morals

[Anonymous]

To colors

1) humans have no instincts

By instinct, I meant any form of behaviour that comes without teaching, ie natural understanding of right or wrong.

this "instinct" that these children are born with is moral absolutism--a basic understanding of right/wrong. so you're actually agreeing with me in a funny way.

For me this basic disposition for right and wrong are contingent to enviornmental factors, ie I believe under different evolutionary circumstances, infants will exhibit different 'basic understanding of right/wrong', which implies moral relativism. This statement of course being a direct collary of evolution theory as expounded by mainstream biologist. Of course you are free to discount evolution, in which case we can further discuss evolution in another thread.

Also I still fail to see how the fact that children born with an innate moral compass implies moral absolutism. As he grows older the direction of the compass can change directions. Your statement does not exclude this supposition: A child who instinctly reviles hiting other infant might grow in to an adult seeing no problem in hitting his wife.

there are small anamolous groups/societies everywhere that deviate from the norm--not enough, however, to back any statement implying that basic morals are cultural.

but enough to show that moral absolutism fails, by citing counter examples to standard moral norms, which happen to be my intention anyway.

Also, you have misread my position regarding basic morals, my position is thus:

I view 'right' being suitable for the continuation of the species and 'wrong' being unsuitable for it.

meaning basic moral values are what are suitable for the continuation for the species.

In nowhere have I tried to develop the case where morals are cultural. morals are cultural and a host of other factors

[Anonymous]

They may appear superfluous as I am not particularly out to change your mind, but to encourage thinking on certain matters. My questions help to reveal your own consistency with relativism, and your own intuition regarding certain aspects of morality.

k, i'll accept your questions at least for now then.

What of your best friend's judgement who within the scenario charged her with selfishness, a lack of loyalty and willingness to hurt other people's feelings—would you agree with them?

I agree with his observations as they are true.

Caution is generally only required if there is something wrong further down the track. What reason is there to caution her? Why not caution her that if she stayed with her husband, then she might continue to be unhappy living a lie. Thus, why not encourage her to break away from her family, and go with the new guy?

The cautioning is to prod her to think thoroughly about the choices she is about to make. My intentions are to engage her in dialetic discussion. I will take the opposite of whatever her mental position is. If she wants to stay on with the husband, I will ask her whether she can be truly happy etc...

Interesting how it could be said Mother Teresa is morally worse than Hitler by some, while she is morally better by others. Who is right—one, both, neither?

depends who you are asking. I think neither are right.

Wouldn't it be ignorant of one side, namely those who think Teresa is morally better than Hitler, to persuade others to think so?

no.

There wouldn't have been any real justice when Nazi war criminals were morally prejudiced against and prosecuted. And what of all those highly moral rapists, murderers and child molestors behind bars? They are victims of moral intollerance!

Yes, they are victims of moral intollerance. Not that I see any problem with this victimization.

I think perhaps you just committed a converse accident. Just because in "some" cases, a group of people may think killing is acceptable, does not mean in "all" cases the same people will think killing is acceptible.

You misunderstand what I wanted to address to color. Sorry for not being able to convey myself in a lucid manner. I'll not address this, as i've already spend an hour plus replying color and you.

So then, the tribe actually would agree with me (or us?), that there are actual situations where killing is not morally acceptable? Now I'm left wondering what your point was in saying, "Killing is not viewed as immoral by cannibal tribes in africa"?

Your being pedantic here, or so I think. Is it really necessary that I specify everything explicitly? Its obvious you will still see my point in saying the above. I'll modify my sentence for your benefit, 'There are instances of killing where it is not viewed immoral by cannibal tribes in africa, but viewed as wrong by society at large. Since 2 standards of a particular moral value exist, this implies moral relativism '

[Kurieuo]

The cautioning is to prod her to think thoroughly about the choices she is about to make. My intentions are to engage her in dialetic discussion. I will take the opposite of whatever her mental position is. If she wants to stay on with the husband, I will ask her whether she can be truly happy etc...

Why do you care at all? Why not, as with the first case, just keep quiet?

Interesting how it could be said Mother Teresa is morally worse than Hitler by some, while she is morally better by others. Who is right—one, both, neither?

depends who you are asking. I think neither are right.

So then, do you believe "morality" is meaningless?

There wouldn't have been any real justice when Nazi war criminals were morally prejudiced against and prosecuted. And what of all those highly moral rapists, murderers and child molestors behind bars? They are victims of moral intollerance!

Yes, they are victims of moral intollerance. Not that I see any problem with this victimization.

I am personally finding it quite abhorrent that you hold to your guns so much, that you are prepared to allow rapists, murderers and child molestors pass as being moral people. Seriously, isn't there something wrong with your worldview if you can't say to the child molestor that molesting children is wrong to do and they shouldn't do it? To say a someone that is put in prison for molesting children are victims of moral intolerance... does anyone seriously believe that molesting a child is moral in any sense?!?

I think perhaps you just committed a converse accident. Just because in "some" cases, a group of people may think killing is acceptable, does not mean in "all" cases the same people will think killing is acceptible.

You misunderstand what I wanted to address to color. Sorry for not being able to convey myself in a lucid manner. I'll not address this, as i've already spend an hour plus replying color and you.

I think I understood you perfectly, but I'm sure you've realised my point so won't push this further.

So then, the tribe actually would agree with me (or us?), that there are actual situations where killing is not morally acceptable? Now I'm left wondering what your point was in saying, "Killing is not viewed as immoral by cannibal tribes in africa"?

Your being pedantic here, or so I think. Is it really necessary that I specify everything explicitly? Its obvious you will still see my point in saying the above. I'll modify my sentence for your benefit, 'There are instances of killing where it is not viewed immoral by cannibal tribes in africa, but viewed as wrong by society at large. Since 2 standards of a particular moral value exist, this implies moral relativism

I'm not clear on this—in what way are the two standards of killing different? You've already stated you don't think that cannibals would think it was right for someone to slaughter their tribe for fun. So despite the difference in application of morality, which would likely be heavily influenced by ones knowledge (as many cannibals ate human flesh for spiritual reasons, or to gain power and strength), don't both clearly agree that human life to some extent is valuable?

I've got another scenario I wouldn't mind your comments on:

• You tour an African tribe during their female circumcision ritual and behold a teenage girl receiving a clitorectomy. Someone complains to the tour guide, and he informs you all not to let your own values are interfere with your judgment.

Now female circumcision has been called, and I'd say is, a manifestation of misogyny and male control over women. Such a procedure ensures that women will never experience orgasm, and so destroys their sexual pleasure. The practice is said by those who support it, that it allows women to become true women (ridding them of their male-like attributes), and frees them from their bondage to lust allowing them to find their true identity as mothers. The girls have little or no say in whether they receive the procedure. Surely one's moral judgement on such an issue isn't so clouded as to think that such an act could be morally good. Shouldn't we attempt to change such acts being carried out precisely because such acts are immoral and wrong. Thoughts?

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Why do you care at all? Why not, as with the first case, just keep quiet?

I want the best for her.

So then, do you believe "morality" is meaningless?

Yes if you try to define it objectively.

I am personally finding it quite abhorrent that you hold to your guns so much, that you are prepared to allow rapists, murderers and child molestors pass as being moral people.

I'm merely speaking my thoughts. In no way is any of this contrived to offend you.

Seriously, isn't there something wrong with your worldview if you can't say to the child molestor that molesting children is wrong to do and they shouldn't do it?

I get along fine in society. So I assume nothing is wrong with my world view. Also, I think child molesting is wrong and they shouldnt do it.

does anyone seriously believe that molesting a child is moral in any sense?!?

I believe there is such a posibility.

I think I understood you perfectly, but I'm sure you've realised my point so won't push this further.

Sigh...

I'm not clear on this—in what way are the two standards of killing different?

standard social norm: It is wrong to kill all fellow human being for food.
cannibal tribe norm: It is right to kill a fellow human being for food provided he doesnt belong to the tribe.

don't both clearly agree that human life to some extent is valuable?

Yes, they may agree on the fact that all fellow humans within the tribe/family are of value other than meat.

There is divergence and confluence of moral values on human life between cannibals and society at large.

Surely one's moral judgement on such an issue isn't so clouded as to think that such an act could be morally good

If you are asking for my opinion, I find such act babaric.

Shouldn't we attempt to change such acts being carried out precisely because such acts are immoral and wrong.

I agree that something needs to be done precisely because I find the act is immoral and wrong. Though one must of course think of the cost of such change.

[Prodigal Son]

nameless,

By instinct, I meant any form of behavior that comes without teaching, i.e. natural understanding of right or wrong.

I think you're a little confused, because understanding isn't behavior.

Of course, you are free to discount evolution...

yeah, i am free to do so and since there's little to no evidence for it, i do!

Also, I stil fail to see how the fact that children [are] born with an innate moral compass implies moral absolutism.

so, you do admit it!

i'll explain: moral absolutism posits that morals are inherent in the nature of humanity, i.e., humans understand certain things to be right or wrong, no matter what. whether or not we chose to abide by these laws/understandings is another story. so, a child understanding that hitting is wrong can still make the decision to do so...people have free will, you know?

but enought to show that moral absolutism fails...

sorry, sweetie, not quite.

In nowhere have I tried to develop the case where morals are cultural...

you're right (finally)! you didn't say that, but still doesn't change much.

[Anonymous]

basic moral values are absolute. there are psychological studies to back this up: studies demonstrating that pre-verbal children have an understanding of right/wrong.

even serial killers (who derive pleasure from killing) know that what they are doing is wrong.

if our basic moral values are determined by the era or culture, there would have been a few societies by now that condoned murder, rape, sex with children, stealing, etc. everyone everywhere has always known these things to be wrong (even our daumers and ted bundy's).

However, people who suffer damage to the frontal lobes of the brain begin to demonstrate what one would deem a lack of morals. As do sociopaths (or is it psychopaths, I always get the two mixed up) It's basically a brain structural thing which probably is what allows us to function together as a society. (What kind of society would it be if you couldn't turn your back without the constant fear of finding a knife there?)

[Prodigal Son]

vaj,

exactly! the interesting thing is, that despite the fact that they evidence a lack of morality through their actions, they continue to understand that they are doing wrong...despite brain trauma, psychological trauma, etc.

[Anonymous]

hi colors

think you're a little confused, because understanding isn't behavior.

k, accepted. I was sloppy.

moral absolutism posits that morals are inherent in the nature of humanity

If this is the complete posit of moral absolutism, then I see no problem with moral absolutism. Does the definition of inherent includes not subjected to change? If not then I'm in agreement with you.

humans understand certain things to be right or wrong, no matter what

The 'no matter what' bit does not follow logically from the premise babies have inherent moral inclinations. My contention is that they are liable to change, as illustrated with the wife beater example.

sorry, sweetie, not quite.

I defined moral absolutism as all human society will have a similar core moral conduct. I then go on to cite examples of 2 moral standards. african cannibals and western society. Hence showing moral absolutism fails.

you're right (finally)! you didn't say that, but still doesn't change much

Well it was meant to change your prespective on my position, which you misunderstood.

[Prodigal Son]

nameless,

Does the definition of inherent includes not subjected to change? If then I'm in agreement with you.

inherent--involved in the constitution or essential character of something: belonging by nature or habit: INTRINSIC

intrinsic--belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing

essential--1)of, relating to, or constituting essence: INHERENT 2)of the utmost importance: BASIC, INDISPENSIBLE, NECESSARY

The 'no matter what' bit does not follow logically from the premise babies have inherent moral inclinations. My contention is that they are liable to change, as illustrated with the wife beater example.

i've already said this, but for you , i'll say it again: humans understand certain things to be right/wrong (regardless of culture, upbringing, outside factors, etc.). but, because we have free will, we can chose to go against our understanding and behave contrary to what we know to be true/right.

I defined moral absolutism as all human society will have similar core conduct.

really? where? must have been in your discussions with someone else. otherwise, why are you and i "arguing"? i thought you said something to the effect of...

I however take the view that moral values are relative and depend on various factor of a given era.

I then go on to cite examples of 2 moral standards: african cannibals and western society.

you're really reaching here, nameless. i think you realize that you need alot more than a few sects of peole behaving awry to disrupt the basic moral standard of the majority of the human population throughout the whole of human history.

[Anonymous]

humans understand certain things to be right/wrong (regardless of culture, upbringing, outside factors, etc.). but, because we have free will, we can chose to go against our understanding and behave contrary to what we know to be true/right.

My contention has always been the same, you have not address them. My point is that you have not effectively shown that a humans moral understanding does not change after birth. What you did was stated: baby have initial moral disposition, which for the sake of argument I'm agreeing with you it on. You then go on to make the next statement, human understand certain things to be right/wrong (regardless of culture, upbringing, outside factors, etc.), which is not a direct consenquences of baby having a initial moral disposition. Human may start of as infant with a initial type of understanding, as they grow older, their understanding changes. For example, there was a stage in my life when I truly cannot differentiate whether the act of rape was right or wrong. I may have understand rape to be wrong when I was a infant, but I did not understand whether it was right or wrong when i was 17.

really? where? must have been in your discussions with someone else. otherwise, why are you and i "arguing"? i thought you said something to the effect of...

I was defining what moral absolutism means, it did not meant that I agreed with them. My position as you rightly quote was

I however take the view that moral values are relative and depend on various factor of a given era.

you're really reaching here, nameless. i think you realize that you need alot more than a few sects of peole behaving awry to disrupt the basic moral standard of the majority of the human population throughout the whole of human history.

You do not understand my argument. I shall outline them clearly here. What I'm attempting to do is show moral absolutism fails by the definition I have given above, whereby I only need to show one example of human society behaving deviantly. My argument goes as follow, following standard logical procedure:

Premise- Moral absolutism is true if All culture exhibits core moral values

With the cannibal example, I have shown not all culture exhibits core moral value.

Contrapositive of Premise: If not all culture exhibits core moral value is true, then moral absolutism is not true .

Since not all culture exhibit core moral value is true, therefore moral absolutism is not true.

I hope the above argument is sufficently clear.

[Prodigal Son]

nameless,

I hope the above argument is sufficiently clear.

uhm, no, it's not. the only things that are clear from your last point are that your arguments are flawed and that you are confused. you are confused about what i've said and what you've said.

so, in the interest of avoiding further tautology...uhm, okay, dude.

[Anonymous]

uhm, no, it's not. the only things that are clear from your last point are that your arguments are flawed and that you are confused. you are confused about what i've said and what you've said.

I see, any chance I can get you to point out my flaws and clear my confusion? If not I want to invite you to follow where the logic of my argument points, that is there is no moral absolutism.

Incidentally, I would greatly appreciate it if you or any other christian can outline the fundemental moral tenets of christianity. I only have this vague idea of christian morality.


[/quote]

[Kurieuo]

Many Christians believe that the moral standard of right and wrong exists within God, above whom there is nothing higher. And when God created humanity, He imparted these moral values to us as He formed us in His likeness. Such a scenario fits well with our acknowledgement of certain values being inherent within humanity.

As such, one does not need to be told about any specific "Christian morals." As Paul writes: "Indeed, when Gentiles [i.e., us], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15)

Now there are clearly values that are good. For example, honesty is a much better value than dishonesty, responsibility is better than dissolution, fairness is better than greed, and caring better than callousness. I couldn't deny the truth of these any more than I could myself.

Kurieuo.

[Prodigal Son]

I want to invite you to follow where the logic of my argument points...

no way, man! we might never return from that journey!

nameless' thoughts on moral absolutism:

I however take the view that moral values are relative and depend on various factor of a given era.

, then

...the fact that children are born with an innate moral compass...

, then

colors wrote: ...moral absolutism posists that morals are inherent in the anture of humanity.
nameless: ...if this is the complete posit of moral absolutism then I see no problem with moral absolutism.

, then

There is no moral absolutism.

Wow, what a ride, huh?!

I only have this vague idea of Christian morality.

Poor nameless, why, you're just a lost soul, aren't you?

peace out, bro. this thread is getting old.

[Anonymous]

to kurieuo
thanks for the insight

to colors
Hehe, its been somewhat enlightening to debate with you.
I found your last thread amusing. Thanks for your replies anyway.