|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, these are definitions that we just made. They are relative definitions. 30 degrees might be good for some and bad for others. -30 degrees might be good for some and bad for others. The point is that independently of people, whether 30 and -30 are good or evil is irrelevant.
Whether the 30 degrees is bad for YOUR health is irrelevant to the definition of good/evil (i.e someone might like 30 degrees). That's why they are universal.
In fact, it's just like substituting the phrase "30 degrees" with "good". 
Quote:
Also, you didn't understand what I meant. What I meant was that you're trying to measure (not literally) people's morality with your idea of morals, while they may not be adhering to your idea of morals in the first place!
So? If I go and tell someone who knows about my idea of morals, and call someone else I saw evil, then that guy immediately knows how that person is like -- it's just some form of "substitute" for all the other absolute qualities (e.g: selfishness, tolerance, etc).
Quote:
This chaos sounds like anarchy. And you're going to run into several problems with that. First, people wouldn't be able to do whatever they like, because they have to labor, as they do now. Second, you're also going to find that some of what people are going to do is violate each other's rights. (But I agree that there shouldn't be laws preventing people from doing something that doesn't harm others). Third, how would there be any enforcement of personal rights?
I think Lexxan said that this is based on the "good will" of the people, thus ideal -- that means, no one WANTS to violate others' rights, not because he/she is forced, but because they don't want it, just like that (i.e no self-interest if available).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whether the 30 degrees is bad for YOUR health is irrelevant to the definition of good/evil
No, that is the very purpose of defining good and evil.
Quote:
So? If I go and tell someone who knows about my idea of morals, and call someone else I saw evil, then that guy immediately knows how that person is like -- it's just some form of "substitute" for all the other absolute qualities (e.g: selfishness, tolerance, etc).
Yes, but that person may not think of themselves as evil. And I may not see them as evil, either. So you may think that they're evil, but it's subjective.
Quote:
I think Lexxan said that this is based on the "good will" of the people, thus ideal -- that means, no one WANTS to violate others' rights, not because he/she is forced, but because they don't want it, just like that (i.e no self-interest if available).
So his philosophy isn't realistic either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:19 PM |
|
|
@Death:
You define "evil" (or ev1l as you said) absolutely, and that's no problem. But morals are subjective since people define them, so don't expect what people you see as "evil" to be viewed as immoral by everyone.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but that person may not think of themselves as evil. And I may not see them as evil, either. So you may think that they're evil, but it's subjective.
I don't understand why. Does a selfish person not think of him/her as selfish? Even if he/she does, why should that prevent him/her from doing it if that's how he/she feels like?
A child molester, for example, may most certainly be evil and he doesn't even give a **** about it. Why should all people consider themselves good? That is the flaw in your relativist, frankly I don't understand why people always want to call themselves good -- it's just a WORD.
Quote:
So his philosophy isn't realistic either.
Maybe it is for aliens 
@Asheera: It's more like finding the "common" factor from all sides and using that as defining the absolute. Or simply put, in math terms, finding the intersection of the majority of relativist morals. Something that applies on the whole scale (and thus satisfies as a means of communication, everyone)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does a selfish person not think of him/her as selfish?
You already know what I think about that. I think that everyone is selfish, thanks to emotional benefits. And you're implying that "self-interested" is synonymous with "evil", which it isn't.
Quote:
Even if he/she does, why should that prevent him/her from doing it if that's how he/she feels like?
Because people don't want to think of themselves as evil.
Quote:
That is the flaw in your relativist, frankly I don't understand why people always want to call themselves good -- it's just a WORD.
People want to think of themselves as good, and most of them want other people to think of them as good too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
|
@Asheera -
Your point of view here has a single glaring problem, which I tried to make clear in my very first post. Just because someone BELIEVES something to be morally good doesn't necessarily make it so.
Most people agree that murder is morally wrong. But what if some cultures believe that killing people is ok? Does that mean that the morality of murder is relative? Or is murder absolutely morally bad and some cultures just don't realize or know it? You can be a moral absolutist AND recognize that different people follow different moral codes.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
@Corribus:
Well, taking your example (about that culture that see murder ok):
Yes the morality of murder is relative, because the immoral part of murder actually comes from humans - the same kind of species that think murder is ok (some from that culture). If most of the people actually see murder as bad doesn't mean that it is immoral absolutely, because the people (who defined murder as immoral) are not "divine" beings (however, murder doesn't benefit anyone so I guess it really has no point to do it - if you care about others that is)
Another example is the black people: in the past they were discriminated and enslaved. They were considered immoral if they became in charge. However, as time passed, people figured out that it is no point to discriminate other people by the skin color and changed the morals, and now black people have the same rights as us. The very fact that the morals changed implies that they are not perfect and are relative, made up by flawed beings known as humans.
Of course, from the black people's perspective, WE were immoral by enslaving them. We, the "majority". This is a perfect example why the morals are not "perfect" and the "right ones" even when the majority follows them. Proof that the white people's morals were flawed is the very fact that they changed and we accepted black people among us.
Even today, we still didn't achieve "perfect" morals, and probably we never will, because the humans are somewhat "flawed" if I may say so.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
You already know what I think about that. I think that everyone is selfish, thanks to emotional benefits. And you're implying that "self-interested" is synonymous with "evil", which it isn't.
Self-interest is not evil, it's neutral.
Self-interest causes evil (e.g: murder). There's a difference
Quote:
Because people don't want to think of themselves as evil.
Tell that to a child molester. I don't think he cares, see?
@Asheera:Quote:
Yes the morality of murder is relative, because the immoral part of murder actually comes from humans - the same kind of species that think murder is ok (some from that culture). If most of the people actually see murder as bad doesn't mean that it is immoral absolutely, because the people (who defined murder as immoral) are not "divine" beings (however, murder doesn't benefit anyone so I guess it really has no point to do it - if you care about others that is)
Do you consider languages not 'divine' too, even though most have the word 'eat' in a way or another? Is the symbol relevant, or the fact that 'eating' is universal and the meaning is ONLY ONE regardless of the number of languages. Using your words, yes the meaning of 'eating' is 'divine' (universal) in that way
As for the perfect morals, then that can also be described as follows: Humans are each day discovering the "absolute" code of morals. Just because it exists doesn't mean humans follow it (even though they think they do!) -- but maybe we're getting closer to it (just an example).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Self-interest causes evil
But it causes a great deal of good too. And self-interest causes more good than evil.
Quote:
Tell that to a child molester. I don't think he cares, see?
Perhaps some, the more hardened ( ) ones, child molesters don't see themselves as evil. Others might, but fulfilling their wants provides a greater benefit (ignoring the punishment of the law) than the harm from thinking of oneself as being evil.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it causes a great deal of good too. And self-interest causes more good than evil.
We already discussed that so suffice to say that we disagree on it.
Quote:
Perhaps some, the more hardened () ones, child molesters don't see themselves as evil. Others might, but fulfilling their wants provides a greater benefit (ignoring the punishment of the law) than the harm from thinking of oneself as being evil.
Actually, when you see a child hopeless and any child molester I think knows that the child does not want it, then I think he gets the image about himself being evil -- remember a lot of evil guys know they are evil and "like it", there's nothing 'wrong' with that (wrong as in the sense of "doesn't work" like a wrong design).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We already discussed that so suffice to say that we disagree on it.
I think that our agreement to disagree is basically strangling discussion.
Quote:
any child molester I think knows that the child does not want it, then I think he gets the image about himself being evil -- remember a lot of evil guys know they are evil and "like it"
That may be a source of pleasure in itself, but I think that most child molesters just do it for the pleasure of it, not because it's evil. Then again, what do I know about it? They're disgusting.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:05 PM |
|
|
What I meant was that child molesters don't care about morals in any way, just their pleasure (like you said) for example
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you consider languages not 'divine' too, even though most have the word 'eat' in a way or another? Is the symbol relevant, or the fact that 'eating' is universal and the meaning is ONLY ONE regardless of the number of languages. Using your words, yes the meaning of 'eating' is 'divine' (universal) in that way
I don't know what you're talking about. Immoral, as the meaning, not the symbol = something that the must be punished by the one seeing this immorality (could be more - like a society). This varies from society to society.
Some examples:
Society A thinks that it is ok to murder
Society B thinks that it is not ok to murder
Society A sees murder as moral
Society B sees murder as immoral
Society A doesn't punish criminals
Society B does
The fact that Society A sees murder different and doesn't punish criminals doesn't mean that the meaning of "immoral" changed, just the way that society sees murder. Immoral = the same thing - bad for society and thus must be punished.
Immoral has an absolute value. The conditions that must be met to call something immoral vary from society to society.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know what you're talking about. Immoral, as the meaning, not the symbol = something that the must be punished by the one seeing this immorality (could be more - like a society). This varies from society to society.
Oh, I already said that the law has no direct relationship with morals from the beginning. The law uses force and punishes
Law =/= morals.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I meant was that child molesters don't care about morals in any way
Hmm... I wouldn't say that. They might be attracted to children (which is immoral), but they might still think that murder is immoral. And it doesn't mean that they don't think that child molestation is wrong, it simply means that the pleasure overrides the displeasure from having done something that is considered wrong.
Quote:
I already said that the law has no direct relationship with morals from the beginning
But the law should have some relationship with morals, such as enforcing the non-aggression principle and encouraging the mutual aid principle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:13 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:13, 08 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Oh, I already said that the law has no direct relationship with morals from the beginning. The law uses force and punishes
Law =/= morals.
 Where did I bring the law into discussion? Do you think only the law "punishes"? Well, "witches" were also punished by the peasants in the past, do you think because of the law? No, they were punished because the peasants considered the witches immoral.
Immoral has an absolute meaning -> something that is bad for the respective society, and thus SHOULD be punished in some way, whether this is accomplished using the law or not is irrelevant. However, the conditions for something to become immoral are relative and vary from a society to another.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:23 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
Hmm... I wouldn't say that. They might be attracted to children (which is immoral), but they might still think that murder is immoral. And it doesn't mean that they don't think that child molestation is wrong, it simply means that the pleasure overrides the displeasure from having done something that is considered wrong.
Well technically it's the same thing -- they simply do not "care" about the morals or if they are called immoral, they only care about their pleasure. It's very similar. This does not mean that an universal code does not exist however, as Corribus pointed out.
Quote:
But the law should have some relationship with morals, such as enforcing the non-aggression principle and encouraging the mutual aid principle.
Of course, I did not phrase correctly.
The law is usually dependent on morals, but the morals are independent of that. The law is relative, I agree, the morals are not. Well at least IMO. (for an explanation, re-read the thread )
@Asheera:Quote:
Where did I bring the law into discussion? Do you think only the law "punishes"? Well, "witches" were also punished by the peasants in the past, do you think because of the law? No, they were punished because the peasants considered the witches immoral.
Well I thought that's why you spoke about punishment since law uses it
I don't think they considered the witches simply "immoral" first and foremost. But it's more important that it was some kind of 'law' back then too, or at least built it on the fly (the law I mean).
Only the law deals with punishment, be it social or whatever else (? religious maybe??).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
@Death: Can you please stop with the "law"? That was not the main point, just ignore the "punishment" stuff and tell me if you agree with the following:
Immoral has an absolute meaning: that it is bad for society, and thus should be punished in some way, because people are not stupid to let something that is bad to be "free". However, the conditions that must be met to consider something immoral are relative (vary from society to society)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Immoral has an absolute meaning: that it is bad for society
That's not immoral in my opinion. I mean, if we encounter aliens, would that mean morals don't exist, or if you are not a part of society (let's say you are an alien).
Example: Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. He is not immoral, even though basically he may not affect society or might even be bad for it (the law says so). Mvass will tell me that the rich worked hard for that money... well, it's a case which I consider moral so it's why we disagree.
Morality has uses beyond society, even with aliens or animals or any beings. Morality is like for the society called the Universe 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:43 PM |
|
|
Please don't quote only parts of my post.
What you said here is already explained in my last post:
Immoral has an absolute meaning: that it is bad for society. However, the conditions that must be met to consider something immoral are relative (vary from society to society)
If person A says person B is immoral, it has an absolute meaning: that person A sees person B bad for him. Now you get it? It doesn't mean that person B is "evil" (let's say person A is Hitler and person B is a Jew)
Immoral =/= "(absolute) evil"
Now with Robin Hood: yes, he was considered immoral by the law-followers - this means that the law-followers saw him as "bad" for them. However, from another point of view (the poor), he was seen moral.
The bottom line is that immoral has a precise definition: that it's something bad for the respective person.
____________
|
| |
|
|
