where logic and universal morality intersect

Post Reply New Topic

I was inspired to write this thread because of a certain ape who knows who he is (stay off this thread AG, I'm not bothering arguing your so-called "logic" and your stupid ILLOGICAL circular arguments).
Most any SANE person can at least all agree on a conscious level that certain immoral principals, such as hurting innocent beings for reasons other than immediate self preservation are wrong, that slavery is wrong, that blindling screwing over innocent people is wrong. With that said, this should be common sense, and shouldn't really need much explaining.
Whatever a person puts out, they get back. If someone insists on being a negative a**hole, people will treat them badly. If for instance, I went and framed an innocent person for something they didn't do, I KNOW they'll retaliate. What else is to be expected?
This of coarse is why compassion is an essential part of morality, if people just blindly fall back on "human nature" as a crutch to support immoral behavior, humanity will remain in this constant retaliatory state of chain reactions, more innocent people will get caught in the bs, they'll retaliate, and so on.
Now some people *cough cough* seem to think we should turn a blind eye to the thousands of starving, diseased, and dying people in 3rd world countries, exploit their needs for our own benefits, and openly admit to this. Because "morality is a myth". I was always under the impression that the reason for self improvement is not only to look out for oneself, but to look out for the greater community at large (in this case humanity), because sometimes the best way to help ourselves are by helping others.

This flame is neither brief or witty.

F-

Not everything is about entertainment.

The "witty" was the primary mover in the last sentence.

"Witty" = content, point and skill of craftsmanship.

the judging stands

Dude, why does it matter if it was "witty"? It has nothing to do with the message. "Witty" is just saying "if you don't say it in a way that is entertaining, i won't look at the points your making". That's the problem now days, people think EVERYTHING has to be a game. Hell civil rights is reguarded as a game these days, if nothing more than on a sub-conscious level. There are things more important than entertainment, this is where reality tv has invaded peoples' minds. I mean no offense by what I'm saying, I'm just making the point that right and wrong is about more than entertainment.

Not really, some sane minds have argued that morality is a fiction. Not only that but given the historical inconsistency of the moral principles as civilizations have done and called good all of that which you call evil, it almost seems to indicate that really you have a faith held so deeply that any questioning of it leads to your anger.

Really though, I would like you to prove morality. Absolutely prove it, down to the foundations. Prove that a moral law is part of the fundamental nature of reality and not simply what follows from one of your more basic assumptions.

it is in humane nature to be immoral, but human nature isn't a crutch. A wise man named Buddha stated "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Some people would rather strive for a more peaceful and positive world. Human conscious leads most sane people to try and resist "natural law" to some degree, even if theyr sub-consciously following it. Anyone who wants chaos, ignorance, brutality, and selfishness doesn't deserve to have the right to influence the state of affairs, believe that.
There is no argument needed, it's like arguing why is grass green. It just is, it's that simple. Compassion is what makes humans coexist. Without it, your not human, and by my standards people like you should be be locked away in a zoo with the other animals. Having compassion is not being brainwashed, it's being human.

How do you know grass is green?

This video I shot in the Near IR spectrum shows "green" chlorophyll in plants looks white.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-rs7hageeg[/youtube]

A better answer to the "color" of grass would be to chart its average spectral absorbence and emission over the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

OMG, give me a break. I didn't think common sense could be any further lost on here until I read "how do you know grass is green". Look at it, it's green.

The universal truth of grass's color has to include more than a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum that some animals have the ability to see.

Perhaps the green isn't there and we are merely hallcinating?

Or the plant is covered in millions of little green insects that never move when we look?

The point is you can never be sure about reality %100 since you cannot prove you exist.

I stated that one must prove morality.
He might have stated that, but that doesn't matter.

Well, positive is defined in your eyes. Some may think that perfume smells wonderful, others think it merely smells. Why is this law natural? Not only that but why should your opponents be attacked and denied power?

There is always argument needed. The argument for grass being green is simply that things exist, and that based upon our measurements grass gives off wavelengths of color that indicate that it is green and even those premises can be contested as previously shown. Morality is not grass though, you cannot touch morality, you cannot see morality, you cannot smell it, nor can you taste it. Morality is not a physical characteristic of the world, but rather an abstraction, I ask you to prove its existence for the sake of our discussion in a solid proof that allows all to recognize it in all of its glory. After all, people do not argue about whether or not grass is green but they argue a heck of a lot more on ethics, and I would have a hard time understanding this if it were obvious. I am merely being a free thinker in this " 3. Does not blindly follow social norms, and questions even the most unanimously held beliefs among our society according to decency and morality. " I question a belief on morality rather than blindly following a faith as you have.

Wasn't it you in the other thread that said to 'question everything'? Well, he questioned the grass, and now you're getting mad at him.
Reality is subjective. How do you even know that green looks the same to you as it does to somebody else?

I also think that most, if not all perfume, smells like ass. I hate it.

Also I'm going to have to argue with you on the slavery point. That's a very ignorant and modern view you have.
Just like animal breeding, prostitution, international import/export and trade, taxation, and trial by jury, everything needs to be regulated.

Not all slaves were treated poorly, and that's just an anti-slavery stigma left over from the past 400 years that gives you a prejudgement without having experienced anything to do with slavery. I am a slave, and I am treated quite nicely. In Roman and Egyptian times not all slaves were treated poorly. Back into ancient times slavery has existed. Yes some owners mistreat their property much in the same way one would abuse a dog. Is it appropriate? No. Perhaps you should research more deeply into a topic as such before you make such a statement with your "of course I'm right" kind of attitude.

Just in case you're wondering where that came from, I'll go ahead and highlight the offending portion of your post.

Most any SANE person (This is the part where you come off like a pompous over-opinionated a**hole.) can at least all agree on a conscious level that certain immoral principals, such as hurting innocent beings for reasons other than immediate self preservation (I agree with this one on some levels) are wrong, that slavery is wrong (this is the part where you blurt out an uninformed opinion), that blindling (you misspelled blindly) screwing over innocent people is wrong. With that said, [b]this should be common sense[b/], (again coming off as a pompous ass) and shouldn't really need much explaining.

So now that I've yet again dissected your argument, please rethink your situation and take your anger levels down a few notches. Submit your ideas rather than throwing them out in a "in your face! these are my opinions and you can't do anything about them! I'm wild and crazy and my thoughts are EDGY!" kind of way.

I'd like to bring to your attention Benford's Law of Controversy. It seems to apply to you very well.

Present your ideas in a friendly and polite kind of way. Shall I demonstrate? Okay, watch me.

Hey everybody, what do you think about pantheism versus monotheism? I personally like the idea of pantheism with a higher reigning set of gods (male/female respectively) that hold control over the various demi-gods, but aren't all-powerful themselves. Even if you're an atheist, I'd like to hear your opinion on the concepts. How do you think each arose? Which do you prefer? Which monotheistic or pantheistic gods do you favour, and why? For example, if you like Roman pantheism and you have a favourite god out of the bunch, tell us about it. You don't even have to believe in a particular theism, let's just have fun with it, okay? Oh, and does anybody know of any monotheistic religions besides the Judaic religions and sun-worship? I don't think I've heard of any other monotheistic religions, so if you know of any, throw those out there, too.

Now snake, do you see how I have indicated a preference for a particular thing in the topic without stating anything factual? The point of a discussion is to leave the points open so other people can attempt to make them. It's supposed to be an open-ended question (or statement). I could have said, "CLEARLY pantheism makes more sense." and thrown out all my opinions without letting anybody else getting to put their opinion in first, but instead I've opened up the forum for a friendly debate about a particular subject. Once I've gathered enough opinions, I'll thrown my own in with a bit more detail (because I did mention why I have a preference, though I didn't go into great detail), and perhaps question some people's opinions or counter some points other people have made if I think the point is weak or I have a conflicting idea. The idea is not to be openly confrontational and angry about everything. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how informed or uninformed it may be, and everybody is entitled to shoot down that opinion, but it makes the whole experience ENJOYABLE if you do it in a friendly manner, which is why the forums exist in the first place.

So now that I've said what I've said, I welcome you to reply with a calm and rational counter-statement or an agreement with my statements.
I do ask that you please avoid any kind of response that could be considered inflammatory (flaming). Thank you, and I do apologise if I took a condescending tone in my message.

Last edited by lindarthebard on 06 Aug 2007, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

You have to be more specific if you wanty anyone to take you up. As you say yourself, morality is an abstraction, like justice, aggression, beauty, truth or proof. You can't prove the existence of any of those abstractions by pointing to something. Do you want proof that the concept of morality exists?



That sounds more like you want a proof that there are universal moral principles. The relevant data would come from cross-cultural psychology, and perhaps from analysis of legal codes. You could also look up game theoretic analyses of cooperative behaviour, which is being done by economists, psychologists and ethologists. I would think these are your best bet.

As a rough outline of universal principles, how about "help your own people, in a wider but possibly limited circle return favours, more generally retaliate against those who harm you and yours"? The main difference would be how inclusive or exclusive "your people" and the next larger group of people would be (some would include not just all humans but all other species as well, others only close family), and what is considered harm. Harm would usually be reduced access to resources and reduced status. Off-hand, I can't think of any culture that doesn't fit this extremely general description. Can you? Or can you show the description is too general to be useful?

If you mean something else by proving morality, please say. At the moment it is difficult to see what you are asking.

Gromit

You can't prove justice as justice is tied to morality which I would consider very difficult to prove, aggression can be proved as it is a matter of definition and comparison between behaviors and not really that abstract, beauty can be defined as something found by a being to be aesthetically pleasing and it can be proved that things can be found beautiful there is just no absolute beauty, truth is also something that is definitional as truth is merely correct information and information can hold a truth value, finally proof is something that can be considered as it is merely a logical function and a definition and with proper logic something is proved and without it isn't. These propositions, except for justice, can actually be looked at logically to find an answer, the nature of morality and justice are more confusing as nobody would consider them on the same level of opinion but they are. I am asking for proof that a universal moral code must exist, not that people can somehow think of what they ought to do but rather whether they can think of what they ought to do in a manner logically derived from the world.

Yes and no. There is no relevant data in this matter, I am looking for a metaphysical abstraction not for any aspect of history or human nature. Even if almost all human beings acting like white knights or nazis, it would not prove what is truly moral or what is truly just, as most concepts of morality go deeper than a cross-cultural understanding would yield and moral codes that are very different are conceivable and do exist (ethical egoism and altruism for example)

Why have a people? Now really, I am not sure that can be an ethical principle because it is too vague in some areas and tautology in others. One's people is essentially just the people that one treats as one's people for example, and because it is a matter of definition it does not seem to be an ethical principle as there can be no defiance of it. Not only that but some moral philosophies explicitly condemn the notion of revenge stated at the end, such as Christian moral philosophy if one hurts you then you turn the other cheek. It can be stated that none of them truly follow that but it does not exclude it from the list of moral codes to be considered. Basically, I don't find the definition to be good as deviation from it is possible to consider moral, and where that doesn't occur we tend to have something even more difficult to deal with as my people is anyone whom I choose to consider so and thus I cannot actually ever hurt my people unless it is considered more rigid than I do and then it wouldn't have to be objectively correct.

Well, I think your problem is that you don't recognize that I am asking for someone to complete a task that I believe to be logically impossible. It would only be clearer if I was asking for a square circle really. All issues of proving it run into an is-ought problem though and I tend to accept the is-ought problem as having some correctness.