How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Hammster]

And the consequences for the slaves are unfavorable. See? We’re doing morality now. We’re weighing the consequences of a potential action for all who would be affected.

There are no unfavorable consequences to the owners. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

 

[gaara4158]

There are no unfavorable consequences to the owners. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

There were plenty of unfavorable consequences for the owners of slaves in the end. Why are you ignoring the consequences for the slaves themselves? Are they not real?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Once again I've taken some time to give this some thought, and my conclusion is that I still don't know what this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" is, other than perhaps that which everyone intuits to be right or wrong. Is that what it is? I presume not. Because not everyone intuits the same things to be right or wrong. So therein lies my dilemma. Without knowing what this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" is, your argument confuses me.

I don't intend for it to be understood as a mere intuition. Rather, it's only meant to be a basic rational cognition that results in a moral recognition, kind of like how the Categorical Imperative is a rational capacity withing Kant's Deontological Ethics.

But even so, if it doesn't work for you or you don't understand what you read when I directed to those previous posts to see what the principle says, then don't worry yourself with it. It's not something that I insist is a mandatory principle everyone needs to learn.

For example, I could ask whether it's immoral for a fifty year old man to marry and have relations with a ten year old girl. In certain times, and indeed even now in certain cultures, the answer to that question is no, it's not immoral, whereas most people in this day and age would say yes, it is immoral. So we have diverse groups of people intuiting and rationally concluding completely different answers.

Oddly enough, this still doesn't rule out the existence of objective morality, because it may simply be that people just don't understand the nature of morality. Slavery may be perfectly moral in one instance and completely immoral in another. These two things need not be contradictory, nor mutually exclusive.

How can that be?

I think you have a loose idea as to what consitutes "intuition." It's probably best to look up the Intuitionist Ethics of G.E. Moore or of moral philosophers like him to get a firmer feel by what they mean by "moral intuition," because it's not the colloquial meaning of the same term. Moral Intuition isn't simply a feeling, and kind of like how the term 'theory' doesn't retain the same low level of meaning when it's used in conjunction with science, this is the case also when "intuition" is used in tandem with Ethics and Moral Philosophy.

From my perspective, intuition is merely the first 10 seconds response of what should authomatically lead to a fuller, more rationally developed personal analysis of a moral issue or principle. We don't want to leave it at a colloquial level of "feelings" and think we've done enough to 'be moral.' Feelings don't usually cut it in the moral world.

Well, consider evolution with its own unwritten universal principle of "Survival of the Fittest". That principle holds true no matter what. It's never, ever violated. Yet that doesn't mean that what survives in one scenario will be the same thing that survives in another scenario. So while the underlying principle is never violated, the effect of that principle can and does change over time depending upon the prevailing conditions.

I think you've misunderstood Survivial of the Fittest. You're description of it is too abstracted from the actual lived experiences that take place in expanded networks among populations; survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily apply at all times to single individuals. Even so-called "Chads" who are found amongs various species can get dumped, sometimes worse.

The question then is, is the same thing true with morality, i.e. its "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" as you put it, never changes, but the way that that principle gets expressed in any given place and time can and does change. Hence slavery may be immoral in one instance, but not in another. In both instances the principle remains the same, but the circumstances don't.

.......................that's because the principle is only one principle and isn't meant to work in isolation of all other aspects of an overall Ethical system or playing out of morality where moral complicated deliberations are at stake. Do you understand now what I mean? My claim that this UUMP exists is but one small aspect of an overall, more extensive ethics, not the whole ball of wax. It's kind of like how your nose isn't your whole face or your whole body. It's just one little part. It's not meant to address all moral problems or issues. It's not meant to serve as a complete code of conduct. It's not going to make a person realize that slavery isn't a good thing or just. It's a simple test that, when applied, will provide a moral recognition about an extreme instance, and it should do so easily enough and 'tell' a person that they're being inconsistent [irrational is the word I'm looking for] if they deny the principle.

I find this to be an interesting concept, but it also leaves me wondering, if evolution has the simple underlying principle of "Survival of the Fittest" then what's the "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" behind morality?

So far you haven't explained it to me, and I really, really would like to know.

Where evolution is concerned, this is where I leave off with the UUMP since it's not meant to be applied to anything in the remote past. No, for me, the next step would be to invoke anthropologist, Barbara J. King, as a second consideration out of several in working toward my own Ethical Outlook of the world.

Eventually, once I've gone far enough in my education, I think I should end up with Jesus and a kind of "Ethics of Care" where I have to bother myself with going way beyond just the mere deontological or intutional level of the singole principle I've delineated above. But that's what happens when we know we have to go beyond a mere principle about moral cognizance and move on to building or framing an extensive Ethical Outlook by which to ply our personal morality in life.

 

[Hammster]

There were plenty of unfavorable consequences for the owners of slaves in the end. Why are you ignoring the consequences for the slaves themselves? Are they not real?

What was wrong with their consequences?

 

[gaara4158]

What was wrong with their consequences?

They were undesired.

 

[Hammster]

They were undesired.

And why is that wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morals are grounded in consequences.

They could be, but whether or not this is actually the case, or at least to what extent it is the case, is defined differently among various types of Moral Philosophers and Ethicists.

Consequences aren't necessarily the grounding of morality. Let's keep this in mind as we go along.

 

[Bradskii]

But even so, if it doesn't work for you or you don't understand what you read when I directed to those previous posts to see what the principle says, then don't worry yourself with it. It's not something that I insist is a mandatory principle everyone needs to learn.

Why don't you tell him that it's no more than people don't like getting smacked in the mouth?

 

[gaara4158]

And why is that wrong?

That’s just what we call it when you do things to make bad things happen.

They could be, but whether or not this is actually the case, or at least to what extent it is the case, is defined differently among various types of Moral Philosophers and Ethicists.

Consequences aren't necessarily the grounding of morality. Let's keep this in mind as we go along.

There’s nothing that’s necessarily the grounding of morality, but consequences provide something objective to appeal to and measure. Is there anything immoral that doesn’t carry negative consequences for an affected party? Is there anything virtuous that doesn’t carry desirable consequences?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why don't you tell him that it's no more than people don't like getting smacked in the mouth?

Some people are able to put up with getting smacked in the mouth well enough. We call them "contenders".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There’s nothing that’s necessarily the grounding of morality, but consequences provide something objective to appeal to and measure. Is there anything immoral that doesn’t carry negative consequences for an affected party? Is there anything virtuous that doesn’t carry desirable consequences?

Yes, consequences can be involved. At least we know they're not the whole ground of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Some people are able to put up with getting smacked in the mouth well enough. We call them "contenders".

But that's your 'principle'. It's about as insightful as saying that people prefer to breathe in and out ocassionally.

 

[Hammster]

That’s just what we call it when you do things to make bad things happen.

What makes it a bad thing?

 

[Ken-1122]

Right. You said laws don't have to be right.

True! Laws are negotiated in order that they be agreed upon by everyone; but not all laws are right.

And now you are saying that a law wasn’t right.

Yes! That was an example of one of the many laws that were not right.

According to you, that’s not relevant.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, I’ve been asking for evidence of this since page one, and have yet to see it.

Atheists can use the same method Christians use, we only don't include God.

 

[Hammster]

Yes! That was an example of one of the many laws that were not right.

It was consistent. According to you, that makes it right. “I'm the one who said laws don't need to be right, they only need to be consistent; remember?”

So if it was consistent, then by your definition it was right.

 

[Hammster]

Atheists can use the same method Christians use, we only don't include God.

Actually, you can’t. You can say that something is right or wrong. You just cannot explain why.

 

[Ken-1122]

What kind of information are you looking for? Do you really want to understand what I think about the world? Why is that of interest to you anyway?

I love having my ideas challenged. I love discussing with people who disagree with me, and are happy to articulate why they think I’m wrong; that is how I learn, this is how I grow. If I were to surround myself with people who agree with me, I will learn nothing about those who disagree with me so when I leave my echo chamber and is forced to deal with opposing views in the real world, my arguments will fall apart like a house of cards because I will not be prepared to defend my position.

Typically, I'm not looking for information from folks on a public, personal forum, personal or scientific. Learning how other people think about the world is secondary in priority for me.

What is your first priority?

I see. We're a little different on that count. I have specific goals and reasons for even being here on a public forum, especially if and when I'm having to engage those who think differently than I do.

What are your goals?

Going back now to an earlier trope in a previous few posts, I'll say up front that I concpetually divide truth from Truth. One is an aspect of knowledge. The other is a term that no one of us can fully know.

Why would you call something the truth if you don’t completely understand it?

For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.

For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.

Reality, by comparison, is what it is whether I know it or not or like it or not. Or even if other people like it or not.

How is that different from the truth?

 

[Ken-1122]

Justice is what actually 'is' fair rather than what any of us merely thinks it should be or what any leaders necessarily think it should be.

fair by what standard?

Knowing what justice is is the problem, one that I don't pretend exists in the human social realm without complexities and complications. And it's only something that a God would really know in full.

For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.

No, that's not what I said. Look again back up in post #542. See the qualifiable difference?

I said: Epistemologists will aver that Knowledge isn't simply information...​

Why would you bring Epistemologists into this conversation, unless you agree with what they are saying?

So, here we come to what for me is an important point of our conversation, where I ask: What does "reacting" to reality mean and/or entail for you in the processes of your daily life?

I’m sorry; but I don’t remember the context of which I said that. As sentient beings, we all react to our environment; I am no different in that regard.

 

[Ken-1122]

They would have to be ignoring the consequences that apply to the slaves. They’re not doing morality if they’re ignoring consequences.

In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery. It was said by purchasing people already doomed for a lifetime of slavery and introducing them to Christianity in the USA, they would at least have their souls saved; thus they were better off being brought to America than somewhere else.