Morality Does Not Exist

[The Nihilist]

Asimov, I thought this was your position, but I was confused by your virulent attacks on WWFStern, because it seems to me that the two of you hold the same position.
UphillBattle, morality is not supposed to be a democratic process; murder is supposed to be wrong no matter how many people think it is. By appealing to numbers, you undermine your position.
Also, you don't want to say the Holocaust was wrong or unjust. This is like using a yard stick to measure the universe. We do not have and have never had the sort of vocabulary to talk about the moral status of the Holocaust. The most honest answer is to simply vomit whenever anyone asks you about the morality of the Holocaust.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov, I thought this was your position, but I was confused by your virulent attacks on WWFStern, because it seems to me that the two of you hold the same position.

We don't, though.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Asimov, I thought this was your position, but I was confused by your virulent attacks on WWFStern, because it seems to me that the two of you hold the same position.
UphillBattle, morality is not supposed to be a democratic process; murder is supposed to be wrong no matter how many people think it is. By appealing to numbers, you undermine your position.
Also, you don't want to say the Holocaust was wrong or unjust. This is like using a yard stick to measure the universe. We do not have and have never had the sort of vocabulary to talk about the moral status of the Holocaust. The most honest answer is to simply vomit whenever anyone asks you about the morality of the Holocaust.

I think you missed my point entirely. I am not appealing to numbers... I don't believe that majority DOES spell moral correct choices. My point was that with relative morals, whomever holds the power decides what is moral or not. Discard the holocaust example if it bothers you so much, the slavery example is just as valid.

 

[The Nihilist]

Asimov, I'm interested to hear you outline the differences between your position and WWFStern's.
Uphill Battle, it seems I did misunderstand you. But it's not whoever holds the power that decides what is moral; he merely makes the rules. It is the common agreement of those involved in morality that determines what is moral and what isn't. Most concepts of morality have the quirk that they are not determined by people, but this one doesn't. Appealing to what you think morality should be doesn't really do what you want it to.
Also, slavery is not a valid example of something immoral, because you don't mean slavery, you mean American slavery. The problem with American slavery was that it violated the common moral agreement to uphold the freedom of individuals. This was a serious contradiction and cannot be reconciled, except, it seems by a great big war.
What you don't mean, though, is Roman or Greek slavery. This was perfectly acceptable practice, and even Paul had no problem with it. If you'd like to be an apologist for Paul, you're welcome to try, but I'm not that confident that it can be done. Either you have to grant that slavery is not always wrong, or that Paul was a jerk. You can grant both if you like. (I loathe Paul, personally, so this is what I'd prefer.)

 

[Trinityness]

Morality does indeed exist. His name is God.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Asimov, I'm interested to hear you outline the differences between your position and WWFStern's.
Uphill Battle, it seems I did misunderstand you. But it's not whoever holds the power that decides what is moral; he merely makes the rules. It is the common agreement of those involved in morality that determines what is moral and what isn't. Most concepts of morality have the quirk that they are not determined by people, but this one doesn't. Appealing to what you think morality should be doesn't really do what you want it to.
Also, slavery is not a valid example of something immoral, because you don't mean slavery, you mean American slavery. The problem with American slavery was that it violated the common moral agreement to uphold the freedom of individuals. This was a serious contradiction and cannot be reconciled, except, it seems by a great big war.
What you don't mean, though, is Roman or Greek slavery. This was perfectly acceptable practice, and even Paul had no problem with it. If you'd like to be an apologist for Paul, you're welcome to try, but I'm not that confident that it can be done. Either you have to grant that slavery is not always wrong, or that Paul was a jerk. You can grant both if you like. (I loathe Paul, personally, so this is what I'd prefer.)

I have to grant no such thing. Paul never advocated slavery. He was not an activist against it, but that was not his mission.

I will post scriptural references when I have a moment.

 

[The Nihilist]

Paul did not oppose slavery, and that is enough. If he had, he would have spoken against it as he did so many other things.
Besides, do you really want to say the slavery of the ancients was wrong? Do you claim to have such a strong understanding of the world at that time that you can make such claims? Because I kind of think you don't.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Paul did not oppose slavery, and that is enough. If he had, he would have spoken against it as he did so many other things.
Besides, do you really want to say the slavery of the ancients was wrong? Do you claim to have such a strong understanding of the world at that time that you can make such claims? Because I kind of think you don't.

Do you actively oppose everything that is wrong in the world? then that is enough to declare that you support it, I suppose... Guess we are all guilty then.

What strong understanding of the world this time, or that, do you need to understand that the buying and selling of people is morally out of wack?

 

[repentandbelieve]

Paul did not oppose slavery, and that is enough. If he had, he would have spoken against it as he did so many other things.
Besides, do you really want to say the slavery of the ancients was wrong? Do you claim to have such a strong understanding of the world at that time that you can make such claims? Because I kind of think you don't.

One does need a strong understanding of the world at that time that to make such a claim. The system of slavery instituted during biblcal times is an interesting topic to study. A little research does reveal that it was very different from the system of slavery we once had here in America.

In general, Paul wasn't opposed to slavery, but he was opposed to people being oppressed. Oppression exercised by one man over another, is offensive to God and the problem with slavery is that can permit man to exercise over his fellow man a power which God has never granted him.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov, I'm interested to hear you outline the differences between your position and WWFStern's. prefer.)

He believes in moral relativity, I do not. Relative in the context of philosophy and ethics means that they are based arbitrarily off of individual beliefs, cultural beliefs, and societal beliefs. I disagree.

I contend that morals are subject to logics, reason and evidence like any other dilemma, pursuit or belief in life and if we are to analyze any moral dilemma we must do so with reason in mind.

That being said, some individuals morals are wrong, some cultural beliefs are wrong, and some societal beliefs are wrong.

If we reduce morality to relativity, then no one has the right to condemn anyones actions as right or wrong, yet they would anyways, thinking they are right in doing so...this lack of cohesion causes travesty like we see throughout history.

 

[levi501]

He believes in moral relativity, I do not. Relative in the context of philosophy and ethics means that they are based arbitrarily off of individual beliefs, cultural beliefs, and societal beliefs. I disagree.

I contend that morals are subject to logics, reason and evidence like any other dilemma, pursuit or belief in life and if we are to analyze any moral dilemma we must do so with reason in mind.

While I agree we should give an heirarchy to moral systems this doesn't discount that morality is indeed relative. Just because someones personal system is logically inconsistent doesn't mean it isn't their moral system... however flawed it might be.

If we reduce morality to relativity, then no one has the right to condemn anyones actions as right or wrong, yet they would anyways, thinking they are right in doing so...this lack of cohesion causes travesty like we see throughout history.

Not true.
Just because a society has every right to create and enforce a moral system doesn't mean that morality isn't relative to individuals and cultures.

My moral system deffinitely differs from the culture I live in.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, Asimov, I see. Relativism is a term often applied both to the sort of personally created morality, which, say an existentialist might have, and the sort of group contractualist morality, which I believe is your position. To the extent that either is taken seriously by those who hold it, they are both subject to logic, that is, they must both be internally consistent. The extent to which they are not is the extent to which they are violated. For instance, as I said earlier, despite the initial American allowance of slavery, this is undeniably a violation of the sort of moral contract in America, which has as a key element freedom for everyone. To say that slavery is allowed in this system makes is utterly incoherent, and so slavery must not be allowed. There are similar cases for those relativists who decide their own morality, but I have no obvious examples.

As for Paul, repentandbelieve has made most of my case for me. One must understand the circumstances to be able to say whether or not it is a morally acceptable practice. And while I am willing to accept that people can't fight every battle they feel like they should, I am not willing to accept this for Paul. For starters, he didn't need to fight it, he only needed to say it was bad. Also, men who claim to speak for God are just going to have to be held to higher standards than you or I.

 

[TheBellman]

Because harm is causing others pain. Any being that can feel pain can be harmed.

Yup, agreed.

morality deals with a code of values that allows us all to live together in mutual benefit without harm

Whoa! Who said that's what morality is? Morality is about doing what is 'right' - the ideas of 'mutual benefit' and 'without harm' are your judgements alone. Neither of them is intrinsically moral (although both you and I might think they are moral pursuits, that doesn't make them what morality IS).

harm is deleterious in a mutually beneficial system.

Again, agreed - but that doesn't have anything to do with morality, per se.

So? He asked me to prove that any moral system is superior to another. I stated that any moral system which is logically invalid is inferior to a logically valid moral system...thus some moral systems are superior to others.

But you haven't proven that any moral system is logically invalid or even that logical valdity is something that is applicable to a moral system. So you haven't proven anything.

 

[Asimov]

While I agree we should give an heirarchy to moral systems this doesn't discount that morality is indeed relative. Just because someones personal system is logically inconsistent doesn't mean it isn't their moral system... however flawed it might be.

Ah, I see the problem. You're looking at it descriptively, and I'm looking at it prescriptively.

We're talking past each other.

Just because a society has every right to create and enforce a moral system doesn't mean that morality isn't relative to individuals and cultures.

Societies have no rights.

 

[Asimov]

As for Paul, repentandbelieve has made most of my case for me. One must understand the circumstances to be able to say whether or not it is a morally acceptable practice. And while I am willing to accept that people can't fight every battle they feel like they should, I am not willing to accept this for Paul. For starters, he didn't need to fight it, he only needed to say it was bad.

Hm...I would agree that circumstances are necessary to decide whether or not an act consitutes an immoral action, but I do not agree that certain things are "ok" because their culture thinks it is, or "not ok" for the same reason. That would be logically fallacious.

Also, men who claim to speak for God are just going to have to be held to higher standards than you or I.

I'm not sure I understand this, are you saying that we should be more strict with people who claim authority from God?