Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

So, you claim the German "society" did not approve of the extermination of the Jews? And that "a lot of Germans had no idea"? And your evidence is a Sargent Shultz "I know nothing" defense?
View attachment 371570

They knew the Jews were demonized and harassed. Nearly all were likely aware of deportation from their communities. Many that they were sent to camps. It becomes a lot fuzzier about what was known of the activities in the camps. The actual nature of activities in the camps was kept out of general knowledge and many of them were in occupied territory, though some knowledge was circulating inside Germany. Oberfeldwebel Schultz is precisely on point as there was a lot of willful ignorance going on. Given previous anti-Jewish rhetoric in Nazi it was easy to suppose that worse things than were officially stated were going on.

The point here is that the Nazi regime went to significant effort to keep the true nature of their intentions and actions from the international community and the German people. One must suppose that this is precisely since Germans found extermination to be immoral even if they had hatred toward Jews in the "hearts".

Did you know about the Wannsee Conference of 1942?

"On January 20, 1942, 15 high-ranking Nazi Party and German government officials gathered at a villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss and coordinate the implementation of what they called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."​

I did know about it. Now, can you show the German people knew about it? That was the point. The conferees knew that what they were up to was not going to pass muster with the with the German people or the international community.

Of course it does.

Just trying to keep up with your moving the goal posts.

OK, Mr. Pot.

Is such "awful" (your word, not mine) behavior normal? Of course, it is not. So, I ask again, do you desire to know the truth?

If wasting intellect to reinforce false beliefs isn't "normal" then you need to go tell that to the apologists.

 

[o_mlly]

If wasting intellect to reinforce false beliefs isn't "normal" then you need to go tell that to the apologists.

Why deflect? Do you desire to know the truth? (Third request; it's a simple "yes" or "no" question.)

 

[Bradskii]

I'm afaid you won;t find morality out there.

My point is there would be no context if there were no objective morality. You

Relative morality is context dependent. Again...give me an act that has no context and we'll examine it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Relative morality is context dependent. Again...give me an act that has no context and we'll examine it.

I'm having a difficult time thinking of a context in which torturing and murder for fun are in fact "ok"?
Do you know something I don't, Bradskii?

 

[Colo Millz]

I'm having a difficult time thinking of a context in which torturing and murder for fun are in fact "ok"?
Do you know something I don't, Bradskii?

But you see murder is "by definition" evil and thus doesn't count.

Or something.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why deflect? Do you desire to know the truth? (Third request; it's a simple "yes" or "no" question.)

You keep diverting the responses to this unsupported claim:

For example, humans have an intellect that seeks the truth. Humans (normal) desire truth to satisfy the needs of their intellect.

As I told you before, humans spend an awful lot of their intellectual efforts trying to support as "true" things that they want to be true. I gave you the example of apologetics. Would you prefer to go back to the topic or do you want to play this nonsense game about "truth"?

 

[Ophiolite]

B. You can have different faiths and still agree on the basic morals. Even if you have different starting points, you can end up at the same end point. So I don't see why everyone has to accept Jesus, it is not needed in my experience.

@2PhiloVoid wishes us to follow the Northern Star; a nice analogy untilt one recalls that the Northen Star changes over time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@2PhiloVoid wishes us to follow the Northern Star; a nice analogy untilt one recalls that the Northen Star changes over time.

It oscillates in brightness with a 4 day period.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm having a difficult time thinking of a context in which torturing and murder for fun are in fact "ok"?
Do you know something I don't, Bradskii?

You make the same mistake as so many others have.

Torture is:
Inflicting pain (that is the act)...
...as punishment or in order to extract information (that is the context).

Murder is:
Killing someone (that is the act)...
...in a premeditated and illegal way (that is the context).

Your terms contain both the act and the context. To show an exampe of objective morality you need to find an act with no context. Because all acts with context are relative to that context. For example:

Lying is wrong

There's no context. So can you tell me if it's morally acceptable or not? No, it needs contex:

Lying to cheat on your wife

Now you can decide if it's right or wrong. Because it's relative the context.

 

[stevevw]

Relative morality is context dependent. Again...give me an act that has no context and we'll examine it.

I am disagreeing with the analogy and methodlogy in the first place that you are using to determine morality. So why would I play along lol. It will not prove anything about whether there is actually absolute or objective morals.

The logic and reasoning are self defeating and incoherent as the basis for morality. In fact dangerous.

 

[Bradskii]

But you see murder is "by definition" evil and thus doesn't count.

Murder is the act of killing within a certain context. The term contains both the act and the context. Now that you know both you can decide if it's morally acceptable or not. See the post above if you need more info.

 

[Bradskii]

I am disagreeing with the analogy and methodlogy in the first place that you are using to determine morality. So why would I play along lol. It will not prove anything about whether there is actually absolute or objective morals.

The logic and reasoning are self defeating and incoherent as the basis for morality. In fact dangerous.

In other words...you can't think of an act without any context whereby we can determine the morality of said act. Can you agree with that, please? Then we'd be done.

Failing that, your only other option (and there are only 2) is to agree that the morality of all acts are determined by the context.

Which is it? It's not possible to disagree with both.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid wishes us to follow the Northern Star; a nice analogy untilt one recalls that the Northen Star changes over time.

That's fair. I suck at using analogies anyway, which is one reason I so rarely attempt to use them.

 

[o_mlly]

As I told you before, humans spend an awful lot of their intellectual efforts trying to support as "true" things that they want to be true. I gave you the example of apologetics. Would you prefer to go back to the topic or do you want to play this nonsense game about "truth"?

Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You make the same mistake as so many others have.

Torture is:
Inflicting pain (that is the act)...
...as punishment or in order to extract information (that is the context).

Murder is:
Killing someone (that is the act)...
...in a premeditated and illegal way (that is the context).

Your terms contain both the act and the context. To show an exampe of objective morality you need to find an act with no context. Because all acts with context are relative to that context. For example:

Lying is wrong

There's no context. So can you tell me if it's morally acceptable or not? No, it needs contex:

Lying to cheat on your wife

Now you can decide if it's right or wrong. Because it's relative the context.

So, should I take this response of yours to mean that you do think there's a context in which torturing and murdering for fun is ok? The thing is, I have a cognitive deficiency in being able to envision a place or milieu in which Moral Relativism passes from merely being descriptive to a prescriptive state of Normative Moral Relativism where, ontologically speaking, I would then have to tolerate that alternative "moral decision making process," especially if it advocates for torturing and murdering for fun.

I'm not clear as to what you're actually trying to say (like I would be if I were to read one of the many, many sources on Ethics and Morality I have ---and by golly, I have a lot of them). From which sources on Ethics are you pulling your answer here, Bradskii? Don't tell me you thought this response up all on your very own. If you do, I might become "nonplussed."

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So, should I take this response of yours to mean that you do think there's a context in which torturing and murdering for fun is ok?

I'm not clear as to what you're actually trying to say (like I would be if I were to read one of the many, many sources on Ethics and Morality I have ---and by golly, I have a lot of them). From which sources on Ethics are you pulling your answer here, Bradskii? Don't tell me you thought all of this response up on your very own.

I'll bite, sure I can find contexts where person A being murdered by person B for fun wouldn't cause me feeling any moral outrage.

Here is a hypothetical context I can think about. Let's say I'm a soldier in a trench and I'm out of ammo when two enemies comes up to me. If soldier 1 then shoots soldier 2 and laughs at it and walks away, I wouldn't feel any moral outrage, I would be ok with that. However, it would be murder in all jurisdictions I know about.

 

[Bradskii]

So, should I take this response of yours to mean that you do think there's a context in which torturing and murdering for fun is ok?

No, you're still not grasping it. Torture is hurting someone 'as a punishment or to obtain information'. Note the context in quotes.

Really, what is there about that that you cannot understand?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll bite, sure I can find contexts where person A being murdered by person B for fun wouldn't cause me feeling any moral outrage.

What are you biting here? All you've done is add a qualifier to my original inquiry, thus making it a different inquiry. I was asking about whether or not there is a scenario where some secondary party will experience appropriate moral outrage when encountering "person A's" immoral actions.

No, the goal here is to think of a context (milieu, scenario, place, situation, etc.) where, ontologically and axiologically, it actually 'is ok and is justified' and should be recognized as such under the umbrella of Normative Moral Relativism.

Here is a hypothetical context I can think about. Let's say I'm a soldier in a trench and I'm out of ammo when two enemies comes up to me. If soldier 1 then shoots soldier 2 and laughs at it and walks away, I wouldn't feel any moral outrage, I would be ok with that. However, it would be murder in all jurisdictions I know about.

And from which legal, ethical or religious framework have your drawn this scenario? Did you just make it up on the fly. Again, this isn't about whether or not YOU personally, individually think something is ok. It's about, rather, if it indeed has some significant ontological substance to it by which the rest of us have to pause and say, "In Person A's milieu, we recognize that it actually is ok, and not simply that Person A thinks it's ok."

See the difference of the implications?

 

[Ophiolite]

It oscillates in brightness with a 4 day period.

True, but I was thinking of the longer term 26,000 (?) year cycle related to precession of the Earth's poles that alter which star is the pole star, while at times there is no bright star close to that position at all.

That's fair. I suck at using analogies anyway, which is one reason I so rarely attempt to use them.

Nicely acknowledged. And thank you for not mentioning my apparent typing error, where I had "untilt" rather than "until". I say apparent error, because obviously this was a subtle reference to the tilt of the Earth's poles, as noted above with Hans. Other seeming errors of spelling, grammar, or fact throughout my posts can be explained away in a similar fashion. Yet despite this super-power I never went into politics.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What are you biting here? All you've done is add a qualifier to my original inquiry, thus making it a different inquiry. I was asking about whether or not there is a scenario where some secondary party will experience appropriate moral outrage when encountering "person A's" immoral actions.

No, the goal here is to think of a context (milieu, scenario, place, situation, etc.) where, ontologically and axiologically, it actually 'is ok and is justified' and should be recognized as such under the umbrella of Normative Moral Relativism.

Sure, I jumped in the middle of your discussion but where did you qualify that it must be recognized as such under the umbrella of Normative Moral Relativism and just not only by anyone?

And from which legal, ethical or religious framework have your drawn this scenario? Did you just make it up on the fly.

Yes.

Again, this isn't about whether or not YOU personally, individually think something is ok.

I thought it was, why should I care if you think it's ok?

It's about, rather, if it indeed has some significant ontological substance to it by which the rest of us have to pause and say, "In Person A's milieu, we recognize that it actually is ok, and not simply that Person A thinks it's ok."

I'm not person A in my example. I don't care if person A think it's ok.

See the difference of the implications?

I'm not sure.