An Ethics Question

A simple explanation is that people can be wrong about things.  If object A has 4 wheels and an engine and I call it a horse, I am wrong. Just because I call it a horse does not mean that it is a horse, if this analogy makes any sense.

Yes, people can be wrong about things. In your example though, it's less so because you're using words of objects that are of consensus. It's incorrect in a way, but not at the fundamental level.

Yes, people can be wrong about things. In your example though, it's less so because you're using words of objects that are of consensus.

However, truth is not defined by consensus.

Quote from: divito on July 15, 2007, 05:33:42 AM

Yes, people can be wrong about things. In your example though, it's less so because you're using words of objects that are of consensus.

However, truth is not defined by consensus.

Welcome to the United States Judicial System.

Quote from: divito on July 15, 2007, 05:33:42 AM

Yes, people can be wrong about things. In your example though, it's less so because you're using words of objects that are of consensus.

However, truth is not defined by consensus.

That's my point.

So? As I put forth in my philosophy class, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced with one article:

"All human beings have the right to do whatever they are mentally and physically capable."

This is supported with what is evident in the world.

Divito.  It occurs to me that if this is the sum total of your worldview, then does it not follow that human rights include, by necessity, the right to posit other rights (or prohibitions), to speak and write in ways you deem inaccurate, or even to oppress your own right to express the above opinion?

Are you not, in fact, proposing a world in which you could be murdered for holding this opinion and your murderer would be acting within the very "rights" you posit him or her to have?

On the surface it seems that you are only rehashing "might makes right" or "justice is the will of the strongest" (if you prefer) and applying it to all actions, even those done in the limited power of the weaker.  Or to clarify, you seem to propose that “rights” and indeed all matters of “right and wrong” are defined exclusively by capacity.  If accepted this seems to invalidate any and all value statements.

If all words and actions are equally valid then doesn't that make your goal to find "correctness and accuracy in communication" no more or less valuable then another person's goal to create what they might call greater moral clarity, even where these goals and definitions become mutually exclusive?

In short, why take up this crusade against inaccuracy, isn't it just as good as accuracy?  Why speak for relativism if it can be no better or worse than absolutism?

I know that not one of you feels any remorse for the swatting of a pesky insect.

In fairness, BOGWarrior89, I'm not certain that is can be known.  I would argue that there are many people who would feel remorse for this very act, some might even be on this forum.

Mellowone must be starved like the one before it.

Divito.  It occurs to me that if this is the sum total of your worldview, then does it not follow that that human rights include, by necessity, the right to posit other rights (or prohibitions), to speak and write in ways you deem inaccurate, or even to oppress your own right to express the above opinion?

People can type and communicate however they want to. My deeming it inaccurate is only in accordance with established rules and guidelines set out in the language. It is in my self-interest to try and make their writing more accurate and concise to better debate on these forums. It's their prerogative in regards to actually heeding my opinion.

Are you not, in fact, proposing a world in which you could be murdered for holding this opinion and your murderer would be acting within the very "rights" you posit him or her to have?

Yes.

Or to clarify, you seem to propose that “rights” and indeed all matters of “right and wrong” are defined exclusively by capacity.  If accepted this seems to invalidate any and all value statements.

Essentially true. "Rights" are social constructs. They are opinionated and not based on objective material/evidence, just like values (non-mathematical). To expand, think existentialism and authentic choices.

If all words and actions are equally valid then doesn't that make your goal to find "correctness and accuracy in communication" no more or less valuable then another person's goal to create what they might call greater moral clarity, even where these goals and definitions become mutually exclusive?

It is no more valuable than any other opinion.

In short, why take up this crusade against inaccuracy, isn't it just as good as accuracy?

Depends who you ask.  

Why speak for relativism if it can be no better or worse than absolutism?

I wasn't really speaking for relativism per say. My actual beliefs don't quite fit in with either. Moral absolutism is probably the funniest thing I've ever read about though.

Hope this helps a little. I wish I could explain more but doing it on a forum isn't in my self-interest.  You'll all have to wait for my book. 

i want a copy of said book signed and delivered plx

I'll see what I can do.

BOGWarrior89,

I think you asked a good question when you started this thread and I have an answer which might be of some use, you can be the judge of that, I suppose.

I believe that I can demonstrate that the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion (or slavery, or any other issue of controversy) does not necessarily change with the public view.  Further, I believe I can demonstrate this without giving evidence of the existence of morality.

There has been much made of the lack of "proof" of morality here.  Indeed, I can not look at morality under a microscope; I cannot detect it with a spectrometer.  There is no empirical evidence of universal or absolute morality.  However, an absence of proof does not, and cannot constitute a proof of absence.  So we must look at both possibilities, if absolute morality exists and if it does not.

Assuming the premise that Morality (as a truth outside of human opinion) does exist.  Then public opinion may change any number of times without altering the actual underlying morality of the issue in the slightest.

Assuming that such an underlying Morality does not exist for any given issue then we could assume that a moment ago it did not exist, in this moment it does not exist and in another moment it will not exist.  In this case its lack of existence is continuous, and has no connection to the moral opinions of the majority.

To summarize, if something can be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is irrelevant to that judgment and if something can not be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is still irrelevant to that judgment.

Therefore, the popularity of an idea has no impact on its actual moral character.

Moving past what I can demonstrate, I’d like to add an opinion, to editorialize, if you will: While we cannot prove an underlying morality, I'd argue that there is no practical reason not to believe it exists.  The benefits we gain from living like moral men and women and from living in a society where others do the same are, I think, greater then the benefits we might receive from living as if their are no moral rules or human rights or especially from living in a society that discounts such possibilities.


On another topic:

Midnight,
Why must I "be starved"?  Who, or what is "the one before it"?  What do you mean by "starved"?  I hope you aren't being literal.

I rather like to eat.

A simple explanation is that people can be wrong about things.  If object A has four wheels and an engine and I call it a horse, I am wrong.  Just because I call it a horse does not mean that it is a horse, if this analogy makes any sense.

Well, wait.  You've defined object A to have four wheels and an engine, and you called it a horse.  Yes, I will agree with you that the human system of choice defines that to not be a "horse", but that doesn't mean you are wrong - it just means you are wrong in accordance with the generally used system.  If you call it a "horse", then, in accordance with your system, it is a "horse".  One can only be considered to be "correct" or "incorrect" when one is comparing one's own opinion with the set "truth" of a certain system.

However, truth is not defined by consensus.

Consensus (noun): 1a: general agreement : UNANIMITY  b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned;  2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

What is considered to be "true" is agreed upon by the observers involved; we, as humans, determine, in one way or another, what is "true" and what is "false".  Therefore, truth is defined by consensus.  Your argument implies that there is a set-in-stone list of truths and all things true.  This is incorrect because truth is defined by systems created by a fallacious observer.

To Mellowone:

I accept the notion that there may be an underlying, hidden morality, but you must understand that it's similar to trying to prove that we all live in a simulation; if they [the real world and the simulation] are so similar to where they wouldn't be able to be separated from one another, why bother?  I'm discussing the subjectivity/objectivity of morality, and, from what I can see, morality appears to be subjective to the opinions of man.

Although popularity would have no impact on it's absolute moral character, it has an overwhelmingly large impact on its perceived (by the fallacious observers) moral character.  And that's the one that matters.

You truly believe we live as moral men and women?

I accept the notion that there may be an underlying, hidden morality

You disappoint me with such a statement.

The rest of your post was spot-on though.

BOGWarrior89,

I think you asked a good question when you started this thread and I have an answer which might be of some use, you can be the judge of that, I suppose.

I believe that I can demonstrate that the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion (or slavery, or any other issue of controversy) does not necessarily change with the public view.  Further, I believe I can demonstrate this without giving evidence of the existence of morality.

There has been much made of the lack of "proof" of morality here.  Indeed, I can not look at morality under a microscope; I cannot detect it with a spectrometer.  There is no empirical evidence of universal or absolute morality.  However, an absence of proof does not, and cannot constitute a proof of absence.  So we must look at both possibilities, if absolute morality exists and if it does not.

Assuming the premise that Morality (as a truth outside of human opinion) does exist.  Then public opinion may change any number of times without altering the actual underlying morality of the issue in the slightest.

Assuming that such an underlying Morality does not exist for any given issue then we could assume that a moment ago it did not exist, in this moment it does not exist and in another moment it will not exist.  In this case its lack of existence is continuous, and has no connection to the moral opinions of the majority.

To summarize, if something can be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is irrelevant to that judgment and if something can not be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is still irrelevant to that judgment.

Therefore, the popularity of an idea has no impact on its actual moral character.

Moving past what I can demonstrate, I’d like to add an opinion, to editorialize, if you will: While we cannot prove an underlying morality, I'd argue that there is no practical reason not to believe it exists.  The benefits we gain from living like moral men and women and from living in a society where others do the same are, I think, greater then the benefits we might receive from living as if their are no moral rules or human rights or especially from living in a society that discounts such possibilities.


On another topic:

Midnight,
Why must I "be starved"?  Who, or what is "the one before it"?  What do you mean by "starved"?  I hope you aren't being literal.

I rather like to eat.

i think this is the first sensible thing i've seen on this whole damn website

Its sensible,I'd question its accuracy though. Morals do rely on the popular opinion of the surrounding environment. So, if under the above system it turns out that rape is wrong, but then someone rapes a handicapped person and says it was alright, and they live in a supremisist environment, then it would be morally right for those people. Not from our point of view, but they don't see through that point of view.

Morals do rely on the popular opinion of the surrounding environment.

Yup. Perspective + self-interest = morals/classification.

Well, I should clarify that the environment shapes morals to a certain degree; if you grow up in a Facist state, you are more likely to grow up with facist morals.

Well, I should clarify that the environment shapes morals to a certain degree; if you grow up in a Facist state, you are more likely to grow up with facist morals.

All the more reason they are subjective.

Plus fascism is the best ideology anyways.

Yeah sure it is.

Don't believe me?

Not really. Go ahead and post why it is. Maybe we'll somehow get this thread back on topic in a few pages time...

I think we already out-did this thread, myself and BOG. Erasmus seemed to not take interest in it anymore and he was the only one worth debating.

As for why fascism is the best, simply look at the United States as a nation. While it's debated whether they'd actually be considered fascist, rolling through what fascism entails and embodies, the US is close on all fronts. The only glaring hole in the title of fascism for the US is the idea of them being a true democracy or not. And that's in my own opinion.

Simply Googling around will find plenty of material with little blurbs here and there about fascist America and such. It's an interesting idea for sure.

So... why would fascism be the best ideology, then? 

So... why would fascism be the best ideology, then? 

Being that they are the most powerful nation pretty much, they put to the test the ideas of fascism and prove it. Highest GDP, militarism..although their social aspects of fascism are lacking, that's mainly because they are sticking to the Republican garbage. If they adopted the more socialistic aspects that fascism has, then they'd be even better.

Sorry, not buying it.

divito, you might want to give a shot at answering the question that was asked.  Just a thought.

divito, you might want to give a shot at answering the question that was asked.  Just a thought.

I gave them enough of the idea to think about it and maybe look into it. I'm definitely not going to make the attempt at re-writing my 5000 word essay, as much as I'd like to have people concur with my opinion.

Assuming the premise that Morality (as a truth outside of human opinion) does exist.  Then public opinion may change any number of times without altering the actual underlying morality of the issue in the slightest.

Assuming that such an underlying Morality does not exist for any given issue then we could assume that a moment ago it did not exist, in this moment it does not exist and in another moment it will not exist.  In this case its lack of existence is continuous, and has no connection to the moral opinions of the majority.

To summarize, if something can be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is irrelevant to that judgment and if something can not be called legitimately right or wrong then its popularity is still irrelevant to that judgment.

You have to love word games.

Here's your hidden premise: morality has to exist as a truth outside of human perspective for it to be legitimate. The legitimacy of morals is subjective just as much as the morals themselves.

EDIT: I would consider morals decided upon by popularity more legitimate than morals decided upon by some outdated book full of fairy tales. In the same way I consider a democratic government more legitimate than a medieval king who had a "divine" right to rule.

While we cannot prove an underlying morality, I'd argue that there is no practical reason not to believe it exists.

A practical reason is that it opens up morals for discussion and challenges - something that helps weed out the bad ideas and strengthen the good ideas.

The benefits we gain from living like moral men and women and from living in a society where others do the same are, I think, greater then the benefits we might receive from living as if their are no moral rules or human rights or especially from living in a society that discounts such possibilities.

Another word game, here you are basically saying that if morals don't exist outside of human perspective then they don't exist.  This is false, morals are types of ideas - ideas exist.  Just because somebody is stating the obvious that morals don't exist as a truth outside of human perspective does not mean that they are advocating immoral behaviour. As you said morals can be a benefit to society and I'm sure that many (if not most) people that realise that morals are subjective would also understand how they can benefit society and would be fairly moral themselves.

Of course you have to be careful with morals because when people get too caught up with them (especially when they are "legitimate" morals) it can lead to some very nasty, unsocial behaviour... the inquisition comes to mind.

Just because one would understand that morality is subjective and not fact, doesn't mean that they are compelled to disobey the laws set forth. Even when ethics and morals play such a large role in today's society, you still have people acting of their self-interest. Self-interest is the only constant in human action. This is where existentialism reveals itself.