit exam is tomorrow and I still plan to possibly re-read a book and otherwise prepare things I can bullshit
-
Yeah I've been thinking over the last day that realism is sort of inescapable. I mean, even if I maintain virtue ethics and say that's the best way to moralise universally (but not necessarily objectively)... aren't I just saying that there is ONE objective fact, and that is that we ought to act in a way that is best for our internal well-being? Or if I subscribe to utilitarianism, aren't I saying there is ONE objective fact about morality, and that is, whatever brings about the most utility is what is moral?
Not necessarily - you can have the utilitarian calculus without bringing in the "morality" rhetoric. One could just say they are utilitarian and utility is good but possesses no "objective" value, only the ones that people ascribe to it.
When you say act in accordance to truth, what do you mean? Are you saying integrity is a catalyst for beauty?
Acting in accordance to truth equates to something along the lines of seeing reality as it is, and acting with that information in mind. It doesn't really have to be integrity at all - it's not about speaking the truth, but seeing truth and behaving in response.
Note: any use of 'preference' is inclusive of my second definition, so when I say 'preference' I am also saying that things are in the best interest of whatever/whoever I'm talking about. If I use preference in a different way to this, I will make a note of it.
I will now argue that the government theory analysis is incomplete. The government theory analysis is focused externally on the preferences of society, however this may be measured. Perhaps advancement would be better quality of subsistence, less economic diversity (in the form of less poverty and more wealth) or what have you. However, this doesn't encompass the internal moral states of people. I am arguing from a virtue ethics perspective. As an extension of morality loosely being equivalent to internal well-being, people will be on a path to self-actualisation (as defined by the OED). So, realising internal 'moral' potentials is what would categorise a self-actualised person here -- as people fully realise the virtues they subscribe for their inner peace and well-being -- as opposed to someone fully realising their skill at basketball etc. So slavery will be immoral because it acts as an inhibitor for the moral self-actualisation (in terms of virtues, I realise self-actualisation is ambiguous so keep my definition in mind) of all parties involved. And so, in the scenario I earlier conceived where everyone has preferences for slavery (or stoning a woman?) - even if they have a preference for the destruction of X, or they have a strong hate of X or they subscribe to something we now find horrid, their immorality lies in the lack of universal love that is required for a morally self-actualised person. And so with the abolition of X horrible things, we move closer to moral self-actualisation (virtues etc), and thus we have real moral progress rather than a political progress that is only progression because it increases overall subsistence, opportunity, or whatever you want to define by the political progress.
*Also won't make a reply on this thread for a little while, Lit exam is tomorrow and I still plan to possibly re-read a book and otherwise prepare things I can bullshit
Can you see though that your entire objection basically comes down to "virtue ethics/morals are a thing, and the government model doesn't account for them, therefore the government model is incomplete"? You haven't justified why I should buy into what some could deem a fairly abstract/airy-fairy account of the internal state of humankind. How do you know that this is how self-actualisation works? Is it impossible that some people have no conception of that in terms of their own "interests", and just want money/social capital? Wouldn't this undermine the extent to which your virtuous self-actualisation is an "objective moral", and is more just a particular interest of some people that can be accounted for by government?
-
Errrrruuharughrhghghgh yes I can see that problem so give me a few days to think my way out of this kthxbai xo
-
Religion is morality
-
Religion is morality
Not quite...:P
-
Going to sound against the grain here.
In my experience, philosophy never seems to answer these kinds of questions convincingly for me and life experience seems to be superior when trying to understand these sorts of things.
I find philosophy to be too perfect and idealistic to reflect reality in any meaningful way. I've taken several units of philosophy at university and scored quite well, but none of them seem to be very 'deep' for me and I just prefer living life and experiencing new things as a way of understanding reality better.
I mean, I remember entering university, thinking to myself how much I hated religion, how much I wanted to champion a secular world and there was fire in my belly back then. A few years later and a lot of experience later, I could even say I admire religion as a whole although probably not enough just yet to become religious.
University is a great place to teach you new ways to think, I'd probably say it doesn't teach you too much about life though.
Personally, I'd recommend for everyone to live in a poor country for at least a year without the Australian Dollar in your pocket upon arrival, only receiving what you earn there. Life can smack you in the face pretty hard once you realise there's a real prospect you'll be busting your ass every day for the rest of your life just so you can feed yourself and get shelter and pay the bills to some bloke who sits on his arse not working a tenth as hard as you do all day. Such a bleak picture can really break yu down, and you begin to understand how people give up on it all and develop addictions or turn to alcohol or just live on the streets.
You'll learn more about answering questions such as, 'why do we exist?' and 'Do I think there is objective morality?' through life experience like this rather than sitting down and thinking.
I can't remember if I overheard this and it resonated within or if it's a novel thought of mine, but philosophy's relationship with life is pretty comparable to the relationship between masturbation and sex.