StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For those of you who don't know what these are, and are just going "Hey neat, what's this?" Basically, its the question "Do humans have a set of morals that they are born with, or does their enviornment give them their moral rules?"

Give your answer, and why you support that position.

Actually, as I understand it, having absolute morality is a system of morality that is correct.

Exonerate wrote:Actually, as I understand it, having absolute morality is a system of morality that is correct.

*blink*

*blink*

Define "correct"

Exactly.

Both.

Dammit, neither of you are helping!

And Exonerate, please explain how to create a correct moral system, that will work in every situation.

Singuler Quartet wrote:Dammit, neither of you are helping!

And Exonerate, please explain how to create a correct moral system, that will work in every situation.

There is no way.

All morality needs some kind of context to operate.

Singuler Quartet wrote:Dammit, neither of you are helping!

And Exonerate, please explain how to create a correct moral system, that will work in every situation.

"Chasing after rainbows."

To clarify my above statement: It's both, but with a greater emphasis on environment for many of the basic moral values.

Well, I'm glad everybody agrees wth me...

Absolute Morals is a code of Morals which is held too no matter the situation, such as for exampole saying stealing is wrong. That would be the end the of the matter, It wouldn't make any differance why a person stole. Perhaps the most famous example would be from a German scholar, Whose name escapes me, but he is acknowladged as being the last of the classical Philospher's. (that is the last Philosopher who dealt with everything, had a Theory for everything. From the existance of God, to Morality To the Law, to Politics to the Human Condition. Seriously when I was doing my A-Levels every Subject mentioned the guy, from Theology to Poltic's to law, to General Knowledge. (Well okay not too sure about that one, NO ONE ever went to General Knowledge classes the idea is stupid, you can't teach General Knowledge in one hour a week.)

Anyway He presented a Theory where in any descision you want to take based on a moral issue, you should Univeralise the situation as much as possible, and decide if it is a rational choice. (Based on three different ways to judge it, Or was it two, anyway one was does it break NAtural law if the world was run this way, that is if everyone did what you where thinking about doing could the world actually exist or at least could society continue. And two if the society could continue then is it a world you'd want to live in, if the answer to either of these was 'No' then action was wrong.) The Gentleman in question belived that what set humans apart and made them special was that we could all reason, and that Reason was an attribute shared mostly Evenly. (Okay he never Darkstar...) or at least could be taught to all to an equal level.

A Relative Moral Position is one that is based on the situation, that is it is should I steal or not, 'well I am starving and need this to live therefore it is okay...' Would be a Relative position. In reality most people lie in between, we have a set of values that we hold as being ideal, but accept that not all situatons may be approiate to this core value system, but that in 9 out of 10 cases it is the better choice. (Hence normally it is wrong to steal but their can be occasions where it is not see.)

My opinion was and still is that there are universal ethical values (preservation of life, preservation of social order), but differing and relative ways of expressing those values.

Singuler Quartet wrote:For those of you who don't know what these are, and are just going "Hey neat, what's this?" Basically, its the question "Do humans have a set of morals that they are born with, or does their enviornment give them their moral rules?"

Give your answer, and why you support that position.

Enviroment provides moral rules. Of course, we're not talking about something like family enviroment or so on here - I'm talking about society as a whole, at the most basic organizational level, with further specific definable subsets based around the concept of civilization.

Morality, basically, is unwritten law. What among hunter-gatherers is called taboo, or the like, is something different, and called Morality, for agrarians and industrials, the people of civilization (for the most part); or the construction of cities.

Our enviroment within the city demands certain moral laws, and then further division between agrarian and industrial, additional moral laws. Industrial morals, I argue, have not yet codified. The differing values between societies of the same type - Two agrarian, two industrial, etc - Are largely just local flavour with the same basics at the bottom.

But the reason for that, of course, is not some underlying moral code, but instead the fact that the "unwritten law" for living in cities with an agrarian, or with an industrial, civilization, is going to be basically the same and can only have so many differences (The differences between the two being vast, of course; I use them both as they are both kinds of civilization; hunter-gatherers and herders not being civilized).

The morality of cultures without cities will again differ vastly. They operate in different circumstances and need different organizational rules, so to speak, to get along.

But the firmament remains the same in each society type, with only local variation.

This allows a judgement of a particular cultural grouping's moral values based on how well they measure up to a potentially defineable "ideal standard" of morality for that particular societal type.

Though of course interesting situations arise: Can we judge Islam, with its agrarian societal morality, by the standards of our (evolving) industrial morality? In theory, no, but many Islamic countries possess industry, and are in the process of industrializing themselves, creating a grey area to say the least. Likewise, globalization of the western form of industrial morality - in its very first stage, but, due to the globalization, allowing for subsequent changes to also be transmitted - In the 19th century, and later, has caused somewhat of a global standard.

Can this, then, be applied? What of the veritable annihilation of hunter-gatherer and herding societies? Their morality is largely gone and they are mostly contained inside of other countries and cultures where they exist at all. Should they be then forced to conform?

The idea of morality based on societal organization is appealing, in that it avoids an absolute of questionable origin and an inflexible nature. At the same time, however, it creates situations where differing societal organizations essentially have no point of comparison, except where they interact and cross ideals. Fortunately that's always been enough, and especially now, as to be less of a problem than it would seem.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Though of course interesting situations arise: Can we judge Islam, with its agrarian societal morality, by the standards of our (evolving) industrial morality? In theory, no, but many Islamic countries possess industry, and are in the process of industrializing themselves, creating a grey area to say the least. Likewise, globalization of the western form of industrial morality - in its very first stage, but, due to the globalization, allowing for subsequent changes to also be transmitted - In the 19th century, and later, has caused somewhat of a global standard.

Can this, then, be applied? What of the veritable annihilation of hunter-gatherer and herding societies? Their morality is largely gone and they are mostly contained inside of other countries and cultures where they exist at all. Should they be then forced to conform?

The idea of morality based on societal organization is appealing, in that it avoids an absolute of questionable origin and an inflexible nature. At the same time, however, it creates situations where differing societal organizations essentially have no point of comparison, except where they interact and cross ideals. Fortunately that's always been enough, and especially now, as to be less of a problem than it would seem.

The problem with your first example is that Islam condones certain acts that are genetically bad. Mohammed married his daughter when she was nine. That kind of incest is not good for humanity, society be damned. Or what about ritual mutilation of genitalia, such as stiching a woman's labia closed?

I mean, think about it. Such things are inexcusable no matter where you are. And if you try to say that it depends on their society, tell me this: Do you think that the woman enjoys having her most sensitive parts punched through with a needle?

There are certain things that are dictated by our genetics. Those are unchangeable. Other things that are determined by society can be changed, to a point; possession being one of them. Without posession, theft becomes meaningless...

There are some things that repulse us because for genetic reasons - incest, for instance, is a taboo that has held before anyone really had an understanding on why it is bad for our genes, and it is an evolutionary advantage to feel incest is immoral.
But I don't count that as morality, it's a biological instinct.

Other taboo acts are, IMO, immoral, but it's a morality I have decided on, and maybe that have been indoctrinated to me, but it's still relative, not absolute morality.

The stuff you guys listed wouldn't hold true in every situation.

innerbrat wrote:There are some things that repulse us because for genetic reasons - incest, for instance, is a taboo that has held before anyone really had an understanding on why it is bad for our genes, and it is an evolutionary advantage to feel incest is immoral.
But I don't count that as morality, it's a biological instinct.

Actually thats not true, in ancient Egypt it was considered okay and in fact morally advantagous for vertain people to marry, and propagate with their sibling's. People such as the (Spelling is going to be WAY off here.) The Pheoroh.. argg well anyway there you go. I belive it may also hold true for for other culture's, (The Ancient Greeks had their God's commiting Incest, and oh yeah Funadalmentalist Christians are having the entire human race the offspring of incest...)

Other taboo acts are, IMO, immoral, but it's a morality I have decided on, and maybe that have been indoctrinated to me, but it's still relative, not absolute morality.

Moral are relatives and not all moral rules have anything with to do with natural adaptation, etc.
Now there is whole also unwritten code, the Ethics, that is not relative. It will not change no matter where and when like the morals.

Singuler Quartet wrote:For those of you who don't know what these are, and are just going "Hey neat, what's this?" Basically, its the question "Do humans have a set of morals that they are born with, or does their enviornment give them their moral rules?"

Give your answer, and why you support that position.

Well first off the terms, as I understand them, would be properly defined as "Hard Universalism" and "Soft Universalism" wherein you firstmust accept the prospect that Morals DO exist (you can't be a nihilist) but the debate becomes one between whether there is a correct moral standard for everyone or whether morals are adaptive to environment.

For myself I believe "Soft Unviersalism" is correct in that morals are merely a means by which we govern conduct amongst ourselves in order to survive. In other words morals are neccessarry for any structure greater than the family (which in turn is neccessarry for human life to procede forth). However this social contract or set or morals is merely an extension of the survival instinct applied to a group larger than the family which means morals are governed entirely by their value relative to survival of a given group size. Thus morals must be adaptive both to the size and location of a group of humans.

A lot of people seem to subscribe to something of a false dilemma when it comes to absolute vs. relative morality; rejecting moral relativism doesn't mean you have to embrace of a system of complete moral absolutism. You can certainly hold the belief that there are SOME moral absolutes, but not one, all-encompassing universal system of morality.

I've also found that many people tend to embrace moral relativism primarily when it is easy and convenient; it is easy to be a moral relativist and not pass judgment on societies with different codes of morality from your own when the moral issue is something like sex, or funerary customs. However, when it comes to more complicated issues, such as societal attitudes towards Jews (or members of any other minority group), moral relativism encounters a problem; under moral relativism, we cannot condemn Hitler's horrendous anti-Semitic policies and attempted genocide, we cannot condemn the slaveholding practices held by many countries, including ours, for hundreds of years, we cannot condemn the culture of violence and hatred that permeates the Middle East to this day, since all systems of morality are equal; no one culture has the correct way.

There can be no way to measure progress under a system of moral relativism either, since what might be viewed as progress under a system of moral objectivism/absolutism cannot be viewed as such under relativism, because relativism sees all moral codes as equal, therefore, how can one moral code get better than another? There are only modifications to morality.

There is much that is attractive about moral relativism; and to an extent, there are a few things about it that are perfectly reasonable; for the most part, it appears that there are only a few moral absolutes, with much of morality being genuinely relative. However, there are certain absolute ethics that can be found (not always easily; sometimes, they are somewhat subtle) within virtually all the societies of the world that are needed for society to function.

Crayz9000 wrote:
The problem with your first example is that Islam condones certain acts that are genetically bad. Mohammed married his daughter when she was nine. That kind of incest is not good for humanity, society be damned.

Fatima was not Muhammed's daughter, and you insult a worthy man and philosopher of his times to suggest otherwise, and a great general. Likewise the marriage was not consummated until later, according to most accounts (Though, regardless, there are genetic conditions which can make puberty in women occur as early as age nine).

To accuse Muhammed of either incest, or paedophilia, then, would be quite wrong.

Or what about ritual mutilation of genitalia, such as stiching a woman's labia closed?

There are beliefs common throughout agrarian society that excessive proscimuity is damaging to the societal organization. That is common in all agrarian societies, and most have found different ways - targeted against men and women alike - of solving it.

There's a decent liklihood that proscimuity really is damaging in some fashion to agrarian societies. That doesn't absolve them of the far more extreme solutions that some took to "dealing" with it. However, there was a common perceived problem, and a common perceived solution.

I mean, think about it. Such things are inexcusable no matter where you are.

That would require the Deity to mandate universal morality. Which would then have to be interpeted and given form in the Word of God, even if it doesn't have an attached religion, or is just an abstract concept.

How can a "Right" or a "Wrong" exist as absolutes without an arbiter, a guiding force in the universe to delineate these, but moreover to define them?

And once this is done, can an impartial creation by the Deity still be upheld?

And if you try to say that it depends on their society, tell me this: Do you think that the woman enjoys having her most sensitive parts punched through with a needle?

Rather not, no. But however flawed the solution, or possibly even the reasoning for what they determined, the danger existed. They had an agrarian morality, and they acted upon its dictates. Of course, someone coming from 16th century Europe could record such in horror and morally condemn them quite reasonably, since after all they were both agrarian societies, and Europe had found less harsh ways of dealing with the, ah, "perceived problem".

There are certain things that are dictated by our genetics. Those are unchangeable. Other things that are determined by society can be changed, to a point; possession being one of them. Without posession, theft becomes meaningless...

And then there is what beyond that? Or is there that? Does society determine the last bit?

Ahh I finally found my old notes from my ethics class and here goes.

Ethics divides itself up into several categories:

Nihilism: There are NO morals period
Skepticism: There might be morals but we haven't found them yet
Subjectivism: Morals are an individual concern, each person SHOULD have their own set of morals and each is right for themsevles.
Ethical Relativism: Each culture has its own morals depending upon what its needs are.
Soft Universalism: There are a few moral absolutes, generally don't kill or lie maliciously, but even then there can be exceptions (its like the English language of ethics)
Hard Universalism: Multiple varieties of all encompassing moral codes such as
-Egoism
-Utilitarianism
-Kant's Deontology
-Virtue Ethics

Now I personally subscribe to Soft Universalism, there are a few hard and fast rules that apply because they govern the survival of the species as a whole while many of the other systems either protend to much governance or too little.

Kinda chopping up the Commander's post, but I wanted to do some analysis of his notes.

Ahh I finally found my old notes from my ethics class and here goes.

Ethics divides itself up into several categories:

Nihilism: There are NO morals period

This would suggest that anything and everything is permissible, including rape, torture, murder, and genocide. Mainly proposed by Nietzsche. Figures .

Skepticism: There might be morals but we haven't found them yet

The problem with skepticism is it refuses to take a stand. It's like some of DW's fundie debates: you can't pin a skeptic down to anything. They're the Jell-O of philosophy.

Subjectivism: Morals are an individual concern, each person SHOULD have their own set of morals and each is right for themsevles.
Ethical Relativism: Each culture has its own morals depending upon what its needs are.

I'm going to bunch these two together, since they both fall under relativism. The problem with both is that it means no morals values are superior to others. Subjectivism is basically nihilism, IMHO, because each person decides what is right and wrong. ER, OTOH, provides even more problems. Under ER, the Holocaust was moral; the Nazi German culture believed it was right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was immoral because he attempted to force change on society.

Soft Universalism: There are a few moral absolutes, generally don't kill or lie maliciously, but even then there can be exceptions (its like the English language of ethics)

Some try to use ethical calculus, figuring the balance of moral and immoral in each action. The soccer team that crashed in the Andes and resorted to cannibalism to survive is an example of the sanctity of life (moral within their society) being stronger than cannibalism (immoral within their society).

Hard Universalism: Multiple varieties of all encompassing moral codes such as
-Egoism
-Utilitarianism
-Kant's Deontology
-Virtue Ethics

Also includes Divine Command Theory. These all suggest ultimate moral codes that must be followed. Some of the moral codes can be combined (for example, there could be a soft universalist ethical relativist). Don't ask me what those people would believe, since I'm not sure, but they do exist. As for me, I'm a soft universalist as well.

The Dark wrote:Kinda chopping up the Commander's post, but I wanted to do some analysis of his notes.
[quote="Cmdrwilkens]Ahh I finally found my old notes from my ethics class and here goes.

Ethics divides itself up into several categories:

Nihilism: There are NO morals period

This would suggest that anything and everything is permissible, including rape, torture, murder, and genocide. Mainly proposed by Nietzsche. Figures .

Skepticism: There might be morals but we haven't found them yet

The problem with skepticism is it refuses to take a stand. It's like some of DW's fundie debates: you can't pin a skeptic down to anything. They're the Jell-O of philosophy.[/quote]

Skepticism is actually more of the Angnosticism of ethcis. It basically is that there might morals (otherwise they'd be nihilists) but they'd like proof either way.

Subjectivism: Morals are an individual concern, each person SHOULD have their own set of morals and each is right for themsevles.
Ethical Relativism: Each culture has its own morals depending upon what its needs are.

I'm going to bunch these two together, since they both fall under relativism. The problem with both is that it means no morals values are superior to others. Subjectivism is basically nihilism, IMHO, because each person decides what is right and wrong. ER, OTOH, provides even more problems. Under ER, the Holocaust was moral; the Nazi German culture believed it was right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was immoral because he attempted to force change on society.

However there is a significant difference between these types of relativism and nihilism. The later states that there are NO morals and we should do whatever we feel like. Subjectivism is where most people who claim to be nihilists really lie as a true nihilist would never purchase food or buy anything as even exchange presuposses the morality of fairness, subjectivism allows them to live by their own personal "code of honor" if you will.

Now Ethical Relativism is not nearly as bad as you supposse, though I still feel its inadequate. Your example of the Holocaust is actually incorrect in that is presupposses that Nazi Germany fully subscribed to the idea AND that it was correct for that culture (in fact as a general examination of anti-semeticism would show it tends to be bad for nations so becoming anti-semetic actually hurt Nazi Germany which thus must either value sado-masocism or be violating its own morals).

Soft Universalism: There are a few moral absolutes, generally don't kill or lie maliciously, but even then there can be exceptions (its like the English language of ethics)

Some try to use ethical calculus, figuring the balance of moral and immoral in each action. The soccer team that crashed in the Andes and resorted to cannibalism to survive is an example of the sanctity of life (moral within their society) being stronger than cannibalism (immoral within their society).

Ethical calculus falls more under Hard universalism since it presupposse a hard and fast set of rules. In fact the best example of ethical calculus would be Kant's Dentology.

Hard Universalism: Multiple varieties of all encompassing moral codes such as
-Egoism
-Utilitarianism
-Kant's Deontology
-Virtue Ethics

Also includes Divine Command Theory. These all suggest ultimate moral codes that must be followed. Some of the moral codes can be combined (for example, there could be a soft universalist ethical relativist). Don't ask me what those people would believe, since I'm not sure, but they do exist. As for me, I'm a soft universalist as well.

Well a soft universalist basically IS an ethical relativist the only difference being that he views the "culture" as humanity in general and allows that exceptions can occur in extreme cases.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: There are beliefs common throughout agrarian society that excessive proscimuity is damaging to the societal organization. That is common in all agrarian societies, and most have found different ways - targeted against men and women alike - of solving it.

Popularity does not equal justification. And many ancient societies were quite liberal toward promiscuity; it was not uniform. Some forms of taoism even uphold sexual energy as one of the primal energies of the universe.

I mean, think about it. Such things are inexcusable no matter where you are.

That would require the Deity to mandate universal morality. Which would then have to be interpeted and given form in the Word of God, even if it doesn't have an attached religion, or is just an abstract concept.

Leap in logic. The concept of an absolute system of morality does not necessarily require a deity.

How can a "Right" or a "Wrong" exist as absolutes without an arbiter, a guiding force in the universe to delineate these, but moreover to define them?

Why would the existence of said "arbiter" make any difference? Something is either moral or immoral, irrespective of whether some deity exists to shove rules down our throats via his anointed prophets.

Rather not, no. But however flawed the solution, or possibly even the reasoning for what they determined, the danger existed. They had an agrarian morality, and they acted upon its dictates.

Explain why an agrarian society must necessarily stamp out human sexuality in order to function.

There are certain things that are dictated by our genetics. Those are unchangeable. Other things that are determined by society can be changed, to a point; possession being one of them. Without posession, theft becomes meaningless...

And then there is what beyond that? Or is there that? Does society determine the last bit?

We are intelligent; we can demand justifications of a moral principle based on the handful of absolutes that we can all agree on because they are basically hard-wired into the species (eg- "pain/captivity/death are bad, life/pleasure/freedom are good").