This is about Morals...

[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.

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.

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