Page 12 of 12 [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

01 Jun 2009, 3:07 am

Orwell wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
I was referring to your statement in the context of this issue, not to the value of considering various moral theories in the philosophical realm.

Well, if deontological moral theories are valid, they are valid in all circumstances.

That's a pretty big 'if'.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


vibratetogether
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

01 Jun 2009, 4:38 am

Orwell wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
I was referring to your statement in the context of this issue, not to the value of considering various moral theories in the philosophical realm.

Well, if deontological moral theories are valid, they are valid in all circumstances.

Quote:
When dealing with the issue of abortion, if you are bringing to the table "this is right, this is wrong", I don't really know where we can go with that, because it's utterly absurd.

Perhaps it seems absurd to you, but deontoloical views typically seem absurd to those who do not share them.


I never conceded that they were valid. Looking at my quote, I don't see how you could conclude that. There is certainly a place for this viewpoint, and you are of course, welcome to hold this opinion and opine on it. However, when it comes to the real world, it is my view (and also imo the view of any rational person) that morality is relative. That is not to say that we should not hold opinions (even very strong opinions), or that we should not fight for our own version of morality, I think that's only natural. My problem is that this absolutist view does not account for my views, while my view would account for the absolutists.

It is not the "duty" aspect that I find absurd, in fact I would argue for some link between our sense of "duty" and our base nature, so it's not absurd so much as a false conclusion based on some hint of truth. It is the idea that there is some structured absolute "right" or "wrong" that I find absurd.

I really wish I could express myself better in words, because I feel as though, if I were able to put into words the connections in my head, most people would instantly be like "oh, I get that." Of course, most people are so hard-wired into their own views that I would probably just go insane with the futility of it all (I find that when confronted with uncomfortable truths, people get defensive, and that turns into outright nastiness).



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Jun 2009, 11:28 am

vibratetogether wrote:
I never conceded that they were valid.

I never said you did, but no one else is compelled to accept your theory of morality. Utilitarianism vs deontology is an open question.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Jun 2009, 3:48 pm

vibratetogether wrote:
Instead of actually wanting a better world, they just want to "end" what they see as evil.

I'm curious, how is ending evil not making the world better?


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jun 2009, 4:26 pm

Orwell wrote:
]
The "potential person" argument makes menstruation murder, which is obviously not the case.


Menstruation is a natural process, not a willful deliberate act. You have stretched the analogy too far.

ruveyn



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

01 Jun 2009, 4:33 pm

vibratetogether wrote:
I never conceded that they were valid. Looking at my quote, I don't see how you could conclude that. There is certainly a place for this viewpoint, and you are of course, welcome to hold this opinion and opine on it. However, when it comes to the real world, it is my view (and also imo the view of any rational person) that morality is relative.

Morality is first of all a normative and therefore lacks any kind of basis in empirical reality, so assigning any kind of existence relative or otherwise is nonsense. I might rather argue the only rational position is moral skepticism, on the one hand, and a descriptive view when it comes to observation of human society on the other. Since neither of those makes a proscription, any further pursuit of the point is pointless.

Quote:
That is not to say that we should not hold opinions (even very strong opinions), or that we should not fight for our own version of morality, I think that's only natural. My problem is that this absolutist view does not account for my views, while my view would account for the absolutists.

It is not the "duty" aspect that I find absurd, in fact I would argue for some link between our sense of "duty" and our base nature, so it's not absurd so much as a false conclusion based on some hint of truth. It is the idea that there is some structured absolute "right" or "wrong" that I find absurd.

If you can find a system which involves proscriptions without valuations I'd like to hear it.


_________________
* here for the nachos.