14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RistarFor example, in an infinite series of dominos, an infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before any single domino fell. Thus no single event would ever take place.
The main problem with an infinite regression is that it is philosophically incoherent. For example, in an infinite series of dominos, an infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before any single domino fell. Thus no single event would ever take place. Yet we find that events do take place. How are we to explain the fact that they have taken place a lace if we adhere to this rule? Otherwise, how can we even debate publically affecting issues?
This is not true. Provided that the dominoes were falling through time eventually any given domino would fall, even if it took a really really long time for it to do so. The only logical problem would be if one asked "when will the last domino fall" or some other logically incoherent question.
[edit; this is the logical incoherency that people who ask "what happened before the universe?" fall into.]
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionHi again.
Well not exactly.
I can say I'm right and from my perspective I am.
Conversely, someone who holds a differing moral viewpoint can say they're right and they are.
I understoof what you meant by non-contradiction but applying it to this area is not useful. Two competing moral viewpoints are not cars in a garage.
And I disagree with your point about mo ...[text shortened]... has been eaten. There is no other absolute. Whether it's wrong or not is entirely relative.
Please correct me if I'm inaccurate in understanding your position. I'm just trying to understand.
Are you subscribing to what is known as the "dialectic" system of logic, i.e. "Both this and that" as opposed to "either this or that" (the law of non-contradiction)?
I agree that cars are concrete (unless you are a Buddhist 😉 )and morals are abstract, but is it not appropriate to use analogy to help explain concepts (I'll explain further in my next)? As to relativism, truth can only be relative from a human standpoint. My assertion (which must take us back to the "first cause"😉 is that there is a "law above our laws," one that exists and yet that we did not create.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was Richard Dawkings himself who claimed that religion was a flaw in the "software" of humanity. In other words, he was making a moral pronouncment, claiming that something had "gone wrong" with humanity. This is a blanket statement and can, in effect, be classified as one which attempts to transcend culture, can it not?
So where did it all spring from? Genetics or culture or environment are often brought into the argument, but they are of limited utility here because they can only take us so far. They cannot deny the existence of the metaphysical for that is beyond their scope. Furthermore, they cannot explain the acts of "high nobility" such as a man who binds his enemy's wounds.
Fond regards,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes sir, the domino illustration assumes the idea that an infinite number of time periods must pass before any domino falls. In that sense, I believe you have captured it.
[b]For example, in an infinite series of dominos, an infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before any single domino fell. Thus no single event would ever take place.
This is not true. Provided that the dominoes were falling through time eventually any given domino would fall, even if it took a really really long time for ...[text shortened]... ical incoherency that people who ask "what happened before the universe?" fall into.][/b]
The one thing I would keep in mind is that we are not simply speaking of a "very long time" which is a relative phrase and can, at best, denote a finite (albeit incredibly huge) span, but an actual infinity. Neverending. A never-ending span of time would have to pass. Thus no domino could ever fall. Even if a googleplex number of millennia had to pass, a given domino would indeed eventually fall. But not if we deal with infinity itself.
Fond regards,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarI appreciate the civility more than I can say.
Thanks for the compliment, my good friend. I appreciate the civility more than I can say.
I agree with you when you mention that proximate and ultimate senses of morality exist (assuming I am understanding you correctly). Human beings are finite, limited, and relative. These are the consequences of being an organism bound in space and time. We experien ...[text shortened]... ofessor on the subject, but something tells me you know your stuff. 🙂
Regards,
R
Likewise. Although I appreciate I can be rude to the willfully ignorant. They deserve little better. You are not ignorant, nor willfully so.
do you believe that human beings can rise above their genes and environment
I'm afraid there will be no sprouting of wings, either physically or psychologically, here I'm afraid! I'm afraid that your "going native" example is slightly naive. Human culture, of course, is an downstream effect of the genes. Genes, however, merely provide biological cues for the development of organs, one of which is the brain. Human culture is only possible due to the complexities of the brain. And that brain is horrendously complex. Dawkins would call human culture our "extended phenotype", in the same way that a beaver's dam has a genetic component (beaver behaviour, beaver teeth, etc etc etc). One thing to remeber about someone "going native", is that they are only substituting one culture for another, perhaps by moving from Canada to Japan. It is very rare for an individual to completely remove themselves from society entirely.
Good wishes,
L
(p.s. I have a doctorate in biology and currently have an application in for a tenured position at a university - wish me luck!)
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarIn which case, infinite time would be without beginning too. All descriptions of life (without which morality is a moot subject) have a specific time component. In the planets case, around 4 billion years, but definately a beginning.
Yes sir, the domino illustration assumes the idea that an infinite number of time periods must pass before any domino falls. In that sense, I believe you have captured it.
The one thing I would keep in mind is that we are not simply speaking of a "very long time" which is a relative phrase and can, at best, denote a finite (albeit incredibly huge) span, b ...[text shortened]... no would indeed eventually fall. But not if we deal with infinity itself.
Fond regards,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAbsolutely. I agree with your last post entirely. An infinite regression, given what we know, cannot be sustained, as you say. Those hypothetical dominoes remain just that: hypothetical.
In which case, infinite time would be without beginning too. All descriptions of life (without which morality is a moot subject) have a specific time component. In the planets case, around 4 billion years, but definately a beginning.
And without life... well what's the point? 😉
I guess I would have to say that this thread has moved beyond the mere existence of good and evil. At this point, I think we would all agree that evil exists even if only as a concept. At this point, the question is "Can an absolute standard of evil exist?" But perhaps that's a topic for another thread.
Anyway, it's time for bed. I'll look in on the board when I've had some sleep and some orange juice. 😉
Very fond regards,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarDon't worry if you don't understand my position.
Hi again.
Please correct me if I'm inaccurate in understanding your position. I'm just trying to understand.
Are you subscribing to what is known as the "dialectic" system of logic, i.e. "Both this and that" as opposed to "either this or that" (the law of non-contradiction)?
I agree that cars are concrete (unless you are a Buddhist 😉 )and morals ...[text shortened]... h nobility" such as a man who binds his enemy's wounds.
Fond regards,
R
Half the time I struggle to understand my position.
Not sure about my logical position.
But I question the validity of your 'law above our laws'. Why do we need to posit this? We have moral positions. Our moral positions are relative from place to place, time to time, culture to culture. There seem to be some common points - such as murder being considered bad. This is reasonable in an evolutionary sense.
Where is a law 'above' this needed?
When you say, 'they cannot explain the acts of "high nobility"' what you really mean is that you cannot explain those acts. My guess is that it is possible to explain acts of kindness such as you describe, in a physical sense.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionIf you're unfamiliar with the term, the "dialectic" system of logic refers, essentially to the idea that even if two things contradict one another they can both be true even if unqualified (both/and). The law of non-contradiction meanwhile states that two unqualified contradicting things cannot both be true (either/or); they can both be false, however.
Don't worry if you don't understand my position.
Half the time I struggle to understand my position.
Not sure about my logical position.
But I question the validity of your 'law above our laws'. Why do we need to posit this? We have moral positions. Our moral positions are relative from place to place, time to time, culture to culture. There seem to be ...[text shortened]... it is possible to explain acts of kindness such as you describe, in a physical sense.
The problem with the dialectic system is that it's really not all it's cracked up to be. For example, in the topic under discussion, you seemed to mention that you can be right and another person can be right while expressing a diametrically opposed view (again, please correct me if you feel you have not done this). Under the system you propose, if I wish to analyze morals I "EITHER use the both/and system OR nothing else." The either/or system emerges once again. And, what's more, if the both/and system is all it's cracked up to be, why can't you use BOTH the both/and AND the either/or? It's a serious problem.
I'll admit that the dialectic system has its uses, where two opposing viewpoints can share a common ground and a new viewpoint can emerge (a la Marx), but systemic contradictions cannot be handled this way.
As to the "law above our laws," that is a quote from the Nuremberg trials. When certain nazis were being tried, they claimed their innocence on the grounds that they were merely operating according to the law of their own land. An American lawyer answered, "But gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?" What he was saying is, "Is there not a governing principle that transcends cultures, otherwise how can there be any justice for those who suffered under Hitler?" Victor Frankel has rightly said that the problem with Nazi Germany can, for the most part, be traced back to the adoption of a dangerous idea, namely that there is no truth but what you happen to make up.
Nietzche first propounded this in his philisophy of nihilism (see the parable of "The Madman" for a good presentation of this). The problem with refusing to adopt an ultimate standard is that the most heinous acts can be justified quite easily. Cultural clashes remain unresolved and we cannot even credibly comment on such acts as the holocaust or Stalin's acts of mass murder (which, incidentally, were both performed on the basis of a materialistic definition of the universe). Nietzche would say, simply, "No, there is no law above our laws."
14 Sep 06
One other point that I failed to bring up (I was more tired yesterday than I thought 😉 ):
By saying that all morality is relative, one is in effect, saying that all moral pronouncements are relative, except the moral pronouncement that there can be no absolute moral pronouncements. Under this system, even that assertion is relative, meaning that it isn't always true!
It's not sophistry but a fatal contradiction, and once again it points us to the fact that there must exist an epistemological base for truth. This was the concept which allowed the Nuremberg trials to be something more than a farce.
Regards once again,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarThis is a false problem.
One other point that I failed to bring up (I was more tired yesterday than I thought 😉 ):
By saying that all morality is relative, one is in effect, saying that all moral pronouncements are relative, except the moral pronouncement that there can be no absolute moral pronouncements. Under this system, even that assertion is relative, meaning that it isn't ...[text shortened]... hich allowed the Nuremberg trials to be something more than a farce.
Regards once again,
R
The idea that all moral pronouncements are relative is not, in itself, a moral pronouncement. It does not seek to characterize a moral value, but a truth value to the idea.
This truth value may sound axiomatic in nature, but I believe that different moral standards in cultures all around the world are evidence that such a position might be correct.
LH argued the last time that it may be that this might be because perceptions of an absolute moral standard are flawed. That is not incompatible with the evidence, but it is not my interpretation of it.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYet, the fact that moral standards in cultures across the world are not that different is evidence against such a position. Prohibitions against murder and stealing (at least within the community), for instance.
This truth value may sound axiomatic in nature, but I believe that different moral standards in cultures all around the world are evidence that such a position might be correct.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI must disagree, for the reason that the assertion that all morality is relative has a profound effect on morality and the consequences of moral ideas and deeds based on those ideas. It is, in effect, the ultimate moral pronouncement, for it affects all others!
This is a false problem.
The idea that all moral pronouncements are relative is not, in itself, a moral pronouncement. It does not seek to characterize a moral value, but a truth value to the idea.
Thus, saying that I may do what I please means that I can logically become a new Hitler or Stalin. I may also become a humanitarian, but the idea of relativity can lead to the opposite view as well. Whereas absolute morals cannot logically lead to "all things are permissable."
Ideas have consequences and to say anything else has consequences too.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTrue, I'm a staunch believer in Human Rights myself.
Yet, the fact that moral standards in cultures across the world are not that different is evidence against such a position. Prohibitions against murder and stealing (at least within the community), for instance.
Edit - But I believe these were culturally driven.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarYou are mistaken if you believe a relativist morality means that 'all things are permissible'.
I must disagree, for the reason that the assertion that all morality is relative has a profound effect on morality and the consequences of moral ideas and deeds based on those ideas. It is, in effect, the ultimate moral pronouncement, for it affects all others!
Thus, saying that I may do what I please means that I can logically become a new Hitler or Stal ...[text shortened]... gs are permissable."
Ideas have consequences and to say anything else has consequences too.
Aggregate morality would simply be mostly a cultural driven proccess, but it would still exist as long as societies exist.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure how that follows. Perhaps if I ask a clarifying question, playing the Devil's advocate: If there is no ultimate meaning other than what you give to yourself, if my opinion is just as good as yours, then who is to say you or I may not do as we wish? My peers, perhaps, or society?
You are mistaken if you believe a relativist morality means that 'all things are permissible'.
Aggregate morality would simply be mostly a cultural driven proccess, but it would still exist as long as societies exist.
To draw a quote from Wikipedia, "Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth." I am free to disregard all the above sources because under a relativistic moral framework, no one moral pronouncement carries any more validity than any other. I may distinguish right from wrong purely on the basis of my own personal preference, may I not?