This is about Morals...

[Lady L]

Bringing up something we have discussed before, but not here I don't think...well, I am sure it has came up somewhere though...:) because its simply something that kinda is in what we type...how we think...and what we actually do in our lives...

So, how do you feel about morals? Are they something you take seriously..?

[Vargtand]

Well.. I take what I think is morally right seriously yes.. I try to strive to live after what I can see as right.. I do how ever not have a list that I follow...

I apologize, but the question is a bit vague for me to answer properly I feel... at least without me rambling and straying off-topic... :p

[Pino]

Morals is somthing which society is lacking now, it seems nobody has a Moral or Opinion on ANYTHING they just seem to go about there actions with little thought about any sort of consequences or what exactly they are doing.

I used to have alot of Morals but I used to contradict them, now I'm preety strict with them, for example I have always hated going into none-white stores however I used to go in with little thought about it, these days I'd rarther starve than go in one and I haven't done for over a year.

I have plenty of other morals which do stop me from doing alot of things most people do, these days my morals are more important to them and I stick with them.

[Euroblood]

I am of the belief that morality is absolute. It is through morality that we can progress. No amount of science or technology does us any good if we do not have morals.

In this modern era, we don't need to look far to find the absence of morality, and that is something that needs to be fixed.

So to answer your question, Yes I take morality very seriously.

[Ulf]

"Moralities and religions are the principal means by which one can make whatever one wishes out of man, provided one possesses a superfluity of creative forces and can assert one's will over long periods of time — in the form of legislation, religions, and customs."

"Fear is the mother of morality."

"The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating."
Nietzsche

I'm a relativist, I don't have any morals I could really set down here, they're just an extension of my actions and their consequences. I try to act for what is best for me and those I care for, nothing more.

[Rasvalg]

I think morals are a requirement for a stable society. But because morals must be defined by that society for the purpose of this thread I think that the original poster should define exactly what is meant by MORALS. thanks and then we can discuss them.
As for all in the society having morals I also believe that those that protect that folk should have a lack of some morals so as that those morals don't get in the way.

[Psychonaut]

I am of the belief that morality is absolute.

This is very intriguing, especially since you're a Heathen. From where do absolute morals derive?

[Lady L]

I think morals are a requirement for a stable society.

Indeed they are. They do not have to be exactly the same, only...bringing similar outcomes...doing for others, protecting your own, loyalty, honesty...:) Stuff like that.




But because morals must be defined by that society for the purpose of this thread I think that the original poster should define exactly what is meant by MORALS.

Well, it can be interpreted however you want, there can really be no wrong answer here but maybe if I was to say...by MORALS I simply mean whatever that word means to you..? In other words, you tell me...:)



As for all in the society having morals I also believe that those that protect that folk should have a lack of some morals so as that those morals don't get in the way.

Please explain. :)

[Euroblood]

This is very intriguing, especially since you're a Heathen. From where do absolute morals derive?

Without trying to be too philosophical, morality, like truth, simply is. Morals are absolute because they exist, like truth, independent of the individual or society. So to answer your question “from where do they derive?” They aren’t derived at, because to be derived means to have a source of origin.

Does this make any sense to you all? It's sort of hard to explain.

[Ulf]

Are we going to end up discussing the ding an sich?

Truth, in many circumstances, has the benefit of being viewed objectively. While morals are entirely constructs of the mind. Even if there were nothing to observe that something is true, that would not mean it was not true.

The fact that I can disagree with some morals means they, unlike truth, can not be absolute. Your opinion does not change the truth, while morals vary based upon various cultural and social aspects.

[Loddfafner]

I prefer morels to morals:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Morchella_conica_1_beentree.jpg

[Psychonaut]

Without trying to be too philosophical, morality, like truth, simply is. Morals are absolute because they exist, like truth, independent of the individual or society. So to answer your question “from where do they derive?” They aren’t derived at, because to be derived means to have a source of origin.

Does this make any sense to you all? It's sort of hard to explain.

Don't worry about being too philosophical, that's what this section is for. :thumb001:

Let me refine my question. Since no two societies, traditional or contemporary, have the exact same views on morals or ethics, what exactly are you purporting is absolute? Are you going the Evolian/Neoplatonic route and viewing morals as earthly manifestations of the Form of the Good? Or are you taking the Kantian or Hegelian route? I'm very curious, since I don't see too many Heathens who are ethical absolutists. :)

[Euroblood]

Are we going to end up discussing the ding an sich?
Only if you want to. :D:cool:



The fact that I can disagree with some morals means they, unlike truth, cannot be absolute. Your opinion does not change the truth, while morals vary based upon various cultural and social aspects.

You are right; an opinion cannot change the truth. But just because you disagree with a moral does not make it something subjective. A moral is not relative, but the act of choosing to be moral or not is.

I think it is very important to distinguish between values and morals for they are not the same things.

[Ulf]

Here's a loaded question, but meant primarily for you, Euroblood. What does it mean to choose to be moral?

[Euroblood]

Are you going the Evolian/Neoplatonic route and viewing morals as earthly manifestations of the Form of the Good? Or are you taking the Kantian or Hegelian route? I'm very curious, since I don't see too many Heathens who are ethical absolutists. :)

Of the two of them, I would say I take a more Kantian approach. But I still draw from the Neoplatonic understanding a bit.

For example, Neoplatonists believe human perfection and happiness are attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. I agree with that.

But I disagree with the pantheistic views of the world

As Ulf mentioned "ding an sich” Which is primarily where I draw my ideas from. So it is safe to say that I take a more Kantian approach.

[Psychonaut]

Of the two of them, I would say I take a more Kantian approach.

So, would it be fair to say that your approach to ethics is deontological (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1497)?

[Euroblood]

So, would it be fair to say that your approach to ethics is deontological (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1497)?

Yes that would be fair.

[Ulf]

Here's a loaded question, but meant primarily for you, Euroblood. What does it mean to choose to be moral?

Bump and clarification:

Values and morals are mostly synonymous to me. What exactly are your morals, Euroblood? When you choose to be moral, are you choosing to act according to your morals?

Your statement is interpreted by me as moral = good/not evil. So what then are morals? Goods/good actions? Or Values/Virtues?

Choosing to be moral does not necessarily involve any action. Until I choose to do a moral action my morals are values.

[Lyfing]

Good ‘ole morality..??

In our world, morality has come to mean things like the Ten Commandments. A list of things “thou shalt not” do. It is much more than that. It is actually about things “thou will”. My good friend Nietzsche went on about this a lot. He even called the former a slave morality and the latter a noble morality. Now just from those words..which one..??..a slave or a noble..??

In explaining those..an easy way is just to say that the slave likes being told what to do by his master. Like in the bible where we have the Ten Commandments and if we listen to Our Father in Heaven we get to go hang out with him because we are “good” and he‘s proud of us and all that. And, that the noble is really “God”. “God” being the real meaning of “Good”..noble morality is what holds societies together by oath ( one‘s Word ). This is what the slaves resentimentized. In a slave society morality is absolute because it’s what the master said. In a noble society morality is relative and up to whoever to decide and it keeps going because it is seen as fit and folks keep doing it. In both cases, “In the beginning was the Word” it’s just either.. and it “was God’s” or “is Supermen’s”. We get to pick..”Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, They Will be done on earth as it is in heaven”..or, “I’m the Burger King, and I’m having it my way”..

Later,
-Lyfing

[Euroblood]

Values and morals are mostly synonymous to me. What exactly are your morals, Euroblood? When you choose to be moral, are you choosing to act according to your morals?

I don't view them as synonymous. Values are a construct made up of qualities that we hold to be noble/good etc. Because we "value" something, we usually attach a level of importance to it. And values are ranked then depending on society, the individual etc.

Morals deal with what is right and what is wrong.

Obviously people's morals are based on their values, but just because I value or choose not to value something does change that which is right, and that which is wrong.

I'll give you an example of one of my beliefs. (And please let's not debate it here if you disagree, I don't want this thread to go off on a completely different tangent.)

I am unapologetically pro-life. I view abortion as a completely immoral act. The taking of innocent life is objectively and intrinsically wrong. I haven't yet seen good reason for it yet.

I should make note at this point, that I view morals as absolutes, but for me to tell anyone "This is the way you need to live or else..." (Christians often say you'll go to hell) is the height of arrogance. I do not have the authority to tell you what you can and can not do, but I still see morals as what is right and what is wrong and there are clear cut answers.

[SuuT]

So, how do you feel about morals? Are they something you take seriously..?

Mmm Hmm.:)


Morals is somthing which society is lacking now, it seems nobody has a Moral or Opinion on ANYTHING they just seem to go about there actions with little thought about any sort of consequences or what exactly they are doing.

That would be, by definition, their moral - clashing/conflicting with your own. Inconsequentiality of action, or lack of consideration - even unawareness of one's moral actions do not dispell that immorality, and even 'amoraility' (which is a rank fiction), are - first - the acts of moral agency. Your's is an ethical dispute.



I am of the belief that morality is absolute.

This is a contradiction in terms, though: you have a 'belief' that morality is 'Absolute'.


It is through morality that we can progress.

Whose morality? What is progress?




Without trying to be too philosophical...

Philosophy is the love of wisdom; ergo, you are not trying too awfully hard to convey your strick adhearance to morality, in so far as it is wise to be moral.


...morality, like truth, simply is.

Oh my...what is the nature of truth as it relates to morality? - you are - by this line of reasoning - going head long into tying yourself up in what are, in Philosophy, called "unsatisfiable" tautological knots.


Morals are absolute because they exist, [...], independent of the individual or society.

So, if their were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, there would still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?


So to answer your question “from where do they derive?” They aren’t derived at, because to be derived means to have a source of origin.

Where did morals exist (stand, stay, subsist, survive), prior to the mind of the individual, and therefore the society in which they are practiced?



You are right; an opinion cannot change the truth.

In so far as the "truth" has been opined about (in some way shape or form) since the dawn of Man, "truth" has undergone myriad of permutations. Ergo, it is true that opinion can, and has, changed "truth".


I think it is very important to distinguish between values and morals for they are not the same things.

Are they mutually exclusive, then?


[...] Values are a construct [...] Obviously people's morals are based on their values

How can that which is based on a "construct" be not only Absolute, but also something that "just is"?


...just because I value or choose not to value something does change that which is right, and that which is wrong.

This is called a parapraxis. :D;)


I am unapologetically pro-life. I view abortion as a completely immoral act. The taking of innocent life is objectively and intrinsically wrong. I haven't yet seen good reason for it yet.

How about the imminent death of someone who has already lived, experienced, felt for many years outside of the womb, i.e. the mom? (Don't worry, threads can be split:))


I should make note at this point, that I view morals as absolutes, but for me to tell anyone "This is the way you need to live or else..." (Christians often say you'll go to hell) is the height of arrogance.

If there is no "or else", and morals are Absolute; then your moral Absolutism is inconsequential - which is a contradiction: that which is Absolute applies to all people, in all times, in all spaces, in all possible worlds. Any and all forms of moral Absolutism are equally arrogant, therefore.


I do not have the authority to tell you what you can and can not do, but I still see morals as what is right and what is wrong and there are clear cut answers.

By implication, however, you are saying that anyone who disagrees with your construction of moraility is wrong.



Which is Semitic, and in no way Heathen.

[Euroblood]

This is a contradiction in terms, though: you have a 'belief' that morality is 'Absolute'.
Not really… I believe something, and you believe something different. From there we can discuss why you believe as you do and why I believe what I believe. It’s better than saying “I know beyond the shadow of a doubt”



Philosophy is the love of wisdom; ergo, you are not trying too awfully hard to convey your strick adhearance to morality, in so far as it is wise to be moral.

Oh my...what is the nature of truth as it relates to morality? - you are - by this line of reasoning - going head long into tying yourself up in what are, in Philosophy, called "unsatisfiable" tautological knots.

I know what philosophy is, and I love to philosophize. Perhaps my choice of words were not the best. I said “Without trying to be too philosophical, morality, like truth is absolute” The premise here is the “morality, like truth is absolute.” One could ask how did I arrived at that conclusion, or we could have a lengthy debate. I didn’t want to spend too much time trying to explain how I came to that conclusion because I will most likely end up in a tautological knot (due to limited vocabulary).




So, if their were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, there would still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?

Where did morals exist (stand, stay, subsist, survive), prior to the mind of the individual, and therefore the society in which they are practiced?
I think you are taking what I said out of context. Society as a whole or any individual is not so high and mighty that they have the authority to deem what is right and what is wrong. What is right is right regardless of what humans feel, think or wish it to be. Something that is right does not need us to determine that it is right. Morals exist beyond humans in that sense.




In so far as the "truth" has been opined about (in some way shape or form) since the dawn of Man, "truth" has undergone myriad of permutations. Ergo, it is true that opinion can, and has, changed "truth".
I am not quite sure I understand where you are coming from here. Truth exists and we can not alter it. There is a saying that says the winners of war write the history books. No matter how they write the book, that doesn’t change what has happened in the past. Opinions can not change the truth.



Are they mutually exclusive, then?
No.




This is called a parapraxis. :D;)
:eek: :loco: Sorry about that.



How about the imminent death of someone who has already lived, experienced, felt for many years outside of the womb, i.e. the mom? (Don't worry, threads can be split:))
A child who hasn’t lived outside the womb shouldn’t be put to death for that. That child has done no wrong, and therefore should be given a chance at life.



If there is no "or else", and morals are Absolute; then your moral Absolutism is inconsequential - which is a contradiction: that which is Absolute applies to all people, in all times, in all spaces, in all possible worlds. Any and all forms of moral Absolutism are equally arrogant, therefore.
I am not saying there is no “or else”, I am saying I don’t decide the “or else” or even know what it is, and to do so is arrogant.


By implication, however, you are saying that anyone who disagrees with your construction of moraility is wrong.

Which is Semitic, and in no way Heathen.

Hardly Semitic,
No one has to adhere to my view, in fact many Heathens don’t and I know that.

[Psychonaut]

Society as a whole or any individual is not so high and mighty that they have the authority to deem what is right and what is wrong. What is right is right regardless of what humans feel, think or wish it to be. Something that is right does not need us to determine that it is right. Morals exist beyond humans in that sense.

I'm curious, if right and wrong are not determined either by individuals singularly or by society collectively, how are such determinations made? Every system of ethical absolutism (particularly those that are deontological) that I'm familiar with fall back on God (or some such similar idea) for their ultimate justification. However, you are a Heathen. Do the morals that you believe to be absolute stem from the Gods?

[Euroblood]

I'm curious, if right and wrong are not determined either by individuals singularly or by society collectively, how are such determinations made? Every system of ethical absolutism (particularly those that are deontological) that I'm familiar with fall back on God (or some such similar idea) for their ultimate justification. However, you are a Heathen. Do the morals that you believe to be absolute stem from the Gods?

I attribute the morals to shall we call it the impersonal wisdom of the cosmos.

[Psychonaut]

I attribute the morals to shall we call it the impersonal wisdom of the cosmos.

You'll have to forgive me if I find that to be a bit vague. Are you perhaps invoking some sort of conscious cosmos, a pantheism or panenthiesm? It just doesn't quite seem to follow that ethical guidelines can be literally deduced from observation of the cosmos as can the laws of physics. Indeed, such a proposition would tend to imply an anthropocentric bias, which is admittedly very common among monotheists and some polytheists.

[Aemma]

A child who hasn’t lived outside the womb shouldn’t be put to death for that. That child has done no wrong, and therefore should be given a chance at life.

Hmm good for you to forge on with this tough one Euroblood.:)

Ok here's my offering for now:

I think we need to examine the primary assumption that is inherent in your comment that some party (in this case the mother) is guilty of some wrong-doing and therefore she should bow out gracefully, as it were. :) Nobody however has mentioned that either party (unborn fetus or mother) has done anything wrong (or right for that matter). This hypothetical scenario has offered no information either way as to actions by either party (mom or unborn child) that would cause an objective viewer to see things in a right/wrong dichotomy. Thus the comment "the child has done no wrong" can be equally countered by "the mom has done no wrong either". The mom in this scenario is just as innocent in action and potential wrong-doing as is the unborn child. So clearly this assumption doesn't fit in the argument. So in a sense, each of these cancels out the other.

But the crux of your argument more so comes from the comment "[the fetus] should be given a chance at life". And here comes the interesting question: why? What are the assumptions that you're making here, about the fetus and mother? What is the value that you are placing on each's station in life, one an unborn fetus, the other a woman who has had a chance to live? One seems to appear inherently more important than the other. What is your rationale for this?

Wow, I've saddled you with some questions. Oops. Sorry. But it'd be interesting to hear what you've got to say Euroblood. Digging deeper into our assumptions with respect to certain things can lead us to a great deal of self-knowledge, if we dare. :)

Cheers for now!...Aemma

[HawkR]

I believe "moral" is determined by what's right or wrong, but as my signature says; There is no right or wrong, it's simply what you do to survive. But the society has made laws to control the people, both a good and a bad thing. Good because no one would like a killer to go loose, but bad as you might want to kill someone who deserve it. Whatever happened to the old saying; "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"?

[SuuT]

(Let me preface this, Euroblood, by saying that Philosophy is inherently invasive: the power to rattle our foundations lies therein. With that said, after a considerable deliberation, I feel it would be a dis-service to you to not rattle yours - and dispatch some presuppositions.)


Not really…

There is no debate in this. You said, "I am of the belief that morality is absolute." I am not splitting semantic hairs; the only cogent phrasing - if your moral is Absolute - would, indeed, be "I know that morality is absolute." Which places you sqaure in the middle of the burden of proof (I.e. Onus Probandi).


I believe something, and you believe something different. From there we can discuss why you believe as you do and why I believe what I believe.

Your assumption is erroneous, though, as I have not stated what I believe; but what is more, such a discussion would take on a relativstic tack. From what I have thus far said, it is still possible that I am in 100% agreement with you; it is also possible that I 100% do not agree. At this point in the dialogue, all things remain equal in so far as we are going through some dialectical plodding. It is only after I can lucidly understand what you have already stated, that we can make belief statements. You have opened a quandry.


It’s better than saying “I know beyond the shadow of a doubt”

So then you do not know Absolutely that your Absolute moral is true (ipso facto) i.e. by the 'fact' that it is?




[...] Perhaps my choice of words were not the best.

Rephrase, if you like.:)


I said “Without trying to be too philosophical, morality, like truth is absolute” The premise here is the “morality, like truth is absolute.”

You did, yes, twice now. And the same questions remain: you are not trying too awfully hard to convey your strick adhearance to morality, in so far as it is wise to be moral. One would think that a moral that is Absolute would not result in circular reasoning.......

And again, what is the nature of truth as it relates to morality? - you are - by your line of reasoning - going head long into tying yourself up in "unsatisfiable" tautological knots.


One could ask how did I arrived at that conclusion...

Okay: how did you arrive at the conclusion that morals are Absolute?


... or we could have a lengthy debate.

Maybe. But we should first start with an epistemolgical inquiry. As you have asserted contradictory things, I, if you would do me the honour, would like to know how you know not only what you know; but, and also, how knowing your moral to be Absolute results in "truth" that applies, necessarily, to you and only you (which you have asserted and not proven).


I didn’t want to spend too much time trying to explain how I came to that conclusion because I will most likely end up in a tautological knot (due to limited vocabulary).

The avoidance of tautological knots requires consistency, not an extensive vocabulary. Indeed, it doesn't even require words! Thus far, you have provided rhetorical truisms.


I think you are taking what I said out of context.

Ok, let's assume I did. How, then, would you answer this question: if there were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, would there still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?


Society as a whole or any individual is not so high and mighty that they have the authority to deem what is right and what is wrong.

But you have. Indeed, you assert your moral as Absolute; you have deemed what you "believe" to be right and wrong, as Absolute. That which is Absolute applies to all people, in all times, in all spaces, in all possible worlds. It would then follow - if your assertion proves true- that you, yourself, possess the highness and mightiness not only to deem right and wrong, but to impose this moral on all people who will not follow.

(As an aside, you also imply a lawless society).


What is right is right regardless of what humans feel, think or wish it to be.

Can you provide a single example?


Something that is right does not need us to determine that it is right.

If you would, please explain how any conception of 'moral' - right and wrong -- can exist free of moral agency.


I am not quite sure I understand where you are coming from here. Truth exists and we can not alter it.

Is it not now, in Western Society, generally considered immoral to rape women? - or to commit murder?


There is a saying that says the winners of war write the history books. No matter how they write the book, that doesn’t change what has happened in the past.

Then laterally, by extention, and by implication - we have been shaped by many things that we have no earthly way to know to be true or false, right or wrong; as, by your analogy, we are all in possession of a skewed, if not totally untrue, perception of that which has shaped us (e.g. the past). Ergo, it would follow that an Absolutely True moral, cannot be asserted as such as it is possible that we have been fooled.


Opinions can not change the truth.

We shall continue to opine - and see what happens. :)


No.

Would you then explain the overlap of values and morals?



I am not saying there is no “or else”, I am saying I don’t decide the “or else” or even know what it is, and to do so is arrogant.

But you do assert your moral as Absolute; you have deemed what you "believe" to be right and wrong, as Absolute. That which is Absolute applies to all people, in all times, in all spaces, in all possible worlds. It would then follow - if your assertion proves true - that you, yourself, possess the highness and mightiness not only to deem right and wrong, but to impose this moral on all people who will not follow. This would not be "arrogant" - it would be Moral, in both the descriptive and prescriptive sense. You would be doing the Absolute right thing. What is more (and conversely), to not do this, would be immoral.




No one has to adhere to my view

It is a 'view' then? - as in a "perspective"?

[Euroblood]

There is no debate in this. You said, "I am of the belief that morality is absolute." I am not splitting semantic hairs; the only cogent phrasing - if your moral is Absolute - would, indeed, be "I know that morality is absolute." Which places you sqaure in the middle of the burden of proof (I.e. Onus Probandi).

All right fair enough, the burden of proof is on me. I am not going to keep pushing this point, and split semantic hairs.



Rephrase, if you like.:)

You did, yes, twice now. And the same questions remain: you are not trying too awfully hard to convey your strick adhearance to morality, in so far as it is wise to be moral. One would think that a moral that is Absolute would not result in circular reasoning.......

And again, what is the nature of truth as it relates to morality? - you are - by your line of reasoning - going head long into tying yourself up in "unsatisfiable" tautological knots.

Rephrasing "without being too philosophical" into what I meant it to be, something like "lets not spend too much time pondering what truth is" or “to put it simply”, and then I gave the statement that "morality, like truth simply is"

In order to make this relation work, we have to define what truth is, and then relate that to morality. Most definitions of "truth" somehow make truth subjective. Definitions such as "conformity with fact or reality" are how truth is defined, yet in reality the truth does not require conformity for it to be truth. Other definitions that we see: "an obvious or accepted fact”, "a verified or indisputable fact" etc. None of these definitions work, because truth is often disputed despite the fact that those disputes change nothing. The truth is also not always obvious. The point I am making is “what is truth?”

I have concluded that truth "is what it is, and can’t be otherwise" (long rendition of "truth simply is"). It is as, Immanuel Kant put it, Ding an sich . And likewise, morality is Ding an sich too. Making both truth and morality are a thing in themselves independent of anyone.

Now that being said, why is it wise to moral? As I said earlier in this thread, it is how we move forward. No amount of science, technology etc. does us any good if we don’t have morals. In today’s world, morals are seen as obtuse and irrelevant. From where did this view spawn? It was moral relativism. Moral relativism, although it might not try to assert the view that morals can come and go based on the arbitrary whims of an individual, actually does this inevitably.



Okay: how did you arrive at the conclusion that morals are Absolute?
Maybe. But we should first start with an epistemolgical inquiry. As you have asserted contradictory things, I, if you would do me the honour, would like to know how you know not only what you know; but, and also, how knowing your moral to be Absolute results in "truth" that applies, necessarily, to you and only you (which you have asserted and not proven).

Humans like to think of themselves as special, and they are to an extent, but not as special as they would like to think. Most think that we are so “advanced”, that we are above the laws of nature, that we are a separate entity from nature, but this is not true. The idea that we are so powerful that we can just create our own morals at our own will, when we feel like it is completely absurd. We did not create the inherent order of the cosmos and all of nature, but rather we are subject to it. This must be reflected though our morals, which is why they are absolute.

Morality deals with what is right and what is wrong, those things cannot be determined by us, they are laws that go far beyond our existence. But what does make us unique is our ability to choose to act by what is right or what is wrong. The morals themselves are absolute, but the choice is relative. Now this inevitably brings up the “or else” what will happen if I choose this or that, and everything does have a consequence but we may not know it.



Ok, let's assume I did. How, then, would you answer this question: if there were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, would there still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?

That which is Absolute applies to all people, in all times, in all spaces, in all possible worlds. It would then follow - if your assertion proves true- that you, yourself, possess the highness and mightiness not only to deem right and wrong, but to impose this moral on all people who will not follow.

Not in the sense that we know what it is. There is still an inherent order to the cosmos, some type of law or laws that govern it. Since our society wouldn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a “right and wrong” according to the nature of us (we don’t exist). But like all things, there is an inherent order to them.

Humans have the ability to choose, that is part of our inherent nature, and thus I have no authority to force you to do anything. If someone wishes to see morality as relative then they can do so. I don’t see too much of a conflict here.



Can you provide a single example? Sure, the killing of innocent life as I already have said earlier is objectively wrong. There is no excuse for it, however people will make the choice to do it based on some motivation or some justification that suits there individual wants. In their mind, they feel justified in what they have done; however that justification is wrong.



Would you then explain the overlap of values and morals?
Essentially we use our values (our individual or societal ranking of certain qualities) as the rules that enable us to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong (what is moral or immoral).

[Lyfing]

Yeah,

Morality is a big deal. But why..??

I, myself, have no morals other than those I have created. They can be defined maybe by good and bad. The good does me good, and the bad does me bad. What depends is what I do. As it relates to my will to power increasing..

The slaves decided to figure there to be good and evil. That is a big change from good and bad. Morality taken as absolute, coming from anything other than one's self, seems to be of the slave type. Because, with this line of thinking..it all comes from outside not from within..the emphasis being changed to a loathing of flesh instead of an affirmation in it.

A loathing of life is how bad was ressentimentized to evil. Taking the focus of the prey as something done to it by the predator is what taking morality as absolute is. "Fear the Lord thy God." It is done to one, not by one..that is the difference of perspectives..

Affirmation of this life not of an other because of some absolute will is the way to go..but of course..there is no way to the way, the way is the way..

Anyway..;)

Later,
-Lyfing

[Loddfafner]

A society where everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not is one that is easily manipulated by politicians who promise to uphold virtue and expel vice.

A society that is diverse in values (not to be confused with the kind of diversity akin to the mix of invasive weeds and established ecologies) is one that the politicians must work hard for the consent of the governed.

[Lyfing]

And, what do politicians have to do with morality..??

They are only there to lead a herd..??

The noble govern themselves..??

Also, an agreement within a society on morality is it's foundation..the creation of morality comes with the creation of a society. It is by the beliefs ( oaths ) of the founders being eternally returned that society continues..??

..that's why America is skrewed..it ain't like it was when it was founded..??

Later,
-Lyfing

[Loddfafner]

And, what do politicians have to do with morality..??
They are only there to lead a herd..??
The noble govern themselves..??

Precisely.


Also, an agreement within a society on morality is it's foundation..the creation of morality comes with the creation of a society. It is by the beliefs ( oaths ) of the founders being eternally returned that society continues..??

..that's why America is skrewed..it ain't like it was when it was founded..??
Later,
-Lyfing

America was founded as a society that could function despite profound religious differences. See the Federalist Papers, specifically Madison's one on factions.

[SuuT]

All right fair enough, the burden of proof is on me. I am not going to keep pushing this point, and split semantic hairs.

To 'push your point' would not be to split semantic hairs; it would be to elucidate on the assertions you have made and not offered-up any manner of proof for. Your statements remain that; and vacuuous.


Rephrasing "without being too philosophical" into what I meant it to be, something like "lets not spend too much time pondering what truth is" or “to put it simply”, and then I gave the statement that "morality, like truth simply is"

Yes, I, and everyone else concerened, saw what you wrote. - and you have either evaded or do not understand crucial questions posed to you, which makes a dialogue unlikely. You have stated that you know, and yet do not, that your moral is Absolute.


In order to make this relation work, we have to define what truth is,...

What is your definition?


...and then relate that to morality.

Are you willing/able to do so?


Most definitions of "truth" somehow make truth subjective. Definitions such as "conformity with fact or reality" are how truth is defined, yet in reality the truth does not require conformity for it to be truth.

So if the entirety of the World (moral agents) were acting in a manner that is in contradistinction to "truth", "Truth" would remain (T)rue, then?


Other definitions that we see: "an obvious or accepted fact”, "a verified or indisputable fact" etc. None of these definitions work, because truth is often disputed despite the fact that those disputes change nothing. The truth is also not always obvious. The point I am making is “what is truth?”

You've not made a point - you've asked a question (an important one relative to this discourse). So, I will ask you, again, to answer it: what is truth?.


I have concluded that truth "is what it is, and can’t be otherwise" (long rendition of "truth simply is").

Thus far, this is an erroneous/false reduction to some substratal thing. Is that which 'Is', accessible to all rational persons?


It is as, Immanuel Kant put it, Ding an sich . And likewise, morality is Ding an sich too. Making both truth and morality are a thing in themselves independent of anyone.

Kant, himself, was not square with his postulate: Der Ding an sich. That is one. That the philosophical criticisms that came after Kant of his postulation actually eradicated the notion, is two (i.e. A thing-in-itself would, for that very reason, be unknowable); that you are incorrectly invoking Ding an sich is three. - With respect to the latter, I will return to the evaded question: if there were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, would there still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?


Now that being said, why is it wise to moral? As I said earlier in this thread, it is how we move forward.

And as I have asked, earlier in this thread, what is 'progress'? In a different phraseology, what is 'moral'?.



Humans like to think of themselves as special, and they are to an extent, but not as special as they would like to think. Most think that we are so “advanced”, that we are above the laws of nature, that we are a separate entity from nature, but this is not true. The idea that we are so powerful that we can just create our own morals at our own will, when we feel like it is completely absurd. We did not create the inherent order of the cosmos and all of nature, but rather we are subject to it. This must be reflected though our morals, which is why they are absolute.

We're awfully special, EuroBlood, if we, as part of an "inherent order of the cosmos" - that your moral is an Absolute part of - are able to willfully, arbitrarily, and capriciously defy said Order. If we are able to defy that which is Absolutely Moral; then it is not, nor can it be, Absolute. Moreover, any "inherent order of the cosmos" must allow for we - as moral agents - to move about freely within moral 'space', as it were.


Morality deals with what is right and what is wrong, those things cannot be determined by us, they are laws that go far beyond our existence.

If you would, please explain how any conception of 'moral' - right and wrong -- can exist free of moral agency.


But what does make us unique is our ability to choose to act by what is right or what is wrong. The morals themselves are absolute, but the choice is relative. Now this inevitably brings up the “or else” what will happen if I choose this or that, and everything does have a consequence but we may not know it.

Relativity/Perspectivism: 1,295. Absolutism: 0.


Humans have the ability to choose, that is part of our inherent nature, and thus I have no authority to force you to do anything.

You would, then, as part of your "inherent nature" have the ability to choose to force your moral.


If someone wishes to see morality as relative then they can do so. I don’t see too much of a conflict here.

This is now obvious. The gargantuan contradictions in your explications remain.


Sure, the killing of innocent life as I already have said earlier is objectively wrong.

As Aemma has already pressed you (and you have evaded): what is "innocent life"?


There is no excuse for it, however people will make the choice to do it based on some motivation or some justification that suits there individual wants.

In any and all instances?


In their mind, they feel justified in what they have done; however that justification is wrong.

In any and all instances?


Essentially we use our values (our individual or societal ranking of certain qualities) as the rules that enable us to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong (what is moral or immoral).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euroblood
[...] Values are a construct [...] Obviously people's morals are based on their values

How can that which is based on a "construct" be not only Absolute, but also something that "just is"?

[Euroblood]

What is your definition?…Are you willing/able to do so?
I’ve given you my definition as erroneous as it may be; it is, at the present time the best one that I’ve been able to come up with or have seen. I am willing to relate it to morality.


So if the entirety of the World (moral agents) were acting in a manner that is in contradistinction to "truth", "Truth" would remain (T)rue, then?
Yes truth would remain. Take for example a historical event. Whatever happened at any given historical event happened and cannot be changed even if people believe something different.


You've not made a point - you've asked a question (an important one relative to this discourse). So, I will ask you, again, to answer it: what is truth?.
The point was to ask the question “What is truth?”. You have said it “important one relative to this discourse” just as I have implied so we are on the same page here.

Thus far, this is an erroneous/false reduction to some substratal thing. Is that which 'Is', accessible to all rational persons?
If there is a better answer out there, something I am sure of, then let it be told. But for now we are going to have to deal with the erroneous reduction until we can come up with a better definition. If such a definition were to arise, I will accept it.



Kant, himself, was not square with his postulate: Der Ding an sich. That is one. That the philosophical criticisms that came after Kant of his postulation actually eradicated the notion, is two (i.e. A thing-in-itself would, for that very reason, be unknowable); that you are incorrectly invoking Ding an sich is three. - With respect to the latter, I will return to the evaded question: if there were no individuals, and therefore no society, (moral agents) to be moral, would there still be right and wrong behaviour for individuals and society?
I disagree, and think that things of themselves can be known. We might not know it directly but because we know it is not the same, or that it is different form other things it can in pricipal be known.


We're awfully special, EuroBlood, if we, as part of an "inherent order of the cosmos" - that your moral is an Absolute part of - are able to willfully, arbitrarily, and capriciously defy said Order. If we are able to defy that which is Absolutely Moral; then it is not, nor can it be, Absolute. Moreover, any "inherent order of the cosmos" must allow for we - as moral agents - to move about freely within moral 'space', as it were.
No, we have the ability to “willfully, arbitrarily, and capriciously defy said order”. That ability has been given to us by that order so we are still subject to it. It would be like having a written manuscript that says “No one can defy the absolute order” and then in fine print at the bottom of the page it says “exceptions to this rule are humans who have the ability to choose”. That fine print clause at the end is still part of that governing rule. So we have the ability to choose but that does not put us above nature.


If you would, please explain how any conception of 'moral' - right and wrong -- can exist free of moral agency.
I have already. We all have laws in the countries we reside in, and police make sure the law is carried out or enforced. But it is still possible for the law to exist even if there is no one there to make sure it is carried out. The same concept is applied to morality.

This is now obvious. The gargantuan contradictions in your explications remain.
There is no contradiction there.

As Aemma has already pressed you (and you have evaded): what is "innocent life"?
I haven’t evaded the question, and I do intend to respond to the question and the whole post. So stay tuned. :D

In any and all instances?
In any and all instances?
Yes. There isn’t one.


How can that which is based on a "construct" be not only Absolute, but also something that "just is"?
Values are not something that just is, nor are the absolute like morality. My humble apologies for that statement “Obviously people’s morals are based on their values” it should be something like “People’s perception of morality arises from their values.”

[SuuT]

I’ve given you my definition as erroneous as it may be; it is, at the present time the best one that I’ve been able to come up with or have seen. I am willing to relate it to morality.

You have stated that your moral is 'that which Absolutely Is, Absolutely'. You have further defined it as Ding an sich. And therein lies part of the problem you are experiencing with redundancy in general, and the ultimate unknowability of a thing-in-itself. But you have not provided epistemological provisions as to not only why your moral is what you have said it to be; but go on to prove that you know only a single thing about it: which is that you, yourself, do not know the nature of truth as it relates to your moral. Ergo, your willingness to relate it to morality, if only for these reasons, convolutes rather than clarifies the asserted Absolute nature of your moral.


Yes truth would remain. Take for example a historical event. Whatever happened at any given historical event happened and cannot be changed even if people believe something different.

You've presented this analogy before. The problem with your use of the term "truth" is that it, and how it relates to your assertion that your moral is Absolute, is vacuuous in that you, I, everyone, must first know what truth is, as it relates to morality, to make any claims to an Absolutely True moral existing 'out there'. The very fact that there are differing theories about truth (in general) increases the problematic redundancy that you are having relating it to a moral Absolute.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/


The point was to ask the question “What is truth?”. You have said it “important one relative to this discourse” just as I have implied so we are on the same page here.

Actually were not in the same book, friend!:D - You have, numerous times now, perhaps without even realising it, staked a claim to Absolute Truth by staking a claim to your moral Absolute. I'm very curious as to how you know what you know about truth; and if I, as a rational being of agency can also attain this Absolute Truth. By default, you would also know the Absolute Truth (given that you imply that you possess it) about Free Will and Determinism, you can very easily dispatch of the problem of Free Will and Determinism as it relates to Morality.

Thus far, your explication on this matter approaches "Compatibilism".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/



If there is a better answer out there, something I am sure of, then let it be told.

But you, EuroBlood have attacked ambiguities in the definition of the term truth, such as...

1. the true or actual state of a matter.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.

...as being "subjective" - and pejoratively so. And then provide this piece in your own definition: "the truth does not require conformity for it to be truth."

Do you not see how this does not wash...?

1.) You are asserting that you know your moral to be Absolutely True (cf. all of the above definitive aspects).

2.) To not have to conform with fact or reality is a contradiction: you have stated the you know your moral to be Absolute; ergo, it is the True and actual state of an 'inherently ordered cosmos', it is a fact a proposition and a principle. What is more, is that you claim not only that your moral possesses, Absolutely, the state or character of being True; but that it also has actual attributes.


In short, the definition that you have attacked as "subjective", is actually far more definitive to your own; which, incidentally, one can only conclude, at this point, and by definition, as subjective.



But for now we are going to have to deal with the erroneous reduction until we can come up with a better definition.

The burden is yours. You have claimed access to Absolute things; I'll take a large order of that. Please.

[Oresai]

My morals are entirely my own. They are formed from my upbringing (raised heathen), my life experiences, and my integrity.
They don`t always gel with what society expects from morals. For example, some of my morals make me appear quite aggressive to others, in favouring things like natural justice (in which I judge, and take revenge for acts of harm done against me or mine)
or in which I disregard the wellbeing of the collective societal group in favour if that of a smaller, more elite group...in Celtic times it would be akin to the preservation of the clan above and beyond any wider conglomeration, first and foremost.
I am not altruisticly moral.
I live according to my morals. They are entirely self made and exist to promote a sense of well being at living what I judge to be a right life, for myself.
In other words, living by my morals makes me feel good. :)
I honestly don`t believe there can ever be one core set of morals for all humanity. Surely, in the basest of situations, it`s a dog eat dog world and concepts like morals are crafted to suit the situation of ensuring we and those we class as `ours` survive?

[Euroblood]

I think we need to examine the primary assumption that is inherent in your comment that some party (in this case the mother) is guilty of some wrong-doing and therefore she should bow out gracefully, as it were. :) Nobody however has mentioned that either party (unborn fetus or mother) has done anything wrong (or right for that matter). This hypothetical scenario has offered no information either way as to actions by either party (mom or unborn child) that would cause an objective viewer to see things in a right/wrong dichotomy. Thus the comment "the child has done no wrong" can be equally countered by "the mom has done no wrong either". The mom in this scenario is just as innocent in action and potential wrong-doing as is the unborn child. So clearly this assumption doesn't fit in the argument. So in a sense, each of these cancels out the other.

Hey Aemma,
Thank you for waiting patiently for my response, I do apologies for taking so long to respond to your post.

It is true that in that hypothetical situation we do not know what the mother has or has not done. So it is pretty fair to say that both arguments mentioned above cancel out. However I don’t see the two acts as being connected; in the sense that since the child has done no wrong, it really doesn’t matter what the mother has or has not done.

Supposing the mother is guilty of something, there is no need to punish the child for it, and likewise supposing the mother is completely innocent of any wrong doing, the child should not be made to suffer.


But the crux of your argument more so comes from the comment "[the fetus] should be given a chance at life". And here comes the interesting question: why? What are the assumptions that you're making here, about the fetus and mother? What is the value that you are placing on each's station in life, one an unborn fetus, the other a woman who has had a chance to live? One seems to appear inherently more important than the other. What is your rationale for this?

The first thing I should make clear is that I believe life begins at conception.

That being said, the act of abortion, basically implies that the fetus is not developed enough to be considered a human being. And by implication that would imply that the mother or parents think that the fetus can be killed at will.

But despite that fact, we have to assume there is a motivation behind wanting to get an abortion in the first place. The motivation is either something selfish, or the reaction to the consequence of some irresponsibility (irresponsible sex). No matter which category that mother’s or couple’s motivation is, it is something that is unjustified. That child in the womb is not to blame for the irresponsibility of the individuals involved, nor is it to blame for the current situation of either of the parents. The child deserves a chance at life because it has been given life, but at this stage of its life, it is dependent on it’s mother, as all life is, in order for it to grow. Without it’s mother the fetus dies, but it isn’t the will of the fetus that it be dependant on it’s mother, so it has no selfish motivation. The mother on the other hand, if she chooses to abort the child is exerting her will. And we have to ask for what reason, which will inevitably go back to one of those two categories.

The reason one station seems more important than the other (I do value both stations of life though) is because every individual, including this woman who is pregnant, was at one point at the mercy of their mother. The very fact that we are alive today is because of each of our mothers. Our mothers showed us compassion by bringing us into this world, and how hypocritical it would be for us not to show our unborn the same thing.

[Psychonaut]

The child deserves a chance at life because it has been given life, but at this stage of its life, it is dependent on it’s mother, as all life is, in order for it to grow.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your particular morals, I'm still wondering how exactly you've come to the determination that the particular set of morals you hold to be true are indeed true for all peoples in all places and times. You mentioned earlier something about the "impersonal wisdom of the cosmos." How is it, exactly, that you are able to extrapolate a moral code from he cosmos? Are you relying on introspection, a particular religious text, or what?

[Euroblood]

...I'm still wondering how exactly you've come to the determination that the particular set of morals you hold to be true are indeed true for all peoples in all places and times. You mentioned earlier something about the "impersonal wisdom of the cosmos." How is it, exactly, that you are able to extrapolate a moral code from he cosmos?

Humans are a part of the cosmos, something that has an order to it.
Every thing has a purpose to it or a "nature" because it is a part of this order. According to Aristotle "Everything in nature has a purpose. The laws of nature guide every kind of thing towards achieving this purpose" (he used the example of the acorn becoming an oak tree)

We too have a nature, and if we look at human history, we have always (tried to live) lived by sets of values, based on our perception of morality, either through religion, or civilized society. So our nature is to live morally (I know loaded term), because we constantly strive to do so. If this is our nature, then we all are subject to it.

So how does it apply to everyone? The cosmos has an order, and everything has purpose (part of that order). If everything has purpose, then we must also have purpose, and that purpose applies to everyone (Humanity).

How do we derive morals from the cosmos? This is the tricky question. I wouldn't say we derive them as some divine manuscript, nor do we derive them like the laws of physics. What we derive is that we are a part of the cosmos, we have a purpose. All religion (assuming man made) and all society (also man made) have a foot in the morality door illustrating that our purpose our aim is to live morally.

The actual tenets of morality such as "Honesty" aren't directly extrapolated, but I think in some sense it is implied because it fits with our nature.

All major religions, and all major societies operate on sort of "unwritten, understood rules" such as Honesty is how our community thrives. So that is how we can derive at them. The problem does arise with our ability to choose and rationalize, because from there we go down that subjective road again.






Are you relying on introspection, a particular religious text, or what?

Introspection is probably where I get a lot of my answers, but I do also draw from religious texts (I haven't read them all, but everyone does have some valid thought).

Does anything I am saying make any sense at all to you guys? Part of me feels like there is a major disconnect between what I am thinking and how I am presenting it

[Psychonaut]

Euroblood, thanks for that explanation. I understand a bit better where you're coming from now. However, I'd like to press you on this:


The actual tenets of morality such as "Honesty" aren't directly extrapolated, but I think in some sense it is implied because it fits with our nature.

All major religions, and all major societies operate on sort of "unwritten, understood rules" such as Honesty is how our community thrives. So that is how we can derive at them. The problem does arise with our ability to choose and rationalize, because from there we go down that subjective road again.

First honesty is hardly a paramount virtue in all societies. But, more importantly, if we're talking about virtues that are Absolute (true for all peoples in all places and times) then honesty is, in my opinion a poor example.

Should a captures soldier honestly answer the questions of is captors? No, to do so would be to shame himself before his country.

Should a parent be brutally honest in appraising the artwork of small children? No, he should, for a time, praise the child for the sheer sake of providing them with loving encouragement.

Should interrogators be honest with the criminals they are interrogating? No, they should lie and manipulate the Hell out of them to do what needs to be done.

The list could go on indefinitely. It appears to me that honesty, like any other virtue is only a good thing in moderation and that hardly any moral precepts can truly be said to be Absolute. Do you agree with my critique of honesty or am I misunderstanding something about your position on what it means for a virtue to be absolute.


Does anything I am saying make any sense at all to you guys? Part of me feels like there is a major disconnect between what I am thinking and how I am presenting it

I get you. It's just that there's quite a gap between Relativism and Absolutism, and it always seems to be a bit tricky to get straight answers to pointed questions about fundamental issues from the Absolutist camp. No worries though. It's nice that you're able to defend your position without resorting to hostilities, which is more than can be said of a few others. :)

[Aemma]

Hi Euroblood, :)


Hey Aemma,
Thank you for waiting patiently for my response, I do apologies for taking so long to respond to your post.

Well Euroblood I equally want to apologise to you for my own tardiness. But I equally want to acknowledge your poise and maturity in answering these questions being pressed upon you. It might seem like we're picking on you but we're not. I'd take it rather as a nod of recognition towards your character, its strength and honesty especially. It's all good Euroblood. :)


It is true that in that hypothetical situation we do not know what the mother has or has not done. So it is pretty fair to say that both arguments mentioned above cancel out. However I don’t see the two acts as being connected; in the sense that since the child has done no wrong, it really doesn’t matter what the mother has or has not done.

Supposing the mother is guilty of something, there is no need to punish the child for it, and likewise supposing the mother is completely innocent of any wrong doing, the child should not be made to suffer.

But why make a supposition of guilt to begin with when looking at this issue? This is what I don't understand. Why even bring it that far? IMO it only muddles the underlying question of where one stands with respect to the value placed on a life. Not to mention the entire question as to whether the notion of 'guilt' is really appropriate in a heathen context which I don't think it is in this case.

So let's take any form of perceived guilt out of the equation altogether. Neither mom nor fetus is guilty of anything other than being in the most unfortunate situation where the life of mom and fetus are at stake and only one of them will survive procedure 'X'.

Simple question: Who lives and who dies in your opinion and why?



The first thing I should make clear is that I believe life begins at conception.

Personally I have a real problem with that whole construct of arbitrarily deciding when life begins. It has no real meaning for me as a heathen especially inasmuch as such things are determined externally of the concept of the flow of Life. Life has no beginning or no end--it is a process. Taken a step further, death is as much Life as it may be the absence of life. (Note the upper case and lower case L's ;)) The former, death, is a type of Other-Beingness. Additionally these constructs are more often than not fashioned based on artificial notions of Life devoid of any respect for Life As Process (as opposed to Life As Entity). They are based on mechanistic and reductionist philosophies which don't usually jive very well in a pagan/heathen worldview imho. But that might just be me; I can't speak on anybody else's behalf of course.


That being said, the act of abortion, basically implies that the fetus is not developed enough to be considered a human being. And by implication that would imply that the mother or parents think that the fetus can be killed at will.

Well 'killed' is perhaps a bit strong of a word and might not be the appropriate one. Not that I wish to use a euphemism to sugar-coat the process either mind you. But let's leave the heavy emotional language aside for a minute and call it "termination of life". In terms of the procedure of abortion and the reasons why some women and/or couples even opt to go through with this are as varied as the women and/or couples who present at the clinics, medical centres or hospitals. Is it not the right of the person who is pregnant or the couple who have created this life to determine whether or not the entering of a process of bearing, giving birth and then more importantly raising the child is in their best interest?

I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder...

Scenario #1: A woman is violently raped and becomes pregnant from this act of violence. She seeks an abortion. Is it wrong that she would want to psychologically and physically rid herself of the product of an act of violence?

Scenario #2: A pregnant woman becomes ill with a life-threatening illness unless the pregnancy is terminated. She is already the mother of ten children at home for whom she cares on a 24/7 basis and her husband is the sole financial provider. They are not rich and the husband/father cannot afford to lose his job or this would mean a certain economic doom to this family with far-reaching social repercussions. What is this family to do? Do these pre-existing children not count in the debate? Is there not some form of priority or is everything absolute?

I would suspect that the existence of unplanned pregnancies has been with us since time immemorial. Might it not show more character and courage to admit that one may not be fit to bear and raise a child?


But despite that fact, we have to assume there is a motivation behind wanting to get an abortion in the first place. The motivation is either something selfish, or the reaction to the consequence of some irresponsibility (irresponsible sex).

But the assumption that the motivation is based on some selfish act or the reaction to some consequence of being irresponsible is just that, an assumption. My question will always be, why make such an assumption (usually based on personal perception) to begin with? On what basis is this assumption made?


The mother on the other hand, if she chooses to abort the child is exerting her will. And we have to ask for what reason, which will inevitably go back to one of those two categories.

So you assume. But as my other scenarios point out, this assumption does not stand on all counts. I think it important to be able to see that many many more scenarios can and do exist that do not and never will fall into either of these two categories.


The reason one station seems more important than the other (I do value both stations of life though) is because every individual, including this woman who is pregnant, was at one point at the mercy of their mother. The very fact that we are alive today is because of each of our mothers. Our mothers showed us compassion by bringing us into this world, and how hypocritical it would be for us not to show our unborn the same thing.

Though I admire the overall sentiment (being a mom myself :)) I think that we need to extract such debates from exactly that, the sentimentalism and emotionally-laden language that often plagues these discussions. Life decisions are based on a plethora of things but ultimately we are responsible for our own decisions and their consequences. I'm a great believer in self-determination and that each of us is responsible for our own selves all the while recognising our impact on the collective.

Life ain't simple and it was never meant to be. But it is meant to be played out however that may manifest itself. :)

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma

[Aemma]

It's nice that you're able to defend your position without resorting to hostilities, which is more than can be said of a few others. :)

I heartily agree! :) You show great character to me already Euroblood and have impressed me already as a young man of honour. So no worries Euroblood...it's all good! :)

Cheers!...Aemma :)

[YggsVinr]

I won't add too much to this debate as I think SuuT, Ulf and others are saying a lot of what I'd have to say.

As for myself, I tend to reject that notions of absolute morality or even truth. I think that both can be viewed as constructs or pieces of a puzzle that can be psychological shifted and shaped to suit one's desires. As a result, it can become a bit of a game with one's self to systematically construct, deconstruct, and once more reconstruct one's own structures and understandings. As Loddfafner pointed out:


A society where everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not is one that is easily manipulated by politicians who promise to uphold virtue and expel vice.

The majority of the population take no effort to understand why they believe what they believe, and would ever be too frightened to consider attempting to destroy their own beliefs as well as the readily accepted governing notions of "morality" and "truth" that is often used to manipulate them. Each individual should first retreat within themselves in order to contemplate the reasons for their own beliefs on morality and truth and to hear their own inner self or conscience speak. I think Emerson is the philosoph most relevant here in his belief that the individual must first retreat within before he can go forth into community. And even within that community one must ever retreat within, while at the once exclaiming:


Do not set the least value on what I do, or the least discredit on what I do not do, as if I pretended to settle any thing as true or false. I unsettle all things. No facts to me are sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker, with no past at my back.

Often the issue is the popularization of academic debates and theories, which has ever caused issue. If we turn to the development of the notion of the individual whether in Schiller or in Joyce, we cannot, at the same time, ignore what individualism has become in the public sphere. What was once an movement and understanding developed by the seeking, contemplative minds of true individuals was turned into social propaganda in which "everyone is unique and special" and has be transformed into the spoiling of children and the deterioration of the education system. The musings of intellectual beings are ever transformed and distorted for political and social agenda, for the mindless drone who thinks himself automatically "unique" won't much care to question, for he believes he lives in a society of "unique" and "free" individuals. In many ways morality functions in the same way. While even during the middle ages, theologians and philosophers were debating to the point of atheism and questioning of certain points of morality, the institution of church made sure the population remained oblivious. Similarly, as such points of debates trickled down and there became an increasing rise in what would be come Protestantism, the subjects of debate were once more popularized, watered down, and skewed. Even in cases of "revolution" often the common man barely understands why he believes something to be morally right or wrong beyond his immediate need. But if we are to create any kind of moral values in our age that would make for a better future, we would do better than to act simply on immediate need. If we are to construct a set of morals for the creation of our own future society, we must found those morals upon a design that will stand the test of time.

Should we take the abovementioned constructed morals seriously? To a point, yes, but not to the degree that we would become inflexible and, as before, easily manipulated or unable to change our tactics to meet changing circumstances. We should be shape-changers in this respect.

Returning once more to the beginning, I can think of no greater exercise than to reduce one's self in one's mind followed by an inflation of the self; to understand one's self through different selves, so to speak. I also think that one might benefit, as schizophrenic as it might sound, from a written moral and ideological debate with one's self drawing from the argumentative style of such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas. For example, in the Summa Theologica:


First Article. whether, BEsides the Philosophical Sciences, any Further Doctrine Is Required?

We proceed thus to the First Article: -
Objection I. It seems that, besides the philosophical sciences, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: Seek not the things that are too high for thee (Ecclus. iii.22). But whatever is not above reason is sufficiently considered in the philosophical sciences. Therefore any other knowledge besides the philosophical sciences is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save the true, which is convertible with being. But everything that is, is considered in the philosophical sciences - even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as is clear from Aristotle. therefore, besides the philosphical sciences, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. ii. 16): All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. Now Scripture, inspired of Gd is not a part of the pihilosophical sciences discovered by human reason. Therefore it is useful that beside the philosophical sciences there should be another science - ie.- inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by god, besides the philsophical sciences investigated by human reason. First, because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee (Isa. lxiv. 4)...etc.

Reply Objection I: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith. Hence the sacred text continues, For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man (Ecclus. iii. 25) And in such things sacred science consists.

Reply Objection 2. Sciences are diversified according to the diverse nature of their knowable objects...etc.

The importance here is the structure Aquinas uses. We should reduce even our constructed morals to this scheme by understanding what we believe or assume to know absolutely not only through our own eyes but those of our opponents, through our influences or mentors, and then to withdraw out of ourselves, or perhaps further within ourselves beyond the point of the constructed self, and to understand our own moral debate from all possible angles. The deeper one delves into the philosophy of the self, of truth, or morality the more one comes to understand that all three constructed, but this is not necessarily negative nor a disadvantage.

Just a few thoughts, hopefully it makes some sense.

[Euroblood]

Hi Euroblood, :)

Well Euroblood I equally want to apologise to you for my own tardiness. But I equally want to acknowledge your poise and maturity in answering these questions being pressed upon you. It might seem like we're picking on you but we're not. I'd take it rather as a nod of recognition towards your character, its strength and honesty especially. It's all good Euroblood. :) Hi Aemma, and thank you :) I don't think you all are picking on me, we are just having a nice philosophical debate here and I happen to hold some views that may not be shared by everyone. No worries though.



But why make a supposition of guilt to begin with when looking at this issue? This is what I don't understand. Why even bring it that far? IMO it only muddles the underlying question of where one stands with respect to the value placed on a life. Not to mention the entire question as to whether the notion of 'guilt' is really appropriate in a heathen context which I don't think it is in this case.

So let's take any form of perceived guilt out of the equation altogether. Neither mom nor fetus is guilty of anything other than being in the most unfortunate situation where the life of mom and fetus are at stake and only one of them will survive procedure 'X'.

Simple question: Who lives and who dies in your opinion and why?
Although simple, it is a tough question. In an ideal world neither would die. Now without trying to assume anything (Very hard to do…), I would say if one is to live, it should be the child. Why? If the mother knows prior to giving birth that only one can survive then she must choose, and we know that the child cannot choose. Therefore I would say it is selfish to take the life of your own child to save yourself. Of course if no one knows, then the outcome would be uncertain and what will happen is not going to be up to anyone.


Personally I have a real problem with that whole construct of arbitrarily deciding when life begins. It has no real meaning for me as a heathen especially inasmuch as such things are determined externally of the concept of the flow of Life. Life has no beginning or no end--it is a process. Taken a step further, death is as much Life as it may be the absence of life. (Note the upper case and lower case L's ;)) The former, death, is a type of Other-Beingness. Additionally these constructs are more often than not fashioned based on artificial notions of Life devoid of any respect for Life As Process (as opposed to Life As Entity). They are based on mechanistic and reductionist philosophies which don't usually jive very well in a pagan/heathen worldview imho. But that might just be me; I can't speak on anybody else's behalf of course. I understand where you are coming from, and while I can say that I do agree that life has many forms beyond just the biological. I try to put into context the idea that the fetus is a living being. Very often people get abortions and feel they have the right because they are living, and they feel the fetus is not living. That is all I made that statement for.




Well 'killed' is perhaps a bit strong of a word and might not be the appropriate one. Not that I wish to use a euphemism to sugar-coat the process either mind you. But let's leave the heavy emotional language aside for a minute and call it "termination of life". In terms of the procedure of abortion and the reasons why some women and/or couples even opt to go through with this are as varied as the women and/or couples who present at the clinics, medical centres or hospitals. Is it not the right of the person who is pregnant or the couple who have created this life to determine whether or not the entering of a process of bearing, giving birth and then more importantly raising the child is in their best interest?

I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder...

Scenario #1: A woman is violently raped and becomes pregnant from this act of violence. She seeks an abortion. Is it wrong that she would want to psychologically and physically rid herself of the product of an act of violence?

Scenario #2: A pregnant woman becomes ill with a life-threatening illness unless the pregnancy is terminated. She is already the mother of ten children at home for whom she cares on a 24/7 basis and her husband is the sole financial provider. They are not rich and the husband/father cannot afford to lose his job or this would mean a certain economic doom to this family with far-reaching social repercussions. What is this family to do? Do these pre-existing children not count in the debate? Is there not some form of priority or is everything absolute?

I would suspect that the existence of unplanned pregnancies has been with us since time immemorial. Might it not show more character and courage to admit that one may not be fit to bear and raise a child?

I’ll try not to use the strong and emotional words, but I think that in it self is a hard thing to do because we are dealing with issues that do obviously involve emotion and strong sentiment of one kind or another.

The parent or couple does have a right to figure out what is in their interest, but if another life gets involved (i.e. a pregnancy occurs) who speaks for the child’s best interest? The couple’s interests are they own, until more lives are involved, then the question is the interest of all the parties involved.

I think in scenario one, that it would be wrong for her to want to “rid herself” of the child in the womb. The reasons for this are that the child had nothing to do with this rape, mind you neither did the mother (that is why she was raped), but the child shouldn’t have it’s life terminated simply because something extremely unfortunate and painful happened to the mother. Further I must ask the question would “ridding herself” of the child really psychologically undo the damage that was done? Many women who have been raped, never became pregnant but yet they still have been extremely hurt psychologically. No woman should ever have to endure being raped, but if they are raped, I just don’t see how terminating a pregnancy will fix the problem.

Scenario two is a tough one as well because you introduced the concept of priority. The family as a whole does have to be taken into consideration, and that means all the children. The absolute still exists; unfortunately we are now confined to a choice where some wrong must exist. It is wrong to terminate that child since he existed beyond this dilemma, but it would also be wrong to neglect the current family, and leave those other kids without someone who can take care of them. The fact that there are 10 existing kids and a man ( the husband) who need this woman in their lives, means that the mother can’t be seen as selfish for terminating the child. Essentially no matter what choice was made wrongdoing will occur now it becomes a matter of which action will do more wrongdoing. So I can’t say that the fact these circumstances exist justify anything, but I see it as a choice based on motivation. In either case the mother isn’t selfish.


But the assumption that the motivation is based on some selfish act or the reaction to some consequence of being irresponsible is just that, an assumption. My question will always be, why make such an assumption (usually based on personal perception) to begin with? On what basis is this assumption made? Well I have to say that not all abortions are based on that scenario that you presented above, and I doubt that the majority are based on something like that. Modern society today does things if it is “convenient” for them. While I no it isn’t reasonable to base every decision based on the women I’ve seen who have had an abortion, I have seen many who simply have sex and fool around without taking either precautionary measures or simply didn’t want to deal with the consequences. That is absolutely wrong if you ask me.


So you assume. But as my other scenarios point out, this assumption does not stand on all counts. I think it important to be able to see that many many more scenarios can and do exist that do not and never will fall into either of these two categories.
You are right. There is a possibility that assumption does not stand. Some scenarios may exist, but I still don’t think that those circumstances justify the termination of life. The justification comes from your motivation and as I mentioned to take the whole family into consideration is thinking selflessly.


Though I admire the overall sentiment (being a mom myself :)) I think that we need to extract such debates from exactly that, the sentimentalism and emotionally-laden language that often plagues these discussions. Life decisions are based on a plethora of things but ultimately we are responsible for our own decisions and their consequences. I'm a great believer in self-determination and that each of us is responsible for our own selves all the while recognising our impact on the collective.

Life ain't simple and it was never meant to be. But it is meant to be played out however that may manifest itself. :)

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma

Ultimately, you have to live with what you do. I too think self-determination is very important.


I heartily agree! :) You show great character to me already Euroblood and have impressed me already as a young man of honour. So no worries Euroblood...it's all good! :)

Cheers!...Aemma :)

Thank you again Aemma, you are very kind.

[Hrolf Kraki]

So, how do you feel about morals? Are they something you take seriously..?

I suppose I'm not quite sure what you mean by morals. Do you mean like doing the right thing? Or doing, what I guess would be, the "moral" thing? Let me explain.

Some have "morals" that insist, for example, one should stay monogomous.

However others believe in doing the "right thing" such as, for example, reporting a bank error in your favour.

I mean to say, do you see them as two like I just described or are you indeed just speaking of morals, which often times overlap, but not always.

Sorry for all the questions, I just wanna be clear before I respond. :p

[Aemma]

Thank you again Aemma, you are very kind.

Kindness begets kindness. :)

Thank you for your great post Euroblood. I better see your point of view. We might not always share the same opinion on specifics (and why should we? :)) but I think in general we share some of the same values. :)

'Twas a pleasure discussing this with you. :D

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma