I don't believe in right and wrong.

Western Deity · Oct 27, 2004

Kris_J said:
Western, time is not considered in Zoots argument. Everyone at one time or another does what seemed good, but later on with hindsight they realise that they were wrong. Doing something that seems good doesn't guarantee freedom from regret.

You're considering that a "person" is the same "person" later in time- this is false, IMO. This persistence of self is an illusion, is it not?

Kris_J · Oct 27, 2004

Western Deity said:
You're considering that a "person" is the same "person" later in time- this is false, IMO. This persistence of self is an illusion, is it not?

So you are arguing for a discontinuity of self because there is no self? We enter these debates with a few agreed assumptions that we have a self & that there is continuity of self through the discussion. Is this a wrong assumption according to you?

wellexcuseme · Oct 27, 2004

You're considering that a "person" is the same "person" later in time- this is false, IMO. This persistence of self is an illusion, is it not?

So you are arguing for a discontinuity of self because there is no self? We enter these debates with a few agreed assumptions that we have a self & that there is continuity of self through the discussion. Is this a wrong assumption according to you?

absolute self exists until the person changes in any way; not necessarily physically, but one may decides he no longer hates black people - change.

Western Deity · Oct 27, 2004

But how much change? Most people decide on a completely arbitrary basis.

Zoot · Oct 27, 2004

I've given some thought to regret and guilt (which is a form of regret). It seems to me that it occurs when someone's values change, and they evaluate a past decision by criteria different from the criteria present at the time the decision was made.

I know that sounds obvious.

I am now a vegetarian, for ethical reasons. I was not always a vegetarian. Looking back, in a sense, I regret having eaten meat so many times. That is to say that while at the time I valued eating meat highly and didn't value vegetarianism at all, I now value vegetarianism over eating meat, and thus now what was good-to-me has become bad-to-me.

I am not more right now than I was before; such an evaluation cannot be made. And when I look back and evaluate, "That was wrong," I am making a statement about my perception of it now, not the action then. When I say, "That was wrong," what I'm really saying is, "That (the past action) is wrong-to-me now."

That's a very gradual change of values, of course. A far more sudden change of values can be found in desire and sated desire. I may be on a diet and value the diet and value weight loss, but I'm very hungry, so I'm also valuing highly a Snickers bar. If I value the Snickers bar over the weight loss, I will eat the Snickers bar. However, in eating the Snickers, I sate my hunger, it diminishes greatly, and I'm left in a situation where I value weight loss far more than I value the action of eating the Snickers bar. Looking back, I regret eating it. In other words, I evaluate the past action as bad.

Jane_the_Bane · Oct 27, 2004

bluetrinity said:
Isn't the question rather why do YOU think you act the way you do. Because my answer is that God planted morals in your heart and you act accordingly.

That's a very naive answer, unless you imply that everything happens according to God's ultimate plan, and society evolved accordingly to it.
Morality is no more implanted within your heart than language. Both are social constructs shared by a society, and agreed on collectively.

It's not that hard to grasp, really. Make an effort.

(P.S.: I doubt that Nietzsche was able to change his views on his death bed, since he died in a state of utter mental derangement.)

Kris_J · Oct 27, 2004

Zoot said:
I've given some thought to regret and guilt (which is a form of regret). It seems to me that it occurs when someone's values change, and they evaluate a past decision by criteria different from the criteria present at the time the decision was made.

I know that sounds obvious.

I am now a vegetarian, for ethical reasons. I was not always a vegetarian. Looking back, in a sense, I regret having eaten meat so many times. That is to say that while at the time I valued eating meat highly and didn't value vegetarianism at all, I now value vegetarianism over eating meat, and thus now what was good-to-me has become bad-to-me.

I am not more right now than I was before; such an evaluation cannot be made. And when I look back and evaluate, "That was wrong," I am making a statement about my perception of it now, not the action then. When I say, "That was wrong," what I'm really saying is, "That (the past action) is wrong-to-me now."

That's a very gradual change of values, of course. A far more sudden change of values can be found in desire and sated desire. I may be on a diet and value the diet and value weight loss, but I'm very hungry, so I'm also valuing highly a Snickers bar. If I value the Snickers bar over the weight loss, I will eat the Snickers bar. However, in eating the Snickers, I sate my hunger, it diminishes greatly, and I'm left in a situation where I value weight loss far more than I value the action of eating the Snickers bar. Looking back, I regret eating it. In other words, I evaluate the past action as bad.

I think values are more related to ideals rather than real situations. In that sense, right & wrong are measured in terms of a persons ideals, rather than specific situations.

What I'm saying is that ideally people decide that their values are amended over time due to the belief that the change is an improvement as resources/knowledge is made available.

For instance, you are vegetarian for your various reasons. However, if something happens & most plantlife becomes toxic to the human body, & being carnivorous is the only option - you will cease to be vegetarian. However, deep inside, you know you have lowered your standard in order to survive.

Although your situation has changed, your values have not. Ideally values are independent of the current situation - hence people can be seen as "idealistic" rather than "realistic".

It seems to me that someone doesn't believe in right & wrong is a person who doesn't have any ideals.

YWGWYS · Oct 27, 2004

Kris_J said:
Although your situation has changed, your values have not. Ideally values are independent of the current situation - hence people can be seen as "idealistic" rather than "realistic".

It seems to me that someone doesn't believe in right & wrong is a person who doesn't have any ideals.

i know what you mean, but i do think that values and experiences are interdependent. ideals and values can change by acquiring new experiences, informations, insights.
often it is but a change in priorities, though. i remember that i used to estimate "justice" a very high value, whilst now i find, that, although it has its benefits, it is a comparably unimportant ideal.
i can also think of reasons to turn your values upside down. e.g. considering how humankind has devastated the planet it lives on, may well cause someone to make the eradication of mankind a top value (although he started off with deeply felt humanistic ideals).

Zoot · Oct 27, 2004

It seems to me that someone doesn't believe in right & wrong is a person who doesn't have any ideals

That's mainly because it seems to you that someone who doesn't believe in objective morality is a person who doesn't have any morality.

For example, you say I'd see myself as having lowered my standards. That assumes a meta-standard against which standards are measured. I don't think such a meta-standard is intelligible, so what you call a lowering of standards is, to me, simply a change of standards.

Another way of looking at the same situation would be to say that I value my life more highly than I value vegetarianism. If I somehow wished that I valued vegetarianism enough that I would rather die than eat meat, I can only imagine it would be because I value vegetarianism over the idea of living, but value actually living over vegetarianism. Sorry. Musing out loud there.

My point is, I really do have ideals. I am just not under the delusion that they are in any way objective. I realise that they are ideals-to-me. I realise that either I didn't choose them, or I chose them based on values I didn't choose. Either my ideals are handed to me by my situation, or I choose them based on values handed to me by my situation.

When one first makes the transition from believing there are objective ideals (or values, or morals, or whatever) to realising that ideals can't be objective, there is a period of thinking this renders ideals utterly meaningless. That is a period of inconsistency, really - one part of one's thinking has not caught up with another part. Then one realises that ideals were always subjective, and that the very idea of an ideal is subjective by definition.

In one sense, it's liberating. After all, I no longer live in a universe that imposes morality and meaning on me; there are no objective demands. I can choose my own narrative, choose my own meaning, choose my own ideals. On the other hand, I am not limitlessly free. I have a horizon. A choice of narrative, a choice of meaning, a choice of ideals cannot be made without some values by which they are evaluated. And so, just as with decision-making, at some point by definition, my values are outside of my control. Either they are handed to me by my situation or I choose them based on values that are handed to me by my situation.

I am a product of my culture. I grew up on '80s cartoons and Christianity and rock music. I value liberty and happiness and consistency (The Value Previously Known As Truth) and justice and I think 13-year-olds are too young to have sex and I think women are equal to men and I think graves should be left alone and I think species extinction is bad and I think greed and hatred are bad.

I have decided to save the world. I am a libertarian socialist. I am a writer.

They're real ideals to me, real purposes, real meanings, real narratives. I recognise that my values are by definition subjective, that there is no value by which values can be evaluated. Yet, they guide my actions. I am not burdened with the issue of whether or not my values are right, because I understand that the evaluation is not possible. When I come across someone with different values, the interaction will change us both. Such is the nature of the story.

I suppose I've ranted on long enough. Time for the signature.

Carico · Oct 27, 2004

Making up one's own standards does not in any way, make one moral, Zoot. Stalin, Saddam hussein, Hitler, etc. ALL chose their own standards. Again, that is playing God. It is true that you can do anything you want, but that has nothing to do with morality. You are also accountable for your choices. When man "decides" right and wrong, he will find out one day, just how wrong he is! if you think you know better than Jesus Christ what the truth is, then by all means, pass your wisdom along to others. But you and you alone are also responsible for the lives you affect by your ideas.

an7222 · Oct 27, 2004

Dragar said:
If, for the sake of argument, your moral code has an 'objective' moral value, then yes, part of it is objective.

But that's circular.

I don't believe objective morality exists. My view is that you think you have an objective moral value though. What you're doing is:

a) Assuming there is an objective morality
b) For reasons you're unable to tell me, concluding that a part of that objective morality includes 'valuing life'.

I'm disagreeing with your assumption and, even if your assumption is correct, unable to fathom how you worked out what is 'objectively moral' and what is not.

Ok. I'll try to explain why life is an objective moral value.

Everybody values life, otherwise they would rather die. Everybody that shares existence with others, don't want to stop it, otherwise they would rather kill themselves. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they only occur in very specific situations and with a motivation. Nobody kills himself just "because I want". They have their own motivations.

If everybody values his life, it's a value for all living beings. So, we can call it a UNIVERSAL MORAL VALUE.

Carico · Oct 27, 2004

Jesus says that we have to lose our lives in order to save them. "He who loves his life in this world will lose it, but he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." Again, this "universal moral code" exists in order to save our own skins. It has little, if anything, to do with love of neighbor.

Dragar · Oct 27, 2004

Ok. I'll try to explain why life is an objective moral value.

Everybody values life, otherwise they would rather die. Everybody that shares existence with others, don't want to stop it, otherwise they would rather kill themselves. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they only occur in very specific situations and with a motivation. Nobody kills himself just "because I want". They have their own motivations.

If everybody values his life, it's a value for all living beings. So, we can call it a UNIVERSAL MORAL VALUE.

But what are you saying here?

That:

a) Life has the property of being objectively valuable?

or

b) That all humans experience life (subjectively, necessarily) as valuable?

You're assuming that simply because something is valued universally, it is objective. By that same reasoning, if there were some foodstuff that everyone valued (chocolate?) it would be objectively valuable.

Universal may still be universally subjective.

an7222 · Oct 27, 2004

Dragar said:
But what are you saying here?

That:

a) Life has the property of being objectively valuable?

or

b) That all humans experience life (subjectively, necessarily) as valuable?

You're assuming that simply because something is valued universally, it is objective. By that same reasoning, if there were some foodstuff that everyone valued (chocolate?) it would be objectively valuable.

Universal may still be universally subjective.

I'm saying that life objectively and universaly values itself, no matter the form of life. It's a law of the universe

Dragar · Oct 27, 2004

I'm saying that life objectively and universaly values itself, no matter the form of life. It's a law of the universe

You think it impossible a human could be ever fail to value its own life?

I certainly think humans have suicided before, due to doing just that. I've gone through periods of depression myself, and nearly suicided. My life appeared to me, at the time, to be terribly unappealing. Even though the attempt failed, my feelings of upset were at the pain I nearly caused to my family, not at losing something valuable.

So, I suggest you are wrong at that part at the very least.

Dragar · Oct 27, 2004

<More excellent stuff>

I am a product of my culture. I grew up on '80s cartoons and Christianity and rock music. I value liberty and happiness and consistency (The Value Previously Known As Truth) and justice and I think 13-year-olds are too young to have sex and I think women are equal to men and I think graves should be left alone and I think species extinction is bad and I think greed and hatred are bad.

<More Excellent Stuff>

I very much enjoy that post, Zoot, because it sums up the entire point of view (that I, too, share). I grew up reading my father's science fiction and fantasy collection. The works of Heinlein, Asimov, Tolkein, and McCaffrey likely shaped my values into what they are today.

I grew up reading my father's science fiction and fantasy collection. The works of Heinlein, Asimov, Tolkein, and McCaffrey likely shaped my values into what they are today. Parents, TV, the people we meet on the internet...all of them influence what we value and what we don't.

Jane_the_Bane · Oct 27, 2004

Usually, our survival instincts keep us from putting an end to our own life. However, since our mind is capable of overriding even our most essential instincts, we are very well capable of killing ourselves.

Another strong instinct compels us to protect our offspring, even if it means sacrificing our own life.

This "evolution of love" is what I might attribute to the Divine Plan.

an7222 · Oct 27, 2004

Dragar said:
You think it impossible a human could be ever fail to value its own life?

I certainly think humans have suicided before, due to doing just that. I've gone through periods of depression myself, and nearly suicided. My life appeared to me, at the time, to be terribly unappealing. Even though the attempt failed, my feelings of upset were at the pain I nearly caused to my family, not at losing something valuable.

So, I suggest you are wrong at that part at the very least.

Read one of my previous posts. I'm not pretending to say that suicide does not exist. I'm saying that nobody will kill himself "just because he/she wants". They can kill himself, but they always have an excuse for it.

My point is that in the universe, life is a big exception, not the rule. It needs very special condicions to exist, and because of that, life has itself as an objectively defined universal moral value.

Dragar · Oct 27, 2004

Read one of my previous posts. I'm not pretending to say that suicide does not exist. I'm saying that nobody will kill himself "just because he/she wants". They can kill himself, but they always have an excuse for it.

My excuse for trying was that I no longer valued living.

My point is that in the universe, life is a big exception, not the rule. It needs very special condicions to exist, and because of that, life has itself as an objectively defined universal moral value.

Because it's rare, it's valuable?

While I agree that's how we determine, a lot of the time, what is valuable and what is not, it is still subjective and not at all universal. There are likely some extremely rare diseases out there - they're not always valuable.

an7222 · Oct 27, 2004

Dragar said:
My excuse for trying was that I no longer valued living.

You probably did not value your life. I doubt you did not value all sorts of life. Otherwise, it would be indiferent for you to kill yourself, a tree or anybody else walking in the street. You valued life, but you did not value YOUR SPECIFIC LIVING CONDITIONS.

Because it's rare, it's valuable?

While I agree that's how we determine, a lot of the time, what is valuable and what is not, it is still subjective and not at all universal. There are likely some extremely rare diseases out there - they're not always valuable.

That was not the point. I tried to say that there are an objectively defined "instinct" in every form of living being that drives them to preserve not just their life, but also to value life in general as something very special. This "instinct" exists objectively in the universe. It's a force that says "LIFE WANTS LIFE".

I don't believe in right and wrong.

you know how it is

Well-Known Member

Active Member

you know how it is

Omnis Obstat

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

just her pet spider

Omnis Obstat

Well-Known Member

Rational morality is a must

Well-Known Member

Like the root of -1

Rational morality is a must

Like the root of -1

Like the root of -1

Gaia's godchild

Rational morality is a must

Like the root of -1

Rational morality is a must

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency