Hitchens' Morality Challenge

Page 7 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Previous topic | Next topic

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

31 Dec 2008, 6:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Moral realism states the following: Ethical sentences express propositions; some such propositions are true; those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.

I would argue that morality cannot exist without premises 1 and 2, and that 2 relies somewhat upon 3, [ ... "which does not work in with reductionism at all" ... ].

I believe that morality is ultimately part of a religious-ish framework, where objective features can be supernatural, and where these mystical things belong.

Why "supernatural"?

Why not simply "subjective" features, ( particular to time, place, situation of group/tribe, even, in some circumstances, of the individual, etc ) rather than "objective" ones?

.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

31 Dec 2008, 6:52 pm

ouinon wrote:

Why "supernatural"?

If there is no natural feature that can be understood to lead to morality, then the features *must* be supernatural.

Quote:

Why not simply "subjective" features, ( particular to time, place, situation of group/tribe, even, in some circumstances, of the individual, etc ) rather than "objective" ones?

.

Because objectivity is necessary for factuality, so even if there are variations within all of those variables mentioned, and morality varies with it, morality is not necessarily non-objective. It only loses objectivity when there is no factuality to it, and if there is no factuality to morality, then there is nothing to really talk about, morality becomes an opinion, and the nature of moral expressions prevents this from being an opinion as such an attitude is about the same as the defunct philosophy of non-cognitivism, people refer to something objective when speaking about morality. This is seen by the possibility of moral knowledge, and denying moral knowledge almost leads to speaking a different phenomena.

Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

31 Dec 2008, 10:29 pm

Gromit wrote:

Shiggily wrote:

the religious belief in an afterlife can remove stress and fear from a person who would normally be concerned about dying or death.

OK. In both your scenario and mine, someone may act differently because they assign less importance to events in this life, in the expectation of compensation in the afterlife, either for oneself or others. Have I got that right?

not necessarily in the expectation of compensation. But in the expectation that life does not end at death, either for reincarnation or transcending or heaven.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

31 Dec 2008, 11:29 pm

What if a ret*d person raped a girl because he thought she wanted it? It wouldn't make him immoral. We have rules that say no means no for those people. Humans are intricate beings and morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion is there to protect those from others who cannot empathize or think they know better.

Rules can be broken when morality overrides the end result. It's true. God is the inner compass of real morality.
Imagine living in WWII. Yes I know I broke the golden rule of internet debates by bringing up Hitler. Get over it.
If you were a nazi youth you would be expected to kill in the name of the faterland which was built on the morals of Catholicism.
Would you have betrayed your country and God for you inner moral compass?

Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

31 Dec 2008, 11:35 pm

Magnus wrote:

Laws are there to protect those from others who cannot empathize or think they know better.

I fixed your quote for accuracy. Morals you do not need to follow... laws you do. Laws are to protect. Morality is to guide.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

01 Jan 2009, 2:12 am

Laws are there for people who don't understand the difference. Morality is subjective to the individual.

_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras

Shiggily
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,317

01 Jan 2009, 3:24 am

Magnus wrote:

Laws are there for people who don't understand the difference. Morality is subjective to the individual.

and morality changes from culture to culture, gender to gender, religion to religion. Laws are put into place for people to agree on a basic way to act within a society regardless of their personal views on morality.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

01 Jan 2009, 4:25 am

Shiggily wrote:

Magnus wrote:

Laws are there for people who don't understand the difference. Morality is subjective to the individual.

I like what you guys are discussing here so I'll add a bit:

we've left morality out of the legal code because, while we have certain standards on our own we also don't want other people governing certain aspects of our lives. To that degree we keep legal aspects minimal on moral standing, more on the absolute 'this will f' things up', and then keep the rest as regulation for contracts, procedures for certain kinds of action; that's more of keeping the peace through keeping things organized and rolls as well as responsibilities well defined - very important role as well.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jan 2009, 11:17 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

we've left morality out of the legal code because, while we have certain standards on our own we also don't want other people governing certain aspects of our lives. To that degree we keep legal aspects minimal on moral standing, more on the absolute 'this will f' things up', and then keep the rest as regulation for contracts, procedures for certain kinds of action; that's more of keeping the peace through keeping things organized and rolls as well as responsibilities well defined - very important role as well.

Morality can never be left out of the legal code, even the choice to leave certain "moral issues" out of the legal code is an expression of morality. In any case, the choices on acceptable and unacceptable "f things up" is still a question, because even killing another person can be done enough different ways that some will and some won't f things up, like in dueling. Not only that, but it is difficult to say that animal rights laws are amoral, as the expected benefit to society from protecting these creatures seems minimal, however, few people seek to get rid of animal rights laws, and the people who make the psychological argument rarely want to continue on to ban media with similar tendencies.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

01 Jan 2009, 3:06 pm

Well! Carry on then! I'll zip it and go back to drinking.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jan 2009, 4:07 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Well! Carry on then!

I'll zip it and go back to drinking.

Well, it is a New Year, so you had best make it merry!

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jan 2009, 11:16 am

AspieAtheistAlly wrote:

Name a moral action taken or a moral statement made by a religious believer, that COULDN'T'VE been made by a non-believer.

Now...

Name an immoral statement made or an immoral action taken that could only be religiously motivated.

In debates, the first has never been answered, but the second... you've already thought of an answer!!

Morality is an inherent human meme. Every one who ever lived (with few exceptions) has a sense of right and wrong. It comes with being a human. You are issued a moral nature along with your lungs and heart.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Jan 2009, 11:33 am

ruveyn wrote:

AspieAtheistAlly wrote:

And yet, although we all (or the overwhelming majority) breathe efficiently and pump our blood well enough to stay alive, this inherent morality creates people like Stalin, Hitler, Cheney and G.W.Bush, Mr. Madoff and huge numbers who also breathe and pump blood nicely but steal, torture, rape, kill with little or no remorse. Perhaps they, by definition, are not human.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

03 Jan 2009, 11:47 am

IF you can chalk up your actions to Manifest Destiny and/or Executive Privilege, you're off the hook. But not really.

Manifest Destiny, White Man's Burden ... that is a real crock of sh*t.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jan 2009, 12:37 pm

Sand wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Either that or they have learned to stifle the better angels of their nature. It is also possible that these folks are sociopaths. Fortunately for the rest of us, such people are in the minority. These guys are damaged goods, which makes them -more- dangerous and less to be pitied.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

03 Jan 2009, 2:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

To describe the people elected to make major decisions as being in the minority is one of the most ironic, most amusing things I have come across in a long time. And one of the saddest. Of course the president is only one man in compared to the millions he directs to fight a war that kills hundreds of thousands to no purpose but his emotional and political satisfaction. Being in the minority obviously gives somebody a bit of satisfaction. What a weird viewpoint.

Page 7 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Jump to:

Hitchens' Morality Challenge Post Reply New Topic

Hitchens' Morality Challenge