Pages: 1 2

 

2006-12-29 22:19:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina
In modern society, there are 3 major lines of thinking regarding ethics....

1. Morality - the idea that some set of universal ethics exists throughout the world, independent of religion.  Absolutism is similar to this idea....

2. Relativism - the idea that there are no moral absolutes, and therefore morality is only a matter of opinion.

3. Naturalism - the idea that our innate natures contradict any sense of morality and that morality is just a convenient illusion we practice out of tradition or practicality....

Personally, I'm a supporter of morality or secular humanism.

Where do you guys stand on this, and why?
2006-12-29 22:33:15
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7147|Eastern PA
I'm in camp 3. I've seen too many people throw away their so-called principles at opportune moments.
2006-12-29 22:35:43
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245
relativism and naturalism aren't necessarily exclusive to each other, because morals and ethics do in fact exist, and they do vary significantly across culture. of course, if we examine cases of moral ambiguity, what guides human behavior is often more along naturalistic lines.

this now being a purely philosophical discussion, however, we would have more fun if we were forced into taking absolutist positions. that is, we must adopt one choice to the total exclusion of the others, and support our chosen school of thought to its logical ultimate end.

what i believe the world ought to be, and what i believe the world to be, are in conflict. like most normal people, i think it would be nice if everyone followed the rules, got along, and were generally at peace. people being what they are, this isn't going to happen spontaneously, therefore we must have universal morality as a guide. incidentally this pretty much explains the anthropological origin of organized religion.

the reason that the illusion of morality is strong, is because humans can survive easily. we obey laws and codes of ethics as long as long as our survival is not threatened, but when we are pushed, we almost always revert to naturalistic behavior. in fact, moral law often changes in these circumstances, which in itself is evidence against the universality of morals.

an example: killing is not allowed in most societies. at the same time, killing is allowed in most societies in situations of self defense. therefore there is no absolute moral imperative against the taking of life.

i have more to say but i'll see where you guys go with this.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2006-12-29 22:36:20)

2006-12-29 22:41:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina
Good points, Masques and Krappyappy.

I'll throw this in though...  Would either of you agree that attempting to abide by some sort of moral code is best for you in a personal sense?  If you go only by instinct, it seems to put you in danger of societal retribution.

Survival is, indeed, a big part of this, and by extension, most of us attempt to abide by local laws (or at least avoid being caught breaking them).  What helps most people remain lawful is a personally enforced code of ethics.  Some people follow a religion in order to do this, and people like myself follow what we feel is most logical given the cultural environment.

In summary, even if morality is somewhat artificial in nature, isn't it still important to have some sort of code to follow on a personal level?
2006-12-29 22:46:13
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245
codes and laws that restrict behavior is crucial to the functioning of any society. there is no doubt or dissent on that issue. what is in question here is whether those laws are guided by universal imperatives or functionality.

i say, killing another man is against the rules not because it's 'wrong' but because it enables a breakdown in the social machinery.
2006-12-29 22:51:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Krappyappy wrote:

codes and laws that restrict behavior is crucial to the functioning of any society. there is no doubt or dissent on that issue. what is in question here is whether those laws are guided by universal imperatives or functionality.

i say, killing another man is against the rules not because it's 'wrong' but because it enables a breakdown in the social machinery.
True...  for the most part, I agree.  The only ambiguity here is that I think humans naturally feel bad when they do certain things -- even if they haven't been indoctrinated into a religion or culture.

For example, unless a person is sociopathic or brainwashed in favor of it, most people feel bad if they kill someone for reasons other than revenge or self-defense.  Would you agree with that assessment?
2006-12-29 22:54:41
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245
it's very difficult to separate out the effects of instinct and environment, in the classic nature/nurture divide.

none of us grow up in a cultural vacuum, so how can we say that the remorse we feel is caused by some natural inclination as opposed to a culturally implanted ethic?

on the other hand, doesn't the fact that someone CAN be brainwashed to feel no remorse demonstrate that we really DON'T have any natural morality?
2006-12-29 23:00:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Krappyappy wrote:

it's very difficult to separate out the effects of instinct and environment, in the classic nature/nurture divide.

none of us grow up in a cultural vacuum, so how can we say that the remorse we feel is caused by some natural inclination as opposed to a culturally implanted ethic?

on the other hand, doesn't the fact that someone CAN be brainwashed to feel no remorse demonstrate that we really DON'T have any natural morality?
Well, my personal belief is that we have instincts that are already somewhat compassionate.  Things like conditioning and religion can often counter these instincts though.  Just because a mental form of training has the ability of removing or suppressing an instinct, it doesn't make that instinct any less natural.

I guess where we probably disagree is that I don't believe all of our instincts are as negative or amoral as you seem to suggest.

I think we do have basic compassionate leanings that conflict with other instincts of "fight or flight".
2006-12-29 23:07:06
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245
we certainly have compassionate instincts. toward our 'in-group' and genetic relatives, we have a vested interest in helping them.

but to me, even that is amoral. we are compassionate for an evolutionary advantage, not for a moral imperative.

it's more difficult when it comes to out-groupers, and cases of altruism. this is a perpetual stumbling block for evolution theorists, as there is no easy explanation for altruism.

i am of the opinion that true altruism doesn't exist, as you are always conscious that you are doing a good deed, and at the very least receive a psychological reward from your act of good samaritanism, even if subconsciously.

i'm going to bed now, i'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2006-12-29 23:07:50)

2006-12-29 23:17:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Krappyappy wrote:

we certainly have compassionate instincts. toward our 'in-group' and genetic relatives, we have a vested interest in helping them.

but to me, even that is amoral. we are compassionate for an evolutionary advantage, not for a moral imperative.

it's more difficult when it comes to out-groupers, and cases of altruism. this is a perpetual stumbling block for evolution theorists, as there is no easy explanation for altruism.

i am of the opinion that true altruism doesn't exist, as you are always conscious that you are doing a good deed, and at the very least receive a psychological reward from your act of good samaritanism, even if subconsciously.

i'm going to bed now, i'll check back on this thread tomorrow.
Your ideas sound very reminiscent of Objectivism.  I agree with a lot of that ideology.

I guess the easiest way for me to explain this is that I define compassion in terms of rational self-interests.  In other words, helping others and being respectful benefits yourself and others almost equally, because favors are usually returned.  When looking at it collectively, the effects are multiplied.  So, I guess my definition of compassion is technically more selfish than most.

So, perhaps...  looking at it this way, we can say that humans are somewhat naturally compassionate (as defined above), but they are not actually "moral," so to speak.
2006-12-29 23:24:48
jonsimon
Member
+224|6920

Turquoise wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

it's very difficult to separate out the effects of instinct and environment, in the classic nature/nurture divide.

none of us grow up in a cultural vacuum, so how can we say that the remorse we feel is caused by some natural inclination as opposed to a culturally implanted ethic?

on the other hand, doesn't the fact that someone CAN be brainwashed to feel no remorse demonstrate that we really DON'T have any natural morality?
Well, my personal belief is that we have instincts that are already somewhat compassionate.  Things like conditioning and religion can often counter these instincts though.  Just because a mental form of training has the ability of removing or suppressing an instinct, it doesn't make that instinct any less natural.

I guess where we probably disagree is that I don't believe all of our instincts are as negative or amoral as you seem to suggest.

I think we do have basic compassionate leanings that conflict with other instincts of "fight or flight".
You are quite correct, all animals are born with psychological barriers to killing memebers of the same species. Murder is the absolute last resort in an intra-species conflict. This is a known fact. Considering, it can be easily argued that humans must have at least a certain measure of "morality" in that sense. However, the counterpoint is that the barrier serves the purpose of protecting ourselves from the spread of disease and to further preserve our species. As such, the arguement becomes a minor semantic stipulation hinging on the definition of morality.
2006-12-29 23:35:23
SpanktorTheGreat
Bringer of slight pain and mild discomfort.
+1|7239

Turquoise wrote:

In modern society, there are 3 major lines of thinking regarding ethics....

1. Morality - the idea that some set of universal ethics exists throughout the world, independent of religion.  Absolutism is similar to this idea....

2. Relativism - the idea that there are no moral absolutes, and therefore morality is only a matter of opinion.

3. Naturalism - the idea that our innate natures contradict any sense of morality and that morality is just a convenient illusion we practice out of tradition or practicality....

Personally, I'm a supporter of morality or secular humanism.

Where do you guys stand on this, and why?
1. This is the most likely to be true. Without an objective moral value words like "good" and "bad" loose their meaning. In order for true peace to exist for men there has to be one "moral measurement device" to individually measure ourself by, and natural man is not capable of producing this. Perhaps only God is right and all humans are wrong on different levels. This seems crazy to some , but it is the only explanation that fits into reality for me.

2. It is imposable for this one to work in reality, because of the law of non contradiction. Relative truth is unlivable in this time space continuum and I can demonstrate that.

3. This doesn't work, because it begs the question: what human introduced the first moral traditions that make up the resedue we have today?
2006-12-29 23:37:42
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6967|Texas - Bigger than France
I would think all three apply.

Morality can't exist without perspective (relativity) or individualistic choices (naturalism).

Relativity can't exist without knowing what is right or wrong (morality), nor can it exist without weighing the potential gains of making the decision (naturalism).

Naturalism can't exist without ingraining a sense of morals dictated by your society to understand the potential consequences of your decisions, while understanding the choices you make will affect others.

I guess I believe we're social animals cursed to try to improve at the individual level.  Even if you follow the majority of the population's mores, there is an individual payoff for the participant.  However, since we are also cursed to continually improve, people will not hesitate to act out against society if they believe it will benefit society or themselves, even if it causes lasting harm.
2006-12-30 08:54:56
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245

Turquoise wrote:

Your ideas sound very reminiscent of Objectivism.  I agree with a lot of that ideology.

I guess the easiest way for me to explain this is that I define compassion in terms of rational self-interests.  In other words, helping others and being respectful benefits yourself and others almost equally, because favors are usually returned.  When looking at it collectively, the effects are multiplied.  So, I guess my definition of compassion is technically more selfish than most.

So, perhaps...  looking at it this way, we can say that humans are somewhat naturally compassionate (as defined above), but they are not actually "moral," so to speak.
i first read ayn rand when i was in high school. it completely screwed me up for a whole year, GG. certainly the influence is still with me today, though the magnitude is uncertain.

your definition of compassion is precisely the reason why an evolutionary explanation of true altruism continues to elude the scientific community. especially in our dealings with out-groupers, things are mostly tit-for-tat, and operate on an exchange system more than a favor system.

jonsimon wrote:

You are quite correct, all animals are born with psychological barriers to killing memebers of the same species. Murder is the absolute last resort in an intra-species conflict. This is a known fact.
sorry, this is completely and utterly untrue. one of the most commonly recorded phenomena in animal behavior is infanticide, where adult animals kill young ones. this is true of carnivores like lions as well as herbivores like rabbits, and is prevalent from primates down to rats and across to birds.

and i have scientific proof.

intra-species infanticide is a form of competition. males will kill infants fathered by other males to free up resources for their own offspring. in mammals, when a mother loses its young, she will return to estrus and become fertile once again, which enables the aggressor to father his own offspring. females also engage in infanticide in competition for limited resources.

spanktorthegreat wrote:

2. It is imposable for this one to work in reality, because of the law of non contradiction. Relative truth is unlivable in this time space continuum and I can demonstrate that.
then please do. so far your point is only empty assertion without any support.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2006-12-30 09:10:47)

2006-12-30 09:16:05
jonsimon
Member
+224|6920

Krappyappy wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

You are quite correct, all animals are born with psychological barriers to killing memebers of the same species. Murder is the absolute last resort in an intra-species conflict. This is a known fact.
sorry, this is completely and utterly untrue. one of the most commonly recorded phenomena in animal behavior is infanticide, where adult animals kill young ones. this is true of carnivores like lions as well as herbivores like rabbits, and is prevalent from primates down to rats and across to birds.

and i have scientific proof.

intra-species infanticide is a form of competition. males will kill infants fathered by other males to free up resources for their own offspring. in mammals, when a mother loses its young, she will return to estrus and become fertile once again, which enables the aggressor to father his own offspring. females also engage in infanticide in competition for limited resources.
Fine, there is an exception, infants. However, the rule remains true otherwise.

Edit: And pschologically speaking, the exception makes sense as infants are not yet equal members of the species and thus it is possible individuals may overcome the barrier when under significant pressure to do so.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-12-30 10:01:58)

2006-12-30 09:48:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Krappyappy wrote:

i first read ayn rand when i was in high school. it completely screwed me up for a whole year, GG. certainly the influence is still with me today, though the magnitude is uncertain.
Ayn Rand is interesting.  She made some good points, but she does get too dogmatic at times.  But yeah, objectivism is one of her better ideas.

Krappyappy wrote:

sorry, this is completely and utterly untrue. one of the most commonly recorded phenomena in animal behavior is infanticide, where adult animals kill young ones. this is true of carnivores like lions as well as herbivores like rabbits, and is prevalent from primates down to rats and across to birds.

and i have scientific proof.

intra-species infanticide is a form of competition. males will kill infants fathered by other males to free up resources for their own offspring. in mammals, when a mother loses its young, she will return to estrus and become fertile once again, which enables the aggressor to father his own offspring. females also engage in infanticide in competition for limited resources.
Good points...  I didn't think of that.  I think what jonsimon should have said was that humans don't normally behave that way.  Granted, I suppose you could argue that is a result of culture, not of nature.

Krappyappy wrote:

spanktorthegreat wrote:

2. It is imposable for this one to work in reality, because of the law of non contradiction. Relative truth is unlivable in this time space continuum and I can demonstrate that.
then please do. so far your point is only empty assertion without any support.
I'm not sure on this one, but I think spanktor might have been hinting at how relativism is semantically paradoxical.  It states that there are no moral absolutes, which in itself, is an absolute.  Beyond semantics though, I would suggest that relativism is a very real phenomenon.  Whether or not it's truly accurate in its assessments is the question....

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-30 09:49:21)

2006-12-30 10:03:20
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
Wow...deep deep...sadly....my english isn´t good enough for stating my opinions in this matter...

Last edited by [F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi (2006-12-30 10:03:37)

2006-12-30 10:04:49
jonsimon
Member
+224|6920

Turquoise wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

spanktorthegreat wrote:

2. It is imposable for this one to work in reality, because of the law of non contradiction. Relative truth is unlivable in this time space continuum and I can demonstrate that.
then please do. so far your point is only empty assertion without any support.
I'm not sure on this one, but I think spanktor might have been hinting at how relativism is semantically paradoxical.  It states that there are no moral absolutes, which in itself, is an absolute.  Beyond semantics though, I would suggest that relativism is a very real phenomenon.  Whether or not it's truly accurate in its assessments is the question....
Relativism is only paradoxical in the most general form. Because the statement "There are no absolutes" is an absolute it is paradoxical. However, the statement "There are no moral absolutes" (or any variation upon the statement in which an adjective modifies the noun absolutes) is not paradoxical because the statement itself, while and absolute, is not a moral absolute.
2006-12-30 10:07:51
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6878|Ontario, Canada
im so lost
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2006-12-30 10:23:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:


then please do. so far your point is only empty assertion without any support.
I'm not sure on this one, but I think spanktor might have been hinting at how relativism is semantically paradoxical.  It states that there are no moral absolutes, which in itself, is an absolute.  Beyond semantics though, I would suggest that relativism is a very real phenomenon.  Whether or not it's truly accurate in its assessments is the question....
Relativism is only paradoxical in the most general form. Because the statement "There are no absolutes" is an absolute it is paradoxical. However, the statement "There are no moral absolutes" (or any variation upon the statement in which an adjective modifies the noun absolutes) is not paradoxical because the statement itself, while and absolute, is not a moral absolute.
Hmmm...  true.  I never thought of it that way.  Still, I argue that the relativism is limited in its worth, compared to morality and naturalism.  We can accurately say that most of the minor aspects of morality are relative (like how abortion can be argued as being either a right or a crime), but there are major aspects that the majority of cultures agree on -- which renders such things as not relative in practical terms.

For example, the vast majority of cultures argue that rape is wrong.  I think that's more likely to be a moral absolute than a relative thing.
2006-12-30 10:27:17
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7245

jonsimon wrote:

Fine, there is an exception, infants. However, the rule remains true otherwise.

Edit: And pschologically speaking, the exception makes sense as infants are not yet equal members of the species and thus it is possible individuals may overcome the barrier when under significant pressure to do so.
you are partially correct. infanticide occurs much more commonly than adult killings. the reason for this is not some in-born aversion to killing, but rather simple cost-benefit analysis. it is much easier to kill an infant than an adult. infants can't fight back and don't take as long to die.

Turqoise wrote:

I'm not sure on this one, but I think spanktor might have been hinting at how relativism is semantically paradoxical.  It states that there are no moral absolutes, which in itself, is an absolute.  Beyond semantics though, I would suggest that relativism is a very real phenomenon.  Whether or not it's truly accurate in its assessments is the question....
a valid, if inconsequential, point. nonetheless i would like people to articulate their points completely.

besides which, jonsimon's qualification addresses the issue succinctly.

it's hard to refute moral relativism when you examine cultural taboos. cannibalism is forbiddon in most cultures, accepted practice in others, and in situations of survival almost a given. no one blamed the victims of the 1972 plane crash in the andes for eating passengers who died on landing.

andes plane crash 1972

given that the same act is both taboo and not, the only explanation is relativism.
2006-12-30 10:37:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Krappyappy wrote:

it's hard to refute moral relativism when you examine cultural taboos. cannibalism is forbiddon in most cultures, accepted practice in others, and in situations of survival almost a given. no one blamed the victims of the 1972 plane crash in the andes for eating passengers who died on landing.

andes plane crash 1972

given that the same act is both taboo and not, the only explanation is relativism.
Good point...  I suppose that means that relativism is most accurate when stating that morals are relative to the situation, as opposed to being relative to culture.
2006-12-30 11:13:33
jonsimon
Member
+224|6920

Turquoise wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

it's hard to refute moral relativism when you examine cultural taboos. cannibalism is forbiddon in most cultures, accepted practice in others, and in situations of survival almost a given. no one blamed the victims of the 1972 plane crash in the andes for eating passengers who died on landing.

andes plane crash 1972

given that the same act is both taboo and not, the only explanation is relativism.
Good point...  I suppose that means that relativism is most accurate when stating that morals are relative to the situation, as opposed to being relative to culture.
Well, why not just come out and say the extreme, everything is relative. It's not really all that debatable, it's just a simple truth.
2006-12-30 11:16:59
jonsimon
Member
+224|6920

Krappyappy wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Fine, there is an exception, infants. However, the rule remains true otherwise.

Edit: And pschologically speaking, the exception makes sense as infants are not yet equal members of the species and thus it is possible individuals may overcome the barrier when under significant pressure to do so.
you are partially correct. infanticide occurs much more commonly than adult killings. the reason for this is not some in-born aversion to killing, but rather simple cost-benefit analysis. it is much easier to kill an infant than an adult. infants can't fight back and don't take as long to die.
The difference in killings of infants and adults is likely partially due to a weakness in the psychological barrier to killing another member of the same species. Just because there may be one reason for an action does not mean there may not be another.
2006-12-30 11:21:59
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

In modern society, there are 3 major lines of thinking regarding ethics....

1. Morality - the idea that some set of universal ethics exists throughout the world, independent of religion.  Absolutism is similar to this idea....

2. Relativism - the idea that there are no moral absolutes, and therefore morality is only a matter of opinion.

3. Naturalism - the idea that our innate natures contradict any sense of morality and that morality is just a convenient illusion we practice out of tradition or practicality....

Personally, I'm a supporter of morality or secular humanism.

Where do you guys stand on this, and why?
A mix between 2 and 3.  The are no moral absolutes at all, morality is built according to our personal convenience, so it can fit our ethical standards.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard