Page 17 of 27
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:51 am
by Kenny
Nils wrote:
Concerning animals:
Ken writes that People don't generally apply morality to animals. This is as usual a matter of definition. To me morality is a set of rules of conduct and animals have those also. Most have for instance instincts that prevent them to eat their offspring but animals that live in groups have also advanced behaviour to the benefit of the group that in some cases can be compared to the human instincts. This has been studied on apes and dog animals for instance. To me it is natural to call this behaviour morality. Most persons that have had a dog can tell how they can see on the dog if it has done something that the dog knows it shouldn't do. It feels ashamed. If that is not an evidence on morality, what is it then.
There may be a form of morality animals apply to themselves, but I don’t see humans applying morality to their actions for the most part; especially animals in the wild. When a male lion approaches a female lion with cubs, and he wants to mate with her, the first thing he does is kill her cubs; then force her to have sex with him. People aren’t outraged by this action, we just call it standard procedure for lions. There are many instances of animals behaving in a moral fashion, but this is a standard they impose on themselves; not a standard imposed by people. That is the point I was trying to make.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:07 am
by Stu
Nils wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).
How does it matter if there is objective or subjective morality ontologically speaking if no one cares? There are lot of examples from the Middle ages of princes that didn't care of right and wrong. See for instance the book The Prince of Machiavelli. So morality may end up anywhere both with subjective or objective morality.
And besides, whether it is true that only subjective morality exists, does not depend on it being desirable or not.
Paul:
"If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example)."
But then Rick writes
"Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?"
I agree with Rick. Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong. In most cases my feelings about right and wrong can be related to my intellectual understanding of what is best to me, to my family, and to the society. No further reference to a God is needed.
Concerning animals:
Ken writes that People don't generally apply morality to animals. This is as usual a matter of definition. To me morality is a set of rules of conduct and animals have those also. Most have for instance instincts that prevent them to eat their offspring but animals that live in groups have also advanced behaviour to the benefit of the group that in some cases can be compared to the human instincts. This has been studied on apes and dog animals for instance. To me it is natural to call this behaviour morality. Most persons that have had a dog can tell how they can see on the dog if it has done something that the dog knows it shouldn't do. It feels ashamed. If that is not an evidence on morality, what is it then.
Nils
It's not that the dog feels bad about the behaviour that it done. Rather the dog reacts because the human disagrees with what the dog just done, and the dog knows this. It can tell, so it is not that it is ashamed of the action, rather it is reacting to it's owners reaction.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:20 am
by PaulSacramento
I see, so the issues is that you guys think that with objective morality that people can't decide what is moral?
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:22 am
by PaulSacramento
Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong. In most cases my feelings about right and wrong can be related to my intellectual understanding of what is best to me, to my family, and to the society. No further reference to a God is needed.
Your intellectual understanding was founded on a western culture in which morals are valued and the view that objective Good exists.
In short, you don't need God because you already have him ( in your morals).
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:35 am
by PaulSacramento
RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own
Kenny,
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.
Of course it is faulty, he doesn't understand the difference between WHAT IS good and that there IS Good.
He doesn't get that "evil" and "bad" aren't subjective in the sense of what is "evil' and" bad" but that they are an absence of Good.
That is why the rape of an infant is ALWAYS wrong because in no way is it good.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:43 am
by RickD
PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong. In most cases my feelings about right and wrong can be related to my intellectual understanding of what is best to me, to my family, and to the society. No further reference to a God is needed.
Your intellectual understanding was founded on a western culture in which morals are valued and the view that objective Good exists.
In short, you don't need God because you already have him ( in your morals).
In other words, he's sawing off the very branch he's standing on.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:44 am
by RickD
PaulSacramento wrote:RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own
Kenny,
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.
Of course it is faulty, he doesn't understand the difference between WHAT IS good and that there IS Good.
He doesn't get that "evil" and "bad" aren't subjective in the sense of what is "evil' and" bad" but that they are an absence of Good.
That is why the rape of an infant is ALWAYS wrong because in no way is it good.
Bingo!
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:45 am
by RickD
Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own
Kenny,
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.
Are you able to determine right from wrong on all moral issues? (like me) or do you still need an outside source on some issues, but not others.
Kenny,
I have a God given conscience, just like you have.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:20 am
by B. W.
Question, is this how we should govern by PC morality?
How much of this is happening in the West? right Now?
Really want to be governed by such subjective morality?
Is it a good thing or not?
Frankfurt School - 11-STEP PLAN OF CULTURAL SUBVERSION
1-The creation of racism offences
2-Continual change to create confusion
3-The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4-The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5-Huge immigration to destroy identity
6-The promotion of excessive drinking
7-Emptying of churches
8-An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9-Dependency on the state or state benefits
10-Control and dumbing down of media
11-Encouraging the breakdown of the family
note:
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:16 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own
Kenny,
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.
Are you able to determine right from wrong on all moral issues? (like me) or do you still need an outside source on some issues, but not others.
Kenny,
I have a God given conscience, just like you have.
Again; do you feel qualified to make judgments on all moral issues? Or do you need an outside source on some issues, but not others.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:19 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote:RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own
Kenny,
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.
Of course it is faulty, he doesn't understand the difference between WHAT IS good and that there IS Good.
He doesn't get that "evil" and "bad" aren't subjective in the sense of what is "evil' and" bad" but that they are an absence of Good.
You shouldn't assume that because I don't agree with your view, that I don't understand it.
Ken
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 pm
by PaulSacramento
If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:11 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote:If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.
In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?
Ken
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:24 pm
by RickD
Kenny wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.
In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?
Ken
Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?
Re: Morality
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:29 pm
by RickD
Nils wrote:
But then Rick writes
"Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?"
I agree with Rick. Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong.
FYI Nils,
I wasn't saying that there is no authority.