|
Dormouse
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2008, 08:48:23 AM » |
|
As I noted in the 5th post in this thread, Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' ethical system.
Kant is an example of the 2nd type of subjective morality covered in the opening post. But I don't agree with it's dismissal. Kant's system cannot rationally be described or dismissed as 'subjective'. If you want an entirely subjective (God-free) moral system, Nietzsche is the grand master of that game. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2008, 03:18:26 PM » |
|
Categorical imperatives being objective would mean that all rational people would independently arrive at the same duties or agree on what duties exist. I do not think this is the case.
The idea of morality purely as behavior modification is interesting, that is the only observable effect I can think of. I think moral imperialism is more like influencing someone to work on their own instincts than direct manipulation, but people have morals like those they associate with so the difference might not matter, if I understand the way you are looking at things.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Warr_E_Er
Newbie
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2008, 06:59:55 PM » |
|
I'm afraid you guys are off topic. Assume (regardless of personal opinions) that the two axioms I offered are true, since they are the definition of materialism. I am curious as to how morality can be justified within a materialist world view. For the moment, it doesn't matter if we can prove God or not. Assuming God does not exist, can we justify morality?
As I noted in the 5th post in this thread, Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' ethical system. The categorical imperative is an interesting idea. However I am skeptical of it. 1. As I interpret it, Kant argues that an objective morality can be obtained with pure reason. While morality can be explained rationally, we do not use reason initially to determine our morality. Kant uses post-rationalization. I would argue an initial reaction is purely instinctual, not carefully, logically weighed. Consider a benevolent persons' reaction to the Darfur genocide. Chances are they do not believe it to be wrong because of the 'do unto others' rule. They believe it to be wrong because it is wrong, because it makes one sick to think about it. In this case, disgust precedes rationale. Kant has the order exactly reversed. My morality is generally characterized by my reaction, not my reasoning. I see someone in pain and I want to help them because they are in pain. I could see applying the categorical imperative in cases where the ‘right’ thing to do is obscure; the war in Iraq for instance. Otherwise, it is little more than a formula for western culture's basic morality. 2. Kant was a theist. The categorical imperative is not a materialist philosophy. How are you applying it to materialism? How does this justify a morality? As I noted in the 5th post in this thread, Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' ethical system.
Kant is an example of the 2nd type of subjective morality covered in the opening post. But I don't agree with it's dismissal. Kant's system cannot rationally be described or dismissed as 'subjective'. If you want an entirely subjective (God-free) moral system, Nietzsche is the grand master of that game. I am finally taking a class on Nietzsche this quarter! I will be reading ' Beyond Good & Evil' within the next week and a half and will probably reference it here. I think that an entirely subjective approach is the only reasonable one given my axioms. What does Nietzsche say? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I think, therefore I am loved
“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered... If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of infancy, ... every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”
-Minnesota Crime Commission
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2008, 11:53:28 AM » |
|
I think there are some morals that transcend religion or government.
Life, no matter the person, has a right to live. Crimes are punishable, but life is not something that ANY entity has the right to own. This is why, dispite my atheism, I am both "Right to Life" and "anti-Death Penalty". Life is not something that anyone should have a right to take away, even in retribution.
In defense of your own life, it's fine, but murder and capital punishment are, in my opinion, equally barbaric.
Aside from an individual's right to life, morality, like the OP said, is generally an arbitrary interpretation set up by some ruling institution.
Suicide, for instance, should not be a "sin". It's an individual's right to do with his life as s/he chooses... but if serfs starting killing themselves to get to Heaven, there would be no workforce... so the Catholics said you would go to Hell if you did it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Masterkoki
Newbie
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 34
|
|
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2008, 06:17:53 AM » |
|
Let's twist this a little bit... We've heard a lot about morality... What is "Immoral"? 'Cause it certainly isn't the opposite of what has been said...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2008, 07:38:43 AM » |
|
I think what is IMMORAL is truely dependent on the orginization in charge, like the OP was saying about morality.
Murder is the only thing I can consider to be immoral... everything else is a matter of circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2008, 08:18:17 AM » |
|
Murder is the only thing I can consider to be immoral... everything else is a matter of circumstance. That is quite the blank check and I just can't get my hands around it. Stealing, lying, cheating, drugs, racism, hate...all can be OK given the right 'circumstances?' |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-34
Posts: 210
|
|
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2008, 10:01:03 AM » |
|
Furthermore you could also make a case for murder as circumstancially non-immoral. Defining particular actions do not nessicarilly make something immoral, it is only one aspect.
---------------
If we are going to propose a morality without God then we must make asumptions about what defines morality on a deeper level. I will propose that it should be evolutionary as we are indeed talking about evolved animals. Evolutionary forces have determined what is the proper philosophical basis for behavior so as to create a successful species. Evolution gives us basic positive norms which help us survive as a species. It does not provide the 'ideal' as evolutionary processes have a lagging effect because it selects on the basis of genetics.
Similarly we can make attempts at an 'ideal' on a cultural level by selecting the norms and cultural ideas that best suit our humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2008, 01:41:08 PM » |
|
Furthermore you could also make a case for murder as circumstancially non-immoral. Defining particular actions do not nessicarilly make something immoral, it is only one aspect.
---------------
If we are going to propose a morality without God then we must make asumptions about what defines morality on a deeper level. I will propose that it should be evolutionary as we are indeed talking about evolved animals. Evolutionary forces have determined what is the proper philosophical basis for behavior so as to create a successful species. Evolution gives us basic positive norms which help us survive as a species. It does not provide the 'ideal' as evolutionary processes have a lagging effect because it selects on the basis of genetics.
Similarly we can make attempts at an 'ideal' on a cultural level by selecting the norms and cultural ideas that best suit our humanity.
Evolution is a very bad basis for morality (it is survival of the fittest). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2008, 06:02:33 PM » |
|
That is quite the blank check and I just can't get my hands around it. Stealing, lying, cheating, drugs, racism, hate...all can be OK given the right 'circumstances?' The things you mention are minor and, given particular circumstances, could be justified. If your poor and you steal food, is it the same? If you lie to save yourself, is it the same? Drugs are a matter of choice, and aside from offending some diety, I fail to see why they are universally immoral (unless you harm someone while under the ifluence of them, in which case it was your choice to take them so it was your fault to begin with... not the drugs). "Hate", I guess, is a broad act of immorality. Maybe prejudice in general could be immoral, while murder is a specific form of prejudice. So I guess the truely universal act of immorality is "prejudice". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2008, 08:01:15 AM » |
|
The things you mention are minor and, given particular circumstances, could be justified.
If your poor and you steal food, is it the same? If you lie to save yourself, is it the same? Drugs are a matter of choice, and aside from offending some diety, I fail to see why they are universally immoral (unless you harm someone while under the ifluence of them, in which case it was your choice to take them so it was your fault to begin with... not the drugs).
"Hate", I guess, is a broad act of immorality. Maybe prejudice in general could be immoral, while murder is a specific form of prejudice. So I guess the truely universal act of immorality is "prejudice". I would not call adultery minor. Have you ever known someone whose family was destroyed because of it? Ever seen the effects on the kids? Have you ever seen drugs destroy the lives of individuals...both the user and the family? Both are not 'victimless transgressions.' Both are selfish AND immoral. Our society would not function without moral absolutes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2008, 09:22:18 AM » |
|
I would not call adultery minor. Have you ever known someone whose family was destroyed because of it? Ever seen the effects on the kids? In this century? Yeah... quite often, actually. But adultory was acceptable in past centuries, especially among royalty, and while we may personally bulk at those who do commit it, it's largely a personal issue... not a universal one. Basically, in this day and age most groups condemn it... but some don't. And then there is the question of polygamy. Is it adultory? If so, why do Mormons find it as acceptable? Is it because morality is subject to interpretation based on the group? Yes... I do believe that is the point I've been trying to make... Have you ever seen drugs destroy the lives of individuals...both the user and the family? Both are not 'victimless transgressions.' Both are selfish AND immoral. But the it was a personal choice to take them in the first place and NOT seek propper treatment. It's a matter of bad judgement, not immorality. Our society would not function without moral absolutes. And if life were always respected and prejudice prohibited, I imagine we'd all get along just fine. I'm only trying to define what is truely universally moral and immoral. Everything else is generally due to the interference of particular groups who gain control - but basically, morality (the way *I* see "morality"), can exist without God or any other overbearing orginization. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2008, 02:57:22 PM » |
|
Our society would not function without moral absolutes.
Indeed, a very good point. I might venture to say that you have described the real reason why we have moral absolutes in the first place. Many certainly do believe them to be necessary to the functioning of society. They have always been a majority. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2008, 03:00:27 PM » |
|
Murder is the only thing I can consider to be immoral... everything else is a matter of circumstance.
Murder is by definition, 'illegal' killing of human beings. Our society acknowledges and legally permits several categories of 'legal' killing of human beings. Ergo, "murder" is a matter of circumstance. In some circumstances, killing human beings is quite legal and in many cases, held to be moral too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-126
Posts: 1,536
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2008, 03:23:21 PM » |
|
Sure...break into my house...threaten my wife and daughter....and you will be greeted with a 0.50 cal hole dead center mass that leaves an exit wound the size of a medium pizza.
Completely legal premeditated murder...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
|
