101 réponses à ce sujet

[Wicked 702]

Well, I tend to disagree. For example when a star goes supernova or a comet hits a planet, does the universe define that as good or bad? I think the answer is neither. Only man cares about labeling.



We choose to label as a direct and proximate opposition to the entropy (disorder) found in the natural world.

[B3taMaxxx]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Well, I tend to disagree. For example when a star goes supernova or a comet hits a planet, does the universe define that as good or bad? I think the answer is neither. Only man cares about labeling.

We choose to label as a direct and proximate opposition to the entropy (disorder) found in the natural world.

 No, that's the cosmic life and death cycle. Death, how ever minimal effects the world/universe, but it is a natural occurance.

 Labels have nothing to do with absolutes. For example, with morals in mind, we as humans may not see it wrong to alter atoms, though I do believe if the universe had a voice (which could be argued) would say the opposite.

 Labels are relevant to the reality you live in. It is argued that a comet gave life to this world. Perhaps the Universe is more intelligent then we know.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 14 août 2010 - 03:05 .

[Cheese Elemental]

I don't subscribe to any particular moral viewpoint (Utilitarianism, Kant's law etc). Such things are inherently flawed to me because they go against things that I know for certain to be wrong.

I follow my own moral compass, and judge things on a case-by-case basis. I was raised atheist, but I find myself in agreement with Christian morals fairly often (except on social issues like homosexuality).

[B3taMaxxx]

Cheese Elemental wrote... I was raised atheist, but I find myself in agreement with Christian morals fairly often (except on social issues like homosexuality).

 Raised atheist? I could understand being raised 'indifferent', but............................


 Not all Christians have the same fire and brimstone view on homosexuality, thou if you think that's bad check out the Muslims view on it.

[Loerwyn]

In the western world, a lot of our laws (and some social constructs) are based in Christianity, as it's pretty much the religion. I'd say it's a blinkered view if you don't think it has. It's likely why a lot of people share, roughly, the same morality and views on things - Partially it's based upon the laws of the land, partially based upon social constructs. If a Muslim family, as an example, had a child who was then taken and raised in another social setting, say an Inca culture (Yes, yes, time travel doesn't exist. It's an example!), and was unaware of its heritage, is it not possible - if not likely - that the child will grow up with morals based in that culture? You can see it in countries like England where there's a growing Muslim population. The older members tend to be set in their ways, but you see the younger ones and you end up with a much wider range of views and personalities. As far as I'm aware, there's discontent within the communities as a lot of the children grow up in England and see what we have - freedom to be yourself, basically. There's homosexual muslims who get kicked out of their family simply for being who they are - because their culture doesn't allow it, but the Western one does. There's conflicts everywhere.

In some societies, they have human sacrifices to the gods (or had, perhaps) and those were seen as the "right" thing to do. But other cultures, especially Christianity-based cultures, saw it as "wrong" and over the years, due to Christianity and its influence upon laws, it's been all but wiped out. So who is in the right? Is Christianity in the right for "saving" lives, or is it in the wrong for "destroying" a culture and centuries-long tradition? Was the old religion right for trying to appease the gods, or was it wrong for taking lives?

Right and Wrong, bar perhaps a common "base" are subjective. There's so many factors to consider, and I don't believe that there's a "true" right and a "true" wrong.

[Swordfishtrombone]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

In the western world, a lot of our laws (and some social constructs) are based in Christianity, as it's pretty much the religion.

Actually, if you were to look at Christian values - and the laws it inspired - through most of it's history, you'd find them quite incompatible with modern Western values and laws. It was the enlightenment that challenged the church dogmas, and brought concepts like the rights of an individual and freedom of conscience into the Western mindset. Christianity adapted - was pretty much forced to, to stay relevant. As a consequence, the values of modern Christians by and large are radically different to the values of Christians, say, four hundred years ago. Actually, they are different from mainstream Christian values just a century and a half a go too.

Four hundred years ago any self respecting Christian would have said that a Monarchy, led by a King by the grace of God, was the only reasonably system of government. They'd have no concept of human rights, and heresy would be a crime punishable by death - no such thing as freedom of conscience. Slavery would be quite acceptable. 

The legal systems of Western societies owe much more to the enlightenment, than they do to Christianity, though Christianity - after being radically, forcefully altered by enlightenment values - does play a part in the governance of predomninantly Christian nations.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Well, I tend to disagree. For example when a star goes supernova or a comet hits a planet, does the universe define that as good or bad? I think the answer is neither. Only man cares about labeling.

We choose to label as a direct and proximate opposition to the entropy (disorder) found in the natural world.

Here you are confusing two concepts of objectivity. A thing can be objectively in a certain way, without it being universal, or eternal.

The existence of vision, for example, is dependent on the existence of organisms with eyes. Does that  mean then that, since a star going supernova may not involve any visiual experience by anyone, vision does not really exist in an objective manner?

Of course it does - it is quite measurable. It is objective, but conditional on the existence of seeing organisms, and dependent on the visual systems of those organisms.

The same is true for morals - there are moral facts that apply across societies, and social species, because any social species needs the basic behavioral tools that enable co-operation and stable group formation. Meaning that a social species without some basic moral foundation would not arise through any evolutionary mechanism.

This explains the fact that, as I explained earlier, people across cultures answer moral dillemmas in a similar fashion, independent of local cultural differences in values. At core, in human psychology, there is a system of right and wrong, which can be built on and built around by local culture, but cannot be completely overriden.

[Cheese Elemental]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Cheese Elemental wrote... I was raised atheist, but I find myself in agreement with Christian morals fairly often (except on social issues like homosexuality).

 Raised atheist? I could understand being raised 'indifferent', but............................


 Not all Christians have the same fire and brimstone view on homosexuality, thou if you think that's bad check out the Muslims view on it.

Allow me to clarify. I meant I was raised without any faith in my life. I was never told that it was wrong or anything like that.

[Mecha Tengu]

what did I say about religious debates guyz

[Loerwyn]

You can't have a debate on morality and ethics without bringing religion into it in some degree.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 No, that's the cosmic life and death cycle. Death, how ever minimal effects the world/universe, but it is a natural occurance.

All occurances are natural, otherwise they wouldn't occur.

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

The same is true for morals - there are moral facts that apply across
societies, and social species

Such as?

Modifié par TheMufflon, 14 août 2010 - 07:46 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

You can't have a debate on morality and ethics without bringing religion into it in some degree.

Actually, you can have a debate on morality and ethics without bringing religion into it - as you'll discover if you take a philosophy course on ethics. Most philosophical moral systems do not involve any religious notions, but are based on reason, in various interesting ways. Likewise there's the anthropological, and psychological and evolutionary study of morals that is fascinating, yet does not center around religion.

It is true though, that in the minds of many, if not most people, religion is intertwined with questions of morals and ethics. Too few people have looked really deeply and widely into the philosophical and scientific arenas around ethics.

[Swordfishtrombone]

TheMufflon wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

The same is true for morals - there are moral facts that apply across
societies, and social species

Such as?

The concept of fairness, for example, is universal, and has been demonstrated in social animals such as apes as well.

An example of one experiment to show this is an experiment where two apes are put in a room cut in half by bars the apes can reach through. At one side of the room is a rope, and the on one of the sides of the room is a see-through container with a reward in it. The container can only be lifted by pulling the rope. The ape on the side of the room where the rope is located will figure this out, and pull the rope to let the other ape get to the reward.

This other ape then goes on to share the reward with the ape that pulled the rope - quite without compulsion to do so. The other ape could not do anything about it if the ape with the rewad decided to have it all alone.

Also, if an ape witnesses another ape getting a good reward, such as a grape, from doing a certain task, it expects the same reward for doing the task himself - if he instead gets a less desireable reward, the ape will tend to show aggravation, and refuse the reward.

These sorts of feelings are what form the basis of moral intuititions, intuitions which are shared among all healthy humans, as well as other social species.

As for moral similarities that cross cultures, in addition to these, in humans you can demonstrate these similarities by posing people from different cultures the same moral dillemmas - you tend to get the same answers. For more detail on that, read my first post in this thread.

[TheMufflon]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...


The concept of fairness, for example, is universal, and has been demonstrated in social animals such as apes as well.

I disagree. Take, for example, modern corporate culture; where getting the better of someone in an unfair deal isn't considered immoral, but a mark of pride. During the Enron scandal there was the much broadcasted soundbite of two Endron traders talking about "All that money [they] stole from those grandmothers" while laughing and taking obvious pride in their deviousness. They were clearly aware of the unfairness of what they were doing, yet they didn't think it was wrong.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 No, that's the cosmic life and death cycle. Death, how ever minimal effects the world/universe, but it is a natural occurance.

All occurances are natural, otherwise they wouldn't occur.

 Oh, it was my understanding that there is chaos. There is a 'natural' order, and without that order unnatural/bad events may occur. 'Good' events can also be born of chaos, causing growth versus to death.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 Oh, it was my understanding that there is chaos.

There is, and it is perfectly natural.

[Swordfishtrombone]

TheMufflon wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...


The concept of fairness, for example, is universal, and has been demonstrated in social animals such as apes as well.

I disagree. Take, for example, modern corporate culture; where getting the better of someone in an unfair deal isn't considered immoral, but a mark of pride. During the Enron scandal there was the much broadcasted soundbite of two Endron traders talking about "All that money [they] stole from those grandmothers" while laughing and taking obvious pride in their deviousness. They were clearly aware of the unfairness of what they were doing, yet they didn't think it was wrong.

This does not contradict the fact  that the understanding of fairness is a universal among at least humans and apes, and most probably all social species. The distinction here that you have to understand is that many moral intuitions apply ONLY to "ingroup", and not to those considered "outgroup". Thus a human society, or a group, such as the group of Enron traders, would react to unfairness in the same way as anyone else, if that unfairness happened within the group. Yet the same group may have no qualms about exploiting out-group. 

That is why an upstanding citizen in one culture can nevertheless act abhorrantly towards a group they consider "other" than them, and still have the basic intuitions of fairness.

In addition to this, you DO have sociopaths who lack these moral intuitions. They are not an example against moral intuitions being universal and objectively demonstrable, any more than a blind person would be an exapmle against vision being universal among healthy humans.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...


The concept of fairness, for example, is universal, and has been demonstrated in social animals such as apes as well.

I disagree. Take, for example, modern corporate culture; where getting the better of someone in an unfair deal isn't considered immoral, but a mark of pride. During the Enron scandal there was the much broadcasted soundbite of two Endron traders talking about "All that money [they] stole from those grandmothers" while laughing and taking obvious pride in their deviousness. They were clearly aware of the unfairness of what they were doing, yet they didn't think it was wrong.

 I think their monetary ambitions out weighed their lofty morals of right and wrong. Possessed by greed so to speak. Greed being 'bad' because of the disruption it will inevitably cause. Flip the situation around, for example, the housing debacle in the US. Pass legislation to make it more easily feasible to purchase homes, through a sudo sense of compassion, opening the door to heavy abuse. In this case compassion (politics)  and not greed, caused disruption.

 Really, either example moves us further away from the core of the argument. Delving into the skewed motivations of man is a lose-lose situation. There is really no way to completely understand one's motivations and the influences, outside and in, that brought one to thier conclusion.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 14 août 2010 - 10:31 .

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 Oh, it was my understanding that there is chaos.

There is, and it is perfectly natural.

 The natural order be damned?

[B3taMaxxx]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

what did I say about religious debates guyz

 That they're incredibly fun and there's no possible way people could get upset?

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 I think their monetary ambitions out weighed their lofty morals of right and wrong.

Judging by the interviews I've seen, I don't think so. The felt morally justified doing what they did because that the could do it proved that they were smarter and more capable than those they did it to, and thus they saw themselves as more deserving. To the victor go the spoils, so to speak.

The natural order be damned?

See: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[TheMufflon]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

This does not contradict the fact  that the understanding of fairness is a universal among at least humans and apes, and most probably all social species. The distinction here that you have to understand is that many moral intuitions apply ONLY to "ingroup", and not to those considered "outgroup". Thus a human society, or a group, such as the group of Enron traders, would react to unfairness in the same way as anyone else, if that unfairness happened within the group. Yet the same group may have no qualms about exploiting out-group.

So you're saying that the Enron traders wouldn't have screwed over their colleagues for a promotion? I sincerely doubt that.

In addition to this, you DO have sociopaths who lack these moral intuitions.

Are all morals intuitive? Can reason not create morality? Can a sociopath not act and think morally?

They are not an example against moral intuitions being universal and objectively demonstrable, any more than a blind person would be an exapmle against vision being universal among healthy humans.

That's circular logic. You're proving that intuitive morals are universal among healthy humans by saying that those who lack intuitive morals aren't healthy.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 12:09 .