I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Zoot]

You really think you are acting like a christian??? The Bible tells us we should be christ like in all that we do - your attitude is not christ like!!! Somehow I don't think Jesus or God think that rape or murder is okay!!

My attitude isn't part of what I do. My point is that I do similar things with my attitude that a Christian does with theirs.

And I didn't say that rape or murder is okay. I said that "objectively okay" and "objectively not okay" are evaluations that cannot be made. Rape is not simply bad; rather, rape is bad-to-me, and bad-to-you, and bad-to-most-people.

 

[Kris_J]

maybe "practical" was the wrong wording...
yes, these things "happy, fulfilling" are conceivable, because they are terms for undefined feelings and therefore in this context meaningless.

You believe happiness is undefinable? I think you would be hard pressed to prove that being happy is not a state of fact.

sure, we can agree upon that an objective value is "quality". but, just like with "happiness", "fulfilment", "love", "good"..., this is just replacing one broad term with an equally broad term. you don´t add any information by doing so.

Sure, I'll agree with you when you can convince me that being "happy" is interchangable with being "miserable", otherwise I'm quite convinced that being happy is an objective state & cannot ever be described as miserable no matter how subjective the experience of happiness is.

 

[Kris_J]

here´s another attempt to explain it, kris_j:
saying, that objective values/ideals are "happiness&fulfilment", is basically saying "objective values is ´what is valued´". you are just rewording, paraphrasing, you are moving in semantic circles, without making any progress towards a substancially new insight. (but you are not alone. i think, that many philosophers did just that most of the time.

Or perhaps you are merely unable to gain insight into a rather simple concept.

The state of happiness exists as a state of mind or "soul", & not a state of practicality or substance, as you again mistake.

 

[Phillip Lorenz]

hi

 

[kedaman]

If you are not Christian but claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite.

Objective morality is the categorical imperative (or rather a simplified version of it) Do X for the sake of X.

hi

Hi Phillip

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If you are not Christian but claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite.

What a nonsensical statement! I will not even ask you to back this up, because I may give you at least half a dozen similar statements that promote equally faith-dependant morality.

"If you are not Muslim but claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite."
"If you are not Jewish but claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite."
"If you are not Hindu but claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite."

 

[kedaman]

Well.. I don't have any problem with the three you came up with so far

 

[Kris_J]

"If you are not a Democrat & claim to have morals, you are a hypocrite!"

 

[Blackmarch]

And no, the "only" thing to counter it is the collective morality of the society he's living in.

Wrong-to-us, but possibly not wrong-to-him. Most not-so-well-known dictators of the 20th century died peacefully in their sleep, because nobody considered them important enough to do something about their cruel reign.

Then what is important about this view (subjective morality)?

 

[meshnaster]

what would you think if i did something that was right-to-me, but was wrong-to-you?

for instance, if i thought raping was not bad and i raped you

or if i decided to stab kittens

or if i burned forests down all the time

or maybe i fed my baby to dogs

or i broke all the promises i made to you

or made fun of you behind your back

or went to your parents' house and pooped on the carpet?


(i seriously want to know what ya would think about it, i'm not making a joke)

 

[Kris_J]

what would you think if i did something that was right-to-me, but was wrong-to-you?

for instance, if i thought raping was not bad and i raped you

or if i decided to stab kittens

or if i burned forests down all the time

or maybe i fed my baby to dogs

or i broke all the promises i made to you

or made fun of you behind your back

or went to your parents' house and pooped on the carpet?


(i seriously want to know what ya would think about it, i'm not making a joke)

Thats right - the moral value of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the major governing theory as to how to attain the absolute objective ideal of everyone having a "happy & fulfilling life".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Thats right - the moral value of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the major governing theory as to how to attain the absolute objective ideal of everyone having a "happy & fulfilling life".

You really cannot part with your platonic fallacies, can you?
Ideals are not part of a higher plane of existance, but just constructs formed by the human mind in order to classify and measure the world and provide a structure for a better understanding. Eskimos perceive more than a dozen different kinds of snow, you perceive about half as much, at the maximum, based on the classifications your language provides.

If I was to ask you "What is red?", you'd soon arrive at some very hazy, abstract concept.
A person who isn't culturally influenced by Plato, however, would explain it by connecting it to actually existing objects. A Chinese person, for example, would write down the Chinese sign for "red", which combines elements of the sign for "rose", the sign for "cancer" and the sign for "blood".

 

[Kris_J]

You really cannot part with your platonic fallacies, can you?
Ideals are not part of a higher plane of existance, but just constructs formed by the human mind in order to classify and measure the world and provide a structure for a better understanding. Eskimos perceive more than a dozen different kinds of snow, you perceive about half as much, at the maximum, based on the classifications your language provides.

If I was to ask you "What is red?", you'd soon arrive at some very hazy, abstract concept.
A person who isn't culturally influenced by Plato, however, would explain it by connecting it to actually existing objects. A Chinese person, for example, would write down the Chinese sign for "red", which combines elements of the sign for "rose", the sign for "cancer" and the sign for "blood".

Jane, you are more than welcome to reject womens rights, where ideally women are given equal importance as men, if such an ideal state is not in any way resembling an realistic aspect of the ideal state but is instead a mere "construct" since as far as you're concerned it is not a "higher" plane of existence.

Your rejection of the concept of a higher plane of existence for women as being of equal in dignity, value & rights as men will be most welcome to fundamentalist Christian circles.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Jane, you are more than welcome to reject womens rights, where ideally women are given equal importance as men, if such an ideal state is not in any way resembling an realistic aspect of the ideal state but is instead a mere "construct" since as far as you're concerned it is not a "higher" plane of existence.

Your rejection of the concept of a higher plane of existence for women as being of equal in dignity, value & rights as men will be most welcome to fundamentalist Christian circles.

Would you please be so kind as to TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of just responding with platitudes?
In fact, your example even provides me with a new angle to show you why ideals are not objective.
Since our perception is shaped by our subjective ideals, we tend to perceive it differently: The communist is very likely to detect traces of the conflict of the classes and the suppression of workers at every corner. The feminist sees patriarchal structures - everywhere. The ruthless CEO sees opportunities to make more money by erecting sweatshops in some third world country and paying his employees the equivalent of a dollar per day. The Christian sees the hand of God and the sinfulness of Man. The shaman detects Spirits. And the Buddhist will meditate on the nature of suffering and the illusory quality of existence.

BTW, you fail to grasp that all of our ideals are constructs. Even if they reflect a desired state of being, they are still nothing but figments of our imagination, based on our way of perceiving reality. We may MAKE them real, but they are not in any way objective. How could they be?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The success of an ideal depends upon its compatibility with reality - and its acceptance by the majority of the people. Collective subjectivity, remember?

 

[Kris_J]

Would you please be so kind as to TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of just responding with platitudes?
In fact, your example even provides me with a new angle to show you why ideals are not objective.
Since our perception is shaped by our subjective ideals, we tend to perceive it differently: The communist is very likely to detect traces of the conflict of the classes and the suppression of workers at every corner. The feminist sees patriarchal structures - everywhere. The ruthless CEO sees opportunities to make more money by erecting sweatshops in some third world country and paying his employees the equivalent of a dollar per day. The Christian sees the hand of God and the sinfulness of Man. The shaman detects Spirits. And the Buddhist will meditate on the nature of suffering and the illusory quality of existence.

BTW, you fail to grasp that all of our ideals are constructs. Even if they reflect a desired state of being, they are still nothing but figments of our imagination, based on our way of perceiving reality. We may MAKE them real, but they are not in any way objective. How could they be?

As this forum proves time & time again, "reality" is only as real as we conceive it to be. Have a look at the evolution/creation threads - to those people reality is what they believe/imagine it to be.

The model with which we "organise" our reality is ultimately based on the goal of attaining an ideal state / utopia. Since we all share the common goal of attaining utopia, this makes it absolute & objective. How we go about it is subjective.

 

[Kris_J]

The success of an ideal depends upon its compatibility with reality - and its acceptance by the majority of the people. Collective subjectivity, remember?

I think you mean "the success of an idea to attain an ideal state".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As this forum proves time & time again, "reality" is only as real as we conceive it to be.

YES! That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you!

Have a look at the evolution/creation threads - to those people reality is what they believe/imagine it to be.

Yes, because ideals are subjective, and because they shape our perception of the world. They help us to function, as long as they are compatible with reality insofar as they do not pose an obstacle to our ability to function within our society.
Even crackpots like the guy who's responsible for the site www.fixedearth.com can function normally, because his belief in a nonmoving earth does not influence his daily life to the point where he cannot cope with reality any longer. Since the structure of the cosmos doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on his life within society, he leads a normal life.

The model with which we "organise" our reality is ultimately based on the goal of attaining an ideal state / utopia. Since we all share the common goal of attaining utopia, this makes it absolute & objective.

You call it objective, I call it collectively subjective. If it was objective, it would exist regardless of our imagining it or not.
Imaginative, "ideal" constructs help us, but they are not real in and of themselves. Not in the sense you imply.
After all, my utopia is very likely not the same as yours. And it is definitely not the same as the utopia of the fundamentalists.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The ideal state is a construct.
Let's equate it to mathematical ideals: There is no such thing as a line. It is a completely hypothetical construct that does not exist outside of our heads. Still, we are able to imagine it and grasp it logically because our minds function by classifying our surroundings and creating structures. Remember the guy who couldn't grasp the concept of red any more because of brain damage?

 

[Kris_J]

You call it objective, I call it collectively subjective. If it was objective, it would exist regardless of our imagining it or not.
Imaginative, "ideal" constructs help us, but they are not real in and of themselves. Not in the sense you imply.
After all, my utopia is very likely not the same as yours. And it is definitely not the same as the utopia of the fundamentalists.

Jane - have you ever heard of someone give you a clear & definite description of heaven? I haven't. Why? Because heaven is the ideal state. We all have some idea of what that ideal state might be like - eg. "heaven is where everyone loves everyone". However - you will notice that no-one is suggesting that heaven is a place that is ever constructed as it is impossible for us to conceive of what heaven is like, but that all we can say is that heaven is a state where "everyone is happy & fulfilled".

We don't talk about whether there are definitely trees or buildings in heaven since it is outside of our comprehension & therefore unconstructed. Yet it is conceivable that the state of heaven beyond our comprehension exists.

We all have a limited idea of what utopia might be like - limited because we are not omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent.

The closer we become omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent, the theory is that our different utopias will converge into one ultimate & complete ideal state (heaven/God).