Noah's Ark

[VirOptimus]

If people are involved so is morality.

Sure, doesnt mean it exists.

 

[Goonie]

Sure, doesnt mean it exists.

Except in the mind of people. Did not expect to be debating morality on a thread on Noah's Ark.

 

[VirOptimus]

Except in the mind of people. Did not expect to be debating morality on a thread on Noah's Ark.

Indeed. And there is a lot that, in my view, doesnt exist that affect peoples behaviour, like f.ex. god(s).

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not sure I understand the point you think you are making, what difference would it make if I belived in moral absolutes (or moral existing, which I dont, its just something we imagine)?

The point is that you have no basis for condemning the actions of the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, unless you think that your personal opinions somehow trump their personal opinions.

 

[Goonie]

Indeed. And there is a lot that, in my view, doesnt exist that affect peoples behaviour, like f.ex. belief in god(s).

Morality, gods, both the creations of the human mind, I agree.

 

[VirOptimus]

The point is that you have no basis for condemning the actions of the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, unless you think that your personal opinions somehow trump their personal opinions.

I dont, but I do think I have good arguments that will sway reasonable people.

Just saying they are "evil" is not a good argument.

 

[Skreeper]

The point is that you have no basis for condemning the actions of the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, unless you think that your personal opinions somehow trump their personal opinions.

Do you also think that we can't say that something is beautiful without an objective standard that indicates what is objectively beautiful?

Sure it's "just" our opinion when we condemn certain actions. I fail to see what your problem with that is though.

 

[lesliedellow]

I dont, but I do think I have good arguments that will sway reasonable people.

Just saying they are "evil" is not a good argument.

And so we are back to the scenario in which the Nazis won the Second World War, and through a process of enculturation the population of Europe had come to embrace the new "morality". How many "reasonable people" would you be able to persuade then?

 

[VirOptimus]

And so we are back to the scenario in which the Nazis won the Second World War, and through a process of enculturation the population of Europe had come to embrace the new "morality". How many "reasonable people" would you be able to persuade then?

I dont know, do you?

Have you ever studied moral philosophy?

 

[Goonie]

And so we are back to the scenario in which the Nazis won the Second World War, and through a process of enculturation the population of Europe had come to embrace the new "morality". How many "reasonable people" would you be able to persuade then?

Problem with this kind of absolute morality is that 100 years ago homosexuality would be considered as serious a moral offence as rape, tell me do you agree?

 

[VirOptimus]

Problem with this kind of absolute morality is that 100 years ago homosexuality would be considered as serious a moral offence as rape, tell me do you agree?

Indeed, a belief in absolute morality seriously hinders development.

 

[lesliedellow]

I dont know, do you?

I know that you wouldn't be able to persuade people who were quite sure you were the deviant one.

Have you ever studied moral philosophy?

Am I supposed to before being able to say that the Nazis were evil?

 

[Goonie]

Indeed, a belief in absolute morality seriously hinders development.

But in society morality does exist, but is it does change, it is not absolute.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-


Am I supposed to before being able to say that the Nazis were evil?

Well, your arguments is very basic and also ill-informed. I would suggest reading up a bit.

Kant, Kirkegaard and Joseph Raz are good philosophers to study.

As for the snipped part, it would make no difference if I belived in moral absolutes.

 

[lesliedellow]

Problem with this kind of absolute morality is that 100 years ago homosexuality would be considered as serious a moral offence as rape, tell me do you agree

Scientific theories can change, but that does not mean that there is no objective reality there to be discovered. Ideas about morality can change, but that does not mean that there is no objective morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

But in society morality does exist, but is it does change, it is not absolute.

No it doesnt, we as moral agents, have moral ideas but it doesnt exist per se.

 

[VirOptimus]

Scientific theories can change, but that does not mean that there is no objective reality there to be discovered. Ideas about morality can change, but that does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Prove it, where is this moral truth and how may we know it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Kant, Kirkegaard and Joseph Raz are good philosophers to study.

That sort of elitism might cut some ice when there is genuinely a specialised knoledge to be obtained, but not when everybody and his dog knows that murder is immoral.

 

[VirOptimus]

That sort of elitism might cut some ice when there is genuinely a specialised knoledge to be obtained, but not when everybody and his dog knows that murder is immoral.

If I sound eltist so be it but moral philosophy is something very smart people have studied and thought about for a very long time.

The arguments and problems are very complicated indeed and not so easy as you seem to think.

As I said in my previous post, if there is an absolute moral truth, where do we find it?

 

[lesliedellow]

Prove it, where is this moral truth and how may we know it.

That is a problem for you to resolve, but you do not resolve it by pretending that the problem isn't there. How do you prove objective morality exists? By being honest with yourself. You know as well as I do that the Nazis were evil, and you are just squirming because you don't like one potential answer to the question of where objective morality comes from.