Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.So reason is the objective standard you appeal to.
We all do. As opposed to what we want.Otherwise why bother with it? Just choose whatever you prefer.
And do nothing? You keep making the same mistake. Just because they think it's OK and I don't doesn't mean we both carry on as normal. In some cases we have to fight for what we think is right. If my neighbour is beating his wife then I don't shrug my shoulders and say 'Hey mate. That's wrong. But like, it's only my opinion.' I jump the fence and hit him with whatever's available to stop him.So all you can say against Nazi Germany and South Africa would be something along the lines of "I have my own opinion about whatever you're doing, but - like, that's just my opinion, man."
And do nothing? You keep making the same mistake. Just because they think it's OK and I don't doesn't mean we both carry on as normal. In some cases we have to fight for what we think is right. If my neighbour is beating his wife then I don't shrug my shoulders and say 'Hey mate. That's wrong. But like, it's only my opinion.' I jump the fence and hit him with whatever's available to stop him.
Hey, look. Might is right in that scenario and you think it's OK!
Yes.
We all do. As opposed to what we want.
Partly. I don't want to see a guy beating a woman. But I can give you reasons if you like. Which informs what I want. Or rather what I prefer. Although in this case they are one and the same.Based on nothing but your collection of wants.
Which, if they are not based on objective standards, are merely your wants.I can give you reasons if you like.
Reasons are not determined in a vacuum. As I said, they are informed by your upbringing, your age, your gender, your politics, your religion, your nationality etc etc etc. To that end they are relative to the individual.If we appeal to reason, then morality has an objective reference point (it’s about what fits human nature, flourishing, or consistency of principle). Without that, it collapses into subjective preference - “I choose what I like.”
They are based on objective facts. How I interpret them will be informed by many factors as I just noted above.Which, if they are not based on objective standards, are merely your wants.
Reasons are not determined in a vacuum. As I said, they are informed by your upbringing, your age, your gender, your politics, your religion, your nationality etc etc etc. To that end they are relative to the individual.
Are you suggesting that your upbringing for example has nothing to do with how you determine morality?In other words, your wants.
Otherwise moral argumentation would go something along the lines of - I ought to act thus because I am 18 years of age, I am a male, I am left wing, I am a Buddhist, I am Thai.
But that's not how moral argumentation goes.
Are you suggesting that your upbringing for example has nothing to do with how you determine morality?
That wasn't the point that was being discussed. It was what are the factors that determine your reasons for holding to a specific moral position (whether it is true or false). So upbringing (in Thailand or the US?) and age (18 or 80?) and religion (Bhuddism or Christianity?) will all have an influence. You denied that earlier. But they are obviously factors. Including very many more.Of course upbringing affects what moral systems you’re exposed to - but it doesn’t make those systems true or false.
I think what you have shown is that there are commonalities across societies. I have no problem in agreeing with that. Just bear in mind that just because everyone agrees on a moral problem position does not make it absolute. We don't decide on what absolute morality is by having a vote.Furthermore despite radically different upbringings, there are moral constants (prohibitions of murder, theft, betrayal of trust) across cultures. Moral truths are grasped by human reason or conscience independently of upbringing.
No, what is being discussed is whether there are objective moral standards or whether they are subjective.That wasn't the point that was being discussed. It was what are the factors that determine your reasons for holding to a specific moral position (whether it is true or false). So upbringing (in Thailand or the US?) and age (18 or 80?) and religion (Bhuddism or Christianity?) will all have an influence. You denied that earlier. But they are obviously factors. Including very many more.
I think what you have shown is that there are commonalities across societies. I have no problem in agreeing with that. Just bear in mind that just because everyone agrees on a moral problem position does not make it absolute. We don't decide on what absolute morality is by having a vote.
No, that's not morality at all. It's just hypothetical reason. So you've taken something that is not morality and contrasted it with something you haven't defined ("absolute morality").Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y".
That's what the general discussion is about. But my post was in reply to yours which said that upbringing etc had nothing to do with how we determine morality. I think that's been put to bed.No, what is being discussed is whether there are objective moral standards or whether they are subjective.
Correct. Your standards are a reflection of who you are. Your upbringing and all those other factors we've been listing determine that. And look, this is pretty obvious. If you'd been born to Mr. and Mrs Chan in 17th century China, or the Omars in modern day Iran or the Nguyens in Vietnam in the 60's then your personal outlook will be a reflection of your parents, your times, your religion, your culture etc etc.You are claiming that those standards consist entirely of things like upbringing.
As I'm not arguing that it sounds like we're in agreement.I am stating that upbringing will influence a perspective but does not influence whether a particular morality is true or false.
I'll have to point out again that murder, by the very definition of the word, is determined to be wrong. Someone can be killed in one society and if it's not illegal then it's not murder. If someone is killed in a society where it is illegal, then it's murder. The morality of the act is exactly the same. All that changes is the legal situation.To the second point, if all societies everywhere, whether here on orbiting the star Sirius, have the same moral standard (e.g. murder is wrong), that standard is a universal.
My church never said a thing against Apartheid. Not once. There was plenty of time to preach against abortion and divorce, but never Apartheid.So all you can say against Nazi Germany and South Africa would be something along the lines of "I have my own opinion about whatever you're doing, but - like, that's just my opinion, man."
It really wasn't.That's not good enough.
No, that is not all one can do. One can see if there are other shared moral opinions and then you could try to show that some opinions in on one moral question is inconsistent with their opinion on others, as an example. If they value consistency. I can also say that I will petition my government to impose sanctions on you because I find that your acting immorally.So all you can say against Nazi Germany and South Africa would be something along the lines of "I have my own opinion about whatever you're doing, but - like, that's just my opinion, man."
That's not good enough.
That's what the general discussion is about. But my post was in reply to yours which said that upbringing etc had nothing to do with how we determine morality. I think that's been put to bed.
Correct. Your standards are a reflection of who you are. Your upbringing and all those other factors we've been listing determine that. And look, this is pretty obvious. If you'd been born to Mr. and Mrs Chan in 17th century China, or the Omars in modern day Iran or the Nguyens in Vietnam in the 60's then your personal outlook will be a reflection of your parents, your times, your religion, your culture etc etc.
As I'm not arguing that it sounds like we're in agreement.
I'll have to point out again that murder, by the very definition of the word, is determined to be wrong. Someone can be killed in one society and if it's not illegal then it's not murder. If someone is killed in a society where it is illegal, then it's murder. The morality of the act is exactly the same. All that changes is the legal situation.
And again I need to point out that a universal agreement on a moral matter does not, in itself, make it absolute. If everyone in existence agreed that X was wrong, you can't say it is therefore an absolute position. Because if one single person changed their mind then it would become relative. And that's nonsensical.
Got it.My apologies I thought if I starred *solely* it would be obvious that was my insertion.
Let the record show. *IMPEACH TRUMP*
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?