Are morals universal?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Are morals universal? » Are morals universal?

Are morals universal?
Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Are morals universal?

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:40 AM:	#121
Think about it. (2) and (4) are exactly the same premise because of how you constructed (3).
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 10:35 AM:	#122
Kant Chocula wrote: That's not the case. It begs the question because you are defining your concepts in terms of what you are attempting to prove. (3) begs the question because you are trying to prove (4) by building your conclusion into (3). OR is it that I am defining my proof based on the actual definitions of the words (a novel concept). You seem to be saying, "Because I know he is guilty, he must be guilty in THIS way..." Kant Chocula wrote: Think about it. (2) and (4) are exactly the same premise because of how you constructed (3). But if I leave out that step, then it would be non-sequetor because there would be no stated relation between support and love (just as Wolfman already accused by leaving that step out himself). So if I don't say it then I guilty of "non-segue" but if I state it then I am guilty of "equivocating" or "begging a question". You guys seriously need to be deprogrammed and retrained. It is obvious that you are merely going to disagree with anything proposed, which was my point earlier. It doesn't matter how logical or rational someone's statements, if it isn't in your programming, you must attack it.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:24 AM:	#123
Wolfman wrote: Odin, I actually agree with some of what you’re saying. I have a few responses though, in the form of questions, to see if we’re on the same page. 1. Are the actions on this list immoral under all circumstances? If not, it seems rather arbitrary to say when it is moral to lie or steal for example, and when it is immoral to lie or steal. The agent who subscribes to this system might have a whole lot of freedom, and subsequently may act inconsistently, which is what we want to avoid in a moral theory. Yes, they are all immoral, the reason I distinguish is because most people think laws against white lies are unneccessary while laws against massive financial fraud are important. They cover the same thing - deception. The difference is some forms of deception are more destructive to our obligations and purpose than others. Some actions are more destructive in that way than others. If you take that to mean that some are more immoral, that is fine. Usually actions considered 'more' immoral are more destructive to those obligations. [quote]2. You suppose the Aristotelian concept of functionality. Are you also proposing a philosophy of moderation? And are you proposing virtue ethics? If you mean that 'the function of a being is to have its soul act in accordance with virtue' or whatever Aristotle says, no it's not quite what I mean and I am not really proposing virtue ethics. Humans do have a function or purpose, yes, but it doesn't relate to what Aristotle called it in my opinion. Arbitrarily saying that virtues fall in a certain place between vices isn't reason - we have to be able to prove what is and is not virtuous. Think of what I'm saying very simply. Absolute Postulate of human life ------> Reason -------> Principles of Morality ------> Right or Wrong Actions. 3. You are confronted with a scenario where you can choose to viciously torture and kill an innocent child in order to save the world. Do you torture and kill the innocent child in order to save the world, or abstain from action and have everyone perish? You abstain from action and have everyone perish. Or at least that is the "right" thing to do. I don't really like these type of hypotheticals because particularly in this example it excludes that fact that your decision would have to be prompted by an act of evil by someone else. There is never a situation where this is the case except when another human has created it. When another human has created an ultimatum for you (torture baby or they will destroy humanity), the only right thing to do is to accept that their evil is not in your hands but only your own good or evil you have control over. Now practically, of course, we could do something different for expediency but we'd have to admit that we did it despite that the opposite was actually the right action. We could reason that since the baby was going to die anyway, and it's own death was a foregone conclusion, we might as well kill it in an attempt to save everyone else. 4. You are confronted with a scenario where you can choose to viciously torture and kill an innocent child in order to save two other innocent children. Do you torture and kill the innocent child in order to save the two other innocent children, or abstain from action and let them die? You most certainly don't. There is no such thing as "letting them die" when it is another person taking their life. If you were in a situation where you had to choose, the morally right thing to do is to keep your own actions moral despite the consequences and only force others to do evil if they choose to. It seems to be a kind of utilitarian approach this example tries to lean people toward (deceptively I might add). The really perverse thing about this example is that utilitarianism looks at the outcome of saving 2 lives as opposed to ending 1 and concludes that something morally righteous happened (it can only look at the consequences), when in fact that the situation spawned out of something dreadfully evil and no matter what action we take an evil will take place. If utilitarianism assigns any blame it blames the man who was given the choice and not the people who forced him to make the choice. Should he kill the one child he is responsible for the loss of happiness that results but is also responsible for the greater happiness that results and since it is a net positive outcome he must have done something righteous in the process. Disgusting logic to me. The only difficult scenario is if your own child is one of the two you can 'save' by murdering the third. Most people find this much more difficult to decide not to kill the one because it is the issue of their continuing obligations at stake.

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:38 AM:	#124
Moral laws can't be discovered by investigating moral reality. What is the upshot of this? To fuzzily quote Carnap, "there can only be a question of right and wrong within a system of values." You've got to decide on what you care about before moral questions become possible to frame. Being able to decide what you want to want is necessary for being morally judged.

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:17 PM:	#125
James S Saint wrote: And since you obviously haven't studied logic; Main Entry: equiv·o·cate Pronunciation: \i-?kwi-v?-?k?t\ Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): equiv·o·cat·ed; equiv·o·cat·ing Date: 1590 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Did you just appeal to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to procure a definition for a logical fallacy? That doesn’t explain what an equivocation is in a philosophical context! By the way, you don’t have to have an "intent to deceive" when you equivocate. Also, just to correct your inaccurate observation, I’ve taken rigorous courses in symbolic logic. The question I want to know is, what are you taking? EDIT: no pun intended Edited by Wolfman on 10/30/09 - 12:28 PM
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:27 PM:	#126
Schlitz wrote: You've got to decide on what you care about before moral questions become possible to frame. Being able to decide what you want to want is necessary for being morally judged. Exactly.

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:28 PM:	#127
Odin, It’s pretty obvious that many of these scenarios are rather far-fetched, but the point isn’t to get too caught up in the extreme conditions. In ethics we use these thought experiments for analytical purposes, e.g., learning about moral psychology, determining deontological/utilitarian leanings in an individual, to test normative moral theories and prod for deficiencies, etc. I think it rather disingenuous to attack these hypotheticals on the grounds that they are extreme. They are meant to be. Now, the agent-centered restrictions that you impose, e.g., the impermissibility of killing, lying, stealing, adultery, seem quite arbitrary. But let’s forget that for the moment and focus on a different problem. I asked you if those actions are immoral under all circumstances, to which you answered affirmatively. This is problematic, and I’ll show why in the following example. You are presented with a scenario where you can lie to save the world or refrain from lying and have the world perish. Since you maintain that lying is immoral under all circumstances, it would follow that lying to save the world is immoral. However, if you refrain from lying and the world perishes, you are undermining what you say is the point of morality altogether. Now, you might respond saying that it would be permissible to lie in this situation (after all, what’s a eensy-weensy fib compared to the welfare of the world?), but then what is the point of saying lying is immoral under all circumstances? You would in effect be maintaining that lying is immoral under all circumstances, while maintaining that it is permissible to act immorally, e.g., lie, sometimes. Then the grounds on which it is permissible are NOT moral grounds. What is the point of having a normative system of morality if you can abandon it and defer to a different sort of reasoning on a whim? Edited by Wolfman on 10/30/09 - 12:44 PM. Reason: spelling
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:29 PM:	#128
Wolfman wrote: Did you just appeal to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to procure a definition for a logical fallacy? That doesn’t explain what an equivocation is in a philosophical context! By the way, you don’t have to have an "intent to deceive" when you equivocate. Also, just to correct your inaccurate observation, I’ve taken rigorous courses in symbolic logic. The question I want to know is, what are you taking?[/quote] As I said, he doesn't find any actual error. He merely proclaims error, tries to sound elite, and then adds ad-hom.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:44 PM:	#129
Wolfman wrote: Odin, It’s pretty obvious that many of these scenarios are rather far-fetched, but the point isn’t to get too caught up in the extreme conditions. In ethics we use these thought experiments for analytical purposes, e.g., learning about moral psychology, determining deontological/utilitarian leanings in an individual, to test normative moral theories and prod for deficiencies, etc. I think it rather disingenuous to attack these hypotheticals on the grounds that they are extreme. They are meant to be. Now, the agent-centered restrictions that you impose, e.g., the impermissibility of killing, lying, stealing, adultery, seem quite arbitrary. But let’s forget that for the moment and focus on a different problem. I asked you if those actions are immoral under all circumstances, to which you answered affirmatively. This is problematic, and I’ll show why in the following example. You are presented with a scenario where you can lie to save the world or refrain from lying and have the world perish. Since you maintain that lying is immoral under all circumstances, it would follow that lying to save the world is immoral. However, if you refrain from lying and the world perishes, you are undermining what you say is point of morality altogether. Now, you might respond saying that it would be permissible to lie in this situation (after all, what’s a eensy-weensy fib compared to the welfare of the world?), but then what is the point of saying lying is immoral under all circumstances? You would in effect be maintaining that lying is immoral under all circumstances, while maintaining that it is permissible to act immorally, e.g., lie, sometimes. Then the grounds on which it is permissible are NOT moral grounds. What is the point of having a normative system of morality if you can abandon it and defer to a different sort of reasoning on a whim? I understand the point of the hypotheticals but it is important to include all neccessary information in order to evaluate the situation at hand. Acting morally is contingent on other people you are interacting with doing the same (the 'I won't kill you if you won't kill me' type of thing). Yes, lying to save the world is immoral. But since, as you said, the world being destroyed is going to undermine all morality anyway, we're going to make the sacrifice and do a little bit of 'evil' to allow the concept of 'good' to continue existing. The same question arises: why do you have to lie to save the world? There are, in fact, probably some circumstances in which lying actually wouldn't be wrong (I know I've contradictd myself slightly there), but again, between 2 non-related people whether I act morally to them depends on whether they do so to me as well. I haven't done evil if I kill someone trying to kill me. Nor do I do evil if I lie to someone trying to kill me, or lie to someone holding me against my will, because any condition of morality that existed no longer exists. So if someone is trying to destroy the world all all human life on it, and I lie in order to stop him, I haven't done anything wrong.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:15 PM:	#130
Odin, your moral statement has to include the situation, "never lie under these circumstances", "Always assist under these circumstances",... When you find one in which the circumstance is merely being alive, then you have that universal and unchanging moral(s).

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.