16 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyIt's hardly splitting hairs , I think the point being morals go out the window when a situation gets bad enough.
You are splitting hairs. The fact remains that people for the most part are against killing, unless it is viewed as self defense or a path to dealing out justice etc.
Face it, there is a universal sense of morality that we all share.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by woodypusherThere is a paradox here. If the "inferior" get their way, something about their strategy is superior. Of course the deposed "superior" can declare the new superior's strategy immoral, but that's just them being the new inferior, trying to prevent the new superior from getting their way.
I'm not sure who said this and it's not verbatim:
'Morality' is something made up by the inferior to prevent the superior from doing the things they wish they could do.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by RBHILLYou have to understand what is at the root of morality. What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
I guess you have not heard of honor killings?
There are certain criterea for it to be used. For example, the other party needs to be your equal. This is bypassed with such rhetoric as the slave in the 1800's not being fully human, but more of a beast of burden. The Jews were vermin in Nazi Germany and in the middle east nonmuslims are infidels. These honor killings would be akin to becoming an infidel. In the US, the fetus is the term used for the unborn, again, to further dehumanize us. After all, if the unborn were acknowledged as really being equals to us, then abortion would have to be outlawed tomorrow.
All of these mental gymnastics to dehumanize people is at the root of the issue and not that there is no universal morality.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357I don't see a paradox. The inferior haven't gotten their way. Just look around.
There is a paradox here. If the "inferior" get their way, something about their strategy is superior. Of course the deposed "superior" can declare the new superior's strategy immoral, but that's just them being the new inferior, trying to prevent the new superior from getting their way.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, replace 'morality' with 'jesus' in my first post.
You have to understand what is at the root of morality. What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
There are certain criterea for it to be used. For example, the other party needs to be your equal. This is bypassed with such rhetoric as th ...[text shortened]... s to dehumanize people is at the root of the issue and not that there is no universal morality.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357This is a good thoughtful post. Your comments regarding from what morality "derives" really has to do with how we learn to develop and exercise our moral faculty. However, the bigger issue is the etiology of our moral faculty itself, why humans have it to begin with. For discussion on that, I would recommend a book by Richard Joyce, The Evolution of Morality (2006, MIT Press). I've seen many other books on the topic, but Joyce's is my favorite of the ones I have seen. His central thesis, basically, is that the etiology of the human moral faculty is related to the manipulation of emotional centers through natural selection; and that a human tendency to project emotions onto the world is central to our moral sense. But this touches on many, many issues and topics and Joyce does a good job, I think, developing the subject. Of course, I don't agree with all his viewpoints, but I like his treatment of the topic.
Discuss? OK. I will take a shot at morality being based on objective, learnable facts about the world, and that it is "applied" using subjective emotions.
It has been said that the West uses guilt as an emotional reaction to immoral behavior and the East uses shame.
It isn't significant for this discussion, which is used where, it is significant that emo ...[text shortened]... example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
On the other hand, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the question of whether or not "morality is subjective". If someone wants to say that "morality is subjective" because persons have differing views on morality, then okay (but basically every topic is subjective by that metric). If someone wants to say that "morality is subjective" because we have emotional reactions to immoral behavior, then okay (but of course we have emotional reactions to all sorts of behavior). I don't really understand why we should care whether or not morality is "subjective" in these senses. I would just hope that no one in the discussion pretends like morality's status as "subjective" in these senses carries any meta-ethical import. The question of whether or not some version of subjectivism is true in a meta-ethical sense is a completely different discussion.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyYou have to understand what is at the root of morality. What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
You have to understand what is at the root of morality. What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
There are certain criterea for it to be used. For example, the other party needs to be your equal. This is bypassed with such rhetoric as th ...[text shortened]... s to dehumanize people is at the root of the issue and not that there is no universal morality.
That's some sort of joke, right?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks I have reserved that book at my local library. I hope that no one is dismissive of morality on the basis that it has a subjective element, but I think that everyone, even the mass killers of this world, justify the moral value of their actions. The few that write manifestos, tell us this.
This is a good thoughtful post. Your comments regarding from what morality "derives" really has to do with how we learn to develop and exercise our moral faculty. However, the bigger issue is the etiology of our moral faculty itself, why humans have it to begin with. For discussion on that, I would recommend a book by Richard Joyce, [i]The Evolution of ...[text shortened]... jectivism is true in a meta-ethical sense is a completely different discussion.
17 Feb 13
It has to be pointed out here, as I see a few people making this error, that we do not always act morally even by our own standards.
I will point out a special case: love. If your loved one is threatened, you may choose to protect them in an immoral way. You will probably even feel entirely justified in doing so. But this does not make it a moral 'right' nor is your decision or motivation a moral one. I think self preservation falls into the same category ie it is not morally good to be selfish, but it is generally understood to be acceptable to some degree even at the expense of morals.
17 Feb 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloNot at all. We all innately know to treat others the way we want to be treated. Of course, none of us do all the time, but then, that is why we get dinged by our conscience.
[b]You have to understand what is at the root of morality. What is at the root is the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus. Although it was around before he came on the scene, he established it as the universal morality.
That's some sort of joke, right?[/b]
Of course, those without a conscience include those who ignore it over an extended period of time or those who simply have a pathology of some sort.