Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

I guess it is a bit ambiguous. No, I mean't some sort of reality outside of the person. Dare I say, not objective reality?

OK, then I'll continue as I was going to continue and agree with you.

 

[o_mlly]

... do you want to play this nonsense game about "truth"?

Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?

Truth is nonsense? Really?

I see that you are no longer willing to reply. OK, I'll let you go. Our exchange requires the participants to be both rational and honest. You appear to be the former so I suspect you came to see the outcome and rather than continue decided it was time to for you bail out. So long.

 

[Larniavc]

we DONT WANT PREACHING HERE,

If you could refrain from the preaching that’d be nice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You did. Torture and murder. You implied I thought that, because it's a relative matter (killing in the context as described), then there could be a morally acceptable murder.

Then nail something to the mast for heaven's sake...

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism" since it too often confuses people with its ambiguity, and it essentially signifies little more than a mere descriptively laden "people are subject to diverse views and influences and we see a plurality." Let's say instead that:

Ethical knowledge and moral decisions are complicated by many social, psychological and epistemological factors, all of which may or may not diminish any one person's culpability for immoral conduct, especially in either objective or absolute terms if and when metaphysics [or theology] is brought in for further consideration. ​

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Truth is nonsense? Really?

Why does your grammar keep interfering with our conversation? That is *NOT* what I said. I said the *GAME* was nonsense. What game is that? The game about what "truth" is. (Which was never the subject of our conversation, until you tried to push it that way.)

I see that you are no longer willing to reply. OK, I'll let you go. Our exchange requires the participants to be both rational and honest. You appear to be the former so I suspect you came to see the outcome and rather than continue decided it was time to for you bail out. So long.

I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" and that I am "supressing" it. This is what happens when you build your view of those that don't follow your god around a couple of sentences in a single polemic by a preacher you admire.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism" since it too often confuses people with its ambiguity...

No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.

No we won't. We'll ignore your simplistic use of the definition. Why? Because like other choices, we each analytically "choose" how we're going to denote our words and as to how we actually think they signify certain referents. The truth of the matter is, moral relativism doesn't say much or clarify much, let alone liberate anyone from certain moral conditions that they may be culpable for.

..... And you can stop with your soft but constant insinuations that I'm somehow suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect in discussing this.

Thank you.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" ...

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.

 

[o_mlly]

I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.

I'd never heard of "vertical morality" so I did a quick search.

What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.

The post is in the parallel thread that morphed into a morality issue and was a reply addressed to you: "Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era".

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

Your nested quote in post #410 was broken and makes it look like I wrote your reply, so I'll reply to this one again.

Yes, you found this quote that you wrote

What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.

in a different thread. Why should I remember what you wrote elsewhere yesterday? (Or even think to look there?) I couldn't tell from the first message I quote here if it was you or I that allegedly had said the thing in italics. I know know it is you talking about this thread from a different thread.

What I wrote in post #405 was not a statement about what you had claimed in a different thread that your argument here was about. It was a PREDICTION about what I thought would happen if we continued (or I allowed the converation) to drift to "what is truth?". It is not only not a conversation I find interesting (as it is all philosophical mumbo-jumbo), but it is a conversation that for many Christians ends up in defining truth to be dependent on God/Jesus. Ugh.

We could resume the moral discussion if you like, but I am not going to discuss the nature of "truth".

 

[o_mlly]

in a different thread. Why should I remember what you wrote elsewhere yesterday?

? The post was a direct reply to you.

It was a PREDICTION about what I thought would happen ...

And you were wrong.

We could resume the moral discussion if you like, but I am not going to discuss the nature of "truth"

OK.

Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?

Change that to, "Do you desire to know the reality of the physical world?"

 

[Bradskii]

No we won't.

You're still not proposing anything. You're still not making any sort of argument whatsoever. You're not contributing anything at all.

How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism"...

So you think that supporting an absolute morality (it's the very basis of the discussion) is too hard and you want to talk about something else? Let me know when you've started the new thread.

 

[Ophiolite]

How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?

As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*


* Actually, I am finding the exchange interesting, but the opportunity for a nice** bit of morphological parallelism for rhetorical effect was a temptation too far.

** I use "nice" in both senses of the word.***

*** It's 1:45 am here and I cannot get back to sleep. That's my excuse.

 

[Hans Blaster]

? The post was a direct reply to you.

You want me to remember what you wrote yesterday. LOL.

And you were wrong.

We haven't gotten there yet...

OK.

Change that to, "Do you desire to know the reality of the physical world?"

It's my job. (And I do know.)

 

[Bradskii]

As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*


* Actually, I am finding the exchange interesting, but the opportunity for a nice** bit of morphological parallelism for rhetorical effect was a temptation too far.

** I use "nice" in both senses of the word.***

*** It's 1:45 am here and I cannot get back to sleep. That's my excuse.

I can only agree.

 

[stevevw]

In other words...you can't think of an act without any context whereby we can determine the morality of said act. Can you agree with that, please? Then we'd be done.

No because I cannot agree with its premise in the first place. Your more or less asking me to agree that the fact we cannot find any facts that God is real there God is not real.

Part of the idea or perhaps the complete idea of using context to determine there is no moral objectives is the premise that morality must be rational in terms of reasoning out what is right and wrong by human reasoning about the subjective beliefs they place of what is morality. Its a self fullfilling and yet self defeating premise.

Why would I even agree with this. Its agreeing with your worldview beliefs and not anything objective and real itself. I don't think you understand how ideology is mixed in to this assertion.

Failing that, your only other option (and there are only 2) is to agree that the morality of all acts are determined by the context.

No they are determined by the moral truths in each and every moral situation. Those moral truths will depend on reason but will have some belief basis about what is moral or not. Context is just the subjectiove expression of that subjective belief and will be different to those involved.

But none prove moral truth. The contextual morals can contextualise evil just as much as good. It all depends on subjective or relative determinations.

I think you are trying to say that context somehow helps in determining moral truths. But it actually encourages moral nilhilism.

Which is it? It's not possible to disagree with both.

Yes it is and base morality on a completely different premise. That its not context as the determining factor but a moral truth that is never contextual. All context is doing is subjectifying about what is the moral truth.

If there are moral truths like laws and like how laws of physics works then just like we cannot contextualise laws of physics to mean different things in different situations. We cannot contextualise moral laws and truths. They are what they are and stand truth regardless of human subjective rationalisations.

Contextualising morality is like the arguement that you cannot get an "ought fron an is". The rationalisations and logic are trying to impose an "is" on morality as the basis for what counts as moral or not in contextualised situations. When its based on a completely different paradigm.

So even the paradigms are different for what counts as determining morality. One worldly, rational, logical and material and the other other worldly, sometimes issrational to logic and based on phenomenal belief.

If you discount phenomenal beliefs and experiences as irrational and make believe then you are limiting the possibilities to your worldview pardigm. So I would not even go along with the belief assumptions about what morality is and how we should measure it in the first place.

 

[Bradskii]

No because I cannot agree with its premise in the first place. Your more or less asking me to agree that the fact we cannot find any facts that God is real there God is not real.

If you want to say that God determines absolute morality then can you simply please confirm that? I can then take it further.

Part of the idea or perhaps the complete idea of using context to determine there is no moral objectives is the premise that morality must be rational in terms of reasoning out what is right and wrong by human reasoning about the subjective beliefs they place of what is morality.

Yes. That's my position.

Why would I even agree with this.

You don't have to. Just confirm that your position is that God is the source of all objective morality and we'll go from there.

If there are moral truths like laws and like how laws of physics works then just like we cannot contextualise laws of physics to mean different things in different situations.

Yes, we can. Context is everything in both scenarios. Lying is acceptable under certain circumstances. In others it's not. H2O is a liquid under certain circumstances. In others it's not.

Contextualising morality is like the arguement that you cannot get an "ought fron an is".

But you can. This IS going to cause uneccessary pain and suffering to someone so I OUGHT not to do it. Now, that was pretty simple, no?

So I would not even go along with the belief assumptions about what morality is and how we should measure it in the first place.

Oh, please...you're not going to start redefining things to suit your position as well, are you? Just please use the standard, everyday meaning of morality.

 

[o_mlly]

You want me to remember what you wrote yesterday. LOL.

Hippocampus problems?

It's my job. (And I do know.)

Just more stonewalling, deflecting, poor attempts at being snarky, and a possible brain disorder. So long.