Morality, right/wrong and virtues?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?

How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?

I don't mean in any necessarily Christian aspect, any early philosophy will work fine.

How many believe that man has no purpose and that right and wrong are nothing more than mutual agreements in a social contract we call law and principle (ala Hobbes)?

 

[gengwall]

Well, put me in the absolute category, and tack on the Christian basis as well.

 

[The Nihilist]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?
How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?
I don't mean in any necessarily Christian aspect, any early philosophy will work fine.
How many believe that man has no purpose and that right and wrong are nothing more than mutual agreements in a social contract we call law and principle (ala Hobbes)?

I'm in that last group, and I kind of think everyone else is just silly

 

[.Sabre.]

I'm a pagan. I do believe in an absolute "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

 

[tcampen]

I do believe objective right and wrongs exist, although most are subjective. But such objectivity does not derrive from the fiat of some transcendent being, but rather the examining of certian acts reveal there is no circumstance under which it could be justified or considered good, such as child molestation. I believe reason can establish certain objective morals.

 

[The Nihilist]

I do believe objective right and wrongs exist, although most are subjective. But such objectivity does not derrive from the fiat of some transcendent being, but rather the examining of certian acts reveal there is no circumstance under which it could be justified or considered good, such as child molestation. I believe reason can establish certain objective morals.

Reason does not provide a standard by which this or that may be called good or bad. This essentially comes down to preference. Sorry.

 

[gwenmead]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?

I don't know if there is an objective right/wrong. I'm still trying to work out what I think about that.

How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?

I don't think humanity has any ultimate cosmic purpose, in the sense of a purpose assigned by a divine entity. Maybe our "purpose" is to continue the species, who knows.

I suspect fulfillment is what one makes of it, and one size does not fit all.

I don't know what a "true virtue" would be. Define "true".

How many believe that man has no purpose and that right and wrong are nothing more than mutual agreements in a social contract we call law and principle (ala Hobbes)?

I tend to lean towards the social contract model, but as mentioned, I'm not entirely decided on the issue.

I do not think humanity has an intrinsic purpose. If there is meaning to our lives, the meaning is what we make of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?

How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?

While the concept "objective" is loaded down with quite a bit of philosophical baggage that I would disagree with, I tend to fall in the camp above.

I'm a virtue ethicist who thinks that what could loosely be called human well-being (or flourishing) is the naturally appropriate purpose of one's life, and one's nature as a living and rational human being sets the universal standard for the evaluation of values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[tcampen]

Reason does not provide a standard by which this or that may be called good or bad. This essentially comes down to preference. Sorry.

I think that if you start with a premise that it is wrong to cause unessessary harm, then reason can tell you whether a particular act qualifies as being wrong under that standard. Such a standard is intiutively reasonable, just looking at the manner in which all living things recoil and reject harm and suffering. As intellectual beings, we can recognize there are times when causing harm or suffering, while regrettable, may still be necessary.

That is not to say all morality can be analysed on such terms, but the most of the big stuff can. Much of morality is based on preference, cultural norms, etc. But I don't think all morality can be reduced to whatever an individuals wants right and wrong to be.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think that if you start with a premise that it is wrong to cause unessessary harm, then reason can tell you whether a particular act qualifies as being wrong under that standard. Such a standard is intiutively reasonable, just looking at the manner in which all living things recoil and reject harm and suffering. As intellectual beings, we can recognize there are times when causing harm or suffering, while regrettable, may still be necessary.

That is not to say all morality can be analysed on such terms, but the most of the big stuff can. Much of morality is based on preference, cultural norms, etc. But I don't think all morality can be reduced to whatever an individuals wants right and wrong to be.

Reason itself will not yield that we should not cause unnecessary harm as a premise, though. Moreover, what you provide as a standard for whether a thing is good or bad is whether or not anyone likes it, which sounds more like David Hume. So, like I said, preferences.

 

[tcampen]

Reason itself will not yield that we should not cause unnecessary harm as a premise, though. Moreover, what you provide as a standard for whether a thing is good or bad is whether or not anyone likes it, which sounds more like David Hume. So, like I said, preferences.

I see your point, but I still disagree. As a premise, all living creatures recoil from harm. This concept is not a "preference", but a universal reality. So, as a very basic premise, harm is not a good thing. But our human intellect can use reason to recognize that notwithstanding this inherent nature of harm, sometimes it is still necessary. Thus, we end up finding a distinction between necessary and unnecessary harm. Rationally, that leaves us with unnecessary harm being in the opposite collumn as that which is "good".

Or think about it this way. When would a person sticking a glowing hot rod of iron into your eye socket be a good thing? How would any rational person (or any living creature with an eye socket) react to such and act? Such a victim would naturally recoil from it. So we start with the premise that committing such an act against another being is wrong. But next we must determine if we can we find a reason why such an act might be necessary. Perhaps it was an act of self defense, with the iron rod being the only protection available from imminent death, and the eye socket was the only reaonably available body part of the attacker. That could be a necessary harm. Virtually any other circumstance would be unnecessary. And yet, we were able to find a rational basis for it all, without resorting to the mere "preference" of the victim or the attacker.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?

How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?

I don't mean in any necessarily Christian aspect, any early philosophy will work fine.

How many believe that man has no purpose and that right and wrong are nothing more than mutual agreements in a social contract we call law and principle (ala Hobbes)?

I'm in the last catagory.

 

[quatona]

I was a bit curious-
How many of you believe in objective right and wrong? That there is still some universal right or wrong that can be applied to human behaviors?

How many people that man has a 'purpose'? That by individually following these purposes, man finds fulfillment? That true virtues exist?

I don't mean in any necessarily Christian aspect, any early philosophy will work fine.

How many believe that man has no purpose and that right and wrong are nothing more than mutual agreements in a social contract we call law and principle (ala Hobbes)?

I believe that what I feel is right is therefore objectively, universally and absolutely right. Same goes for purpose accordingly.

 

[The Nihilist]

I see your point, but I still disagree. As a premise, all living creatures recoil from harm. This concept is not a "preference", but a universal reality. So, as a very basic premise, harm is not a good thing. But our human intellect can use reason to recognize that notwithstanding this inherent nature of harm, sometimes it is still necessary. Thus, we end up finding a distinction between necessary and unnecessary harm. Rationally, that leaves us with unnecessary harm being in the opposite collumn as that which is "good".

Or think about it this way. When would a person sticking a glowing hot rod of iron into your eye socket be a good thing? How would any rational person (or any living creature with an eye socket) react to such and act? Such a victim would naturally recoil from it. So we start with the premise that committing such an act against another being is wrong. But next we must determine if we can we find a reason why such an act might be necessary. Perhaps it was an act of self defense, with the iron rod being the only protection available from imminent death, and the eye socket was the only reaonably available body part of the attacker. That could be a necessary harm. Virtually any other circumstance would be unnecessary. And yet, we were able to find a rational basis for it all, without resorting to the mere "preference" of the victim or the attacker.

Only cowards always recoil from harm. But why do you imagine that because no one likes harm, that it is not good suddenly becomes a universal reality? In what sense do you mean "good" here? Do you mean beneficial? Undeniably, sometimes what seems harmful can provide a net benefit. Do you mean good in a moral sense? If you do, your reasoning is circular.
More to the point, though, why should pure reason grant that harm is bad? I mean, having been harmed, I certainly understand, but reason alone cannot take such a position. To reason, such a position is utterly arbitrary, and you would do just as well to say that potatoes are bad and ought to be avoided all the time.

It sounds like you've got some sort of flimsy utilitarian ideas going on, and utilitarianism has its own flaws. But reason alone is completely uninterested in how child molestation makes anyone feel; this is the domain of sentiment and sentiment alone.

 

[tcampen]

Only cowards always recoil from harm. But why do you imagine that because no one likes harm, that it is not good suddenly becomes a universal reality? In what sense do you mean "good" here? Do you mean beneficial? Undeniably, sometimes what seems harmful can provide a net benefit. Do you mean good in a moral sense? If you do, your reasoning is circular.
More to the point, though, why should pure reason grant that harm is bad? I mean, having been harmed, I certainly understand, but reason alone cannot take such a position. To reason, such a position is utterly arbitrary, and you would do just as well to say that potatoes are bad and ought to be avoided all the time

It sounds like you've got some sort of flimsy utilitarian ideas going on, and utilitarianism has its own flaws. But reason alone is completely uninterested in how child molestation makes anyone feel; this is the domain of sentiment and sentiment alone.

Harm is a broad concept, but it includes both physical and mental (emotional) pain. But were does sentiment come from the act of poking a red hot sticker in one's eyeball, where this is really something any living being would recoil from. Are you so not a coward that you wouldn't even flinch if such were done to you? Would you have nothing more than the "preference" no one committed such an act upon you?

It is nothing more than your "preference" than Mr. Pedophile not forceably rape your 4 year old daughter? That's absurd! Can you come up with any plausible scenario that would make such an intentional act acceptable? Go ahead and try, I love to see it.

I find some most morality to be the product of social conventions, but some acts which cannot be justified under any plausible scenario would not fall into this category. Sure, we can come up with absurd, uterly unrealistic hypotheticals that would philosophically justify forceable rape of an infant, but that nothing more than a Zeno's paradox applied to the real world - meaningless. In other words, in the abstract world of philosophy, you may have a point. But in the real world with real people and real experiences, right and wrong can be more than a mere "preference."

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'm curious- how many who would classify themselves in the last category are in a serious, deep, loving relationships with another person? A person for whom you'd sacrifice your life, perhaps?

 

[SiderealExalt]

But in the real world with real people and real experiences, right and wrong can be more than a mere "preference."

I agree. There are undoubtedly much explored physical and sociological factors I think that play into what goes beyond preference for us. Definitely cultural upbringings and the commonality of basic human experience and sensation that we all have. I think morality is ultimately influence by a lot of factors, some of biological and internal in that sense. Others sociological. But that ultimately, there is no such thing as the external absolute morality that is the providence of some sort of super being or the like.

 

[quatona]

I'm curious- how many who would classify themselves in the last category are in a serious, deep, loving relationships with another person? A person for whom you'd sacrifice your life, perhaps?

The people I am with would love to sacrifice their lives for me. So me sacrificing my life for them would be diametrically opposite to their wishes, which of course I respect.

 

[The Nihilist]

Harm is a broad concept, but it includes both physical and mental (emotional) pain. But were does sentiment come from the act of poking a red hot sticker in one's eyeball, where this is really something any living being would recoil from. Are you so not a coward that you wouldn't even flinch if such were done to you? Would you have nothing more than the "preference" no one committed such an act upon you?

It is nothing more than your "preference" than Mr. Pedophile not forceably rape your 4 year old daughter? That's absurd! Can you come up with any plausible scenario that would make such an intentional act acceptable? Go ahead and try, I love to see it.

I find some most morality to be the product of social conventions, but some acts which cannot be justified under any plausible scenario would not fall into this category. Sure, we can come up with absurd, uterly unrealistic hypotheticals that would philosophically justify forceable rape of an infant, but that nothing more than a Zeno's paradox applied to the real world - meaningless. In other words, in the abstract world of philosophy, you may have a point. But in the real world with real people and real experiences, right and wrong can be more than a mere "preference."

I think your blustery and indignant response illustrates my point better than I could.
Reason does nothing to lead us to a conclusion that we should not do harm from a premise that no one likes harm. Why on earth is what people like or dislike a matter of morality?
I certainly can come up with a scenario in which it wouldn't be considered morally repugnant to have sex with an infant: if the infant were not protected by the society's morality. If, for example, the child were of a low caste. Now, you're going to have trouble relating to this, because you don't belong to such a society, but they wouldn't see any problem with it, while they may think some fairly normal things that you do are pretty horrible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm curious- how many who would classify themselves in the last category are in a serious, deep, loving relationships with another person? A person for whom you'd sacrifice your life, perhaps?

I would sacrifice myself for my family, and for my friends. If I had a partner? Probably for them too.