Morality.

[Jon]

The religion thread got me thinking about morality. What do you guys think about it? Is it something universal and objective, or is it completely subjective? Is it just a social construction or is it somehow encoded into our DNA? How do you define your morals?

Personally, I'm a moral relativist. I've never met a time where someone has called something immoral where I haven't been able to see an alternate perspective where it could be acceptable. "Morality" seems to have become a neat catchall to denounce something without actually requiring someone to explain why they oppose an idea.

[Evalis]

Woo another fun topic, yay!

The codes of morality that I place on myself are far more strict than any religion could ever accomplish through blind faith of it's tenets. This is perhaps because my mother always forced the idea of turning the other cheek when I would get into a tiff with someone. Unfortunately, following this sort of advice as a boy trying to fit in with a school full of pre-pubescent emotional rockets led to a lot of brutality, forcing me to seek answers on my own. I've probably spent several years of my life in the library researching morality texts to determine what is really 'right' and 'wrong' and how to be a better person in responding to it.

I'm definately of the mindset that right and wrong are absolutes, but are strongly dependant upon the situation. I could not, for example, say that killing someone is always wrong, because the person may be defending themselves, or it could have been purely accidental. I could however say that purposefully killing someone for a reason that did not involve defending themselves or someone else, and was purely out of malice, is indeed wrong. No matter what world or context you are in. Even if not doing so meant that person's death, they would need to accept that death, and/or fight whoever it was that intended to impose such a doctrine.

The issue with most agencies and persons that promote/enforce morality of some sort, is that they typically concern themselves with only the action (it is right to do this; it is wrong to do that) and not the motive behind it, or the end result. Many people will contest that it is 'The thought that counts', or that 'Actions speak louder than words', or any number of nonsensical quotes, rather than accepting that all of these factors are important.

Consider the example that a known rapist, torturer, and murderer was holding someone in front of them to block your shot. If the only way to stop that person was to shoot the other person, possibly killing them, then the extent of your line of thinking determines whether or not this is moral. Do you fire, because there is a reward for the other person's capture? Do you fire because you wish to save the other person from a fate worse than death? Do you let that person go and risk them killing others in the future?

Morality is not so much 'grey' in that it is difficult to determine. It is grey because the actions involved are typically not enough to determine if a given outcome was right or wrong.

I rather like the idea of morality having a value based on how much suffering or pleasure is gained from any given action - though I've yet to find a way to perfect measuring this, or even rationalizing it fully for that matter. For the time being I believe I will stick with something along the lines of this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[lollercancer]

morality is, to me, something completely subjective. We live in a civilization and make certain sacrafices to gain benefits.

I'm caught between two extremes, again. On one side, i wouldn't feel bad if i did something horrible to someone. On the other side, i can see the chain of events of an action. I can see all the lives it hurts, and the complete illogical selfishness of it. but, at the same time, I am me, I am not you. it's weird.

[Tarrick]

I think that we all have our own standards for how we live our lives, but I firmly believe in there being "true" Good and Evil. If somethings can't be absolutely identified as such, then the argument can be made that no one has any right in justly stopping what we perceive as wrong.

[lollercancer]

i don't even believe in the concept of truth when talking about concepts higher than simple logistics.
:-X

[Tarrick]

No truth? Then what does that make you? Schroedinger's Cat?

The statement "There are no absolutes" is a absolute statement.

[lollercancer]

The symbol grounding problem is related to the problem of how words get their meanings, and of what meanings are. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness: how is it that it feels like something (to the symbol system) to mean something?

A symbol is an arbitrary object, an element of a code or formal notational system. It is interpretable as referring to something, but its shape is arbitrary in relation to its meaning: it neither resembles nor is causally connected to its referent (see Saussure's L'arbitraire du signe). Its meaning is agreed upon and shared by convention.

There is no symbol grounding problem for symbols in external symbol systems, such as those in a mathematical formula or the words in a spoken or written sentence. The problem of symbol grounding arises only with internal symbols, symbols in the head [ch8211] the symbols in what some have called the language of thought. External symbols get their meaning from the thoughts going on in the minds of their users and interpreters. But the internal symbols inside those users and interpreters need to be meaningful on their own, autonomously. Their meaning cannot just be based on a definition, because a definition is just a string of symbols, and those symbols need to have meaning too. Definitions are meaningful if their component symbols are meaningful, but what can give their component symbols meaning?

If it were formal definitions all the way down, this would lead to a problem of infinite regress.

no "truth" outside of math and such :-X

[Tarrick]

So, given your logical, and you state if you are alive? Can you look at one person aiding another and say it's good? Can you look at one person hurting another and say it's bad?

I view all these things as universal truths that we all instinctively know. And that commonality is how we begin to communicate to one another, even beyond language.

[lollercancer]

We instinctively know them, but that doesn't mean they are justified true beliefs. They are rather feelings that happen based upon the effects of evolution up until this point. feeling this or that way best suits you and your species' genes for survival.

In reality, if there is a homeless man on the street, how do you help him? you do it by hurting yourself. you "waste" your time and possible money and efforts in order to provide for him. it's a terrible example, but there are a finite amount of resources available to us. they are distributed and, in the end, there are those that go without so that some may have what they need, or even more.

truth is only true to some. think of point of view.

[Tarrick]

truth is only true to some. think of point of view.

Oh I think of perspective all the time. Everyone everywhere has an unique perspective based upon all past experiences, learned knowledge, and personality traits.
However, if something happens and no one is around to judge it from their perspective, can it still right or wrong? Good or Evil? I think so.

[lollercancer]

in a universe where we aren't here to be offended, can there be offense?
it is our perception that takes in the information, then our mind that says, "hey, for some reason, i don't feel good when that happens."
right and wrong are judgements of perceptions, back and fourth, up and down.

without us there to percieve an event, it is just an event, neither good nor bad.

the destruction of a universe? who cares if we aren't there to be destroyed?
the death of a dog at the hands of a lion? meh!
life is only sacred because we are alive, we have serious vested interests in keeping things going as they are, with us in the picture. pure self preservation.

what is right? right is doing good by others. why do we do it, at the base?
utilitarians would say, because we want to be treated as such in return. ego!
our own survival and well being is at the center of every problem of right and wrong.

try to give me a few examples of what you think are objective right and wrong things, i'll try to trace it back to human ego.

[matthew]

As a Buddhist I understand morality to have an objective basis that is demonstrated through the conditioning effect of a behavioural cause (behaviour in this sense defined as inclusive of all steps through object-inspiration, intention, planning, action-event, and sometimes satisfaction). An action that is 'complete' in this sense, or at least near to being complete, will reinforce some specific area within the complex directionality of mind, which in Buddhism is held to be the mechanism determining the specific attitude of rebirth (and situation within life also, to a certain extent). We consider it implausible that the series of mind-instants which constitute the conscious experience of life begins or ends at birth or death, as this does not follow from an experiential basis which appears with the cultivation of various meditative states.

As a certain kind of Tibetan Buddhist I understand that this mechanism relies primarily upon the object-inspiration and intention phases of any given behavioural cause, and thus that any simplistically nomothetic ruleset is necessarily incapable of optimally defining appropriate behaviours within all potential situations. So given a practitioner of reasonable intelligence, these teachings of Buddhism permit a wider scope of acceptable actions - and the appropriate motivation is assumed to be understood and upheld. The practitioner is also assumed to remain aware that the conditioning instantiated by a conventionally inappropriate action continues to retain its conventional force, and to consciously accept these conventional effects of conventional causes, so as to allow optimal outcomes for all persons involved to be achieved.

I eschew simple relativism, whether epistemological or ethical, as incoherent. Aesthetic relativism... I might accept, conditionally. I would posit nevertheless that even aesthetic judgments depend upon identifiably structured psychological (even, tentatively, neurological) factors within any given individual - which is not by any means an assertion that I am personally capable of deducing these in any given case whatsoever. ;D

[Guido]

no "truth" outside of math and such :-X

To say something like 'there is no truth' is, sorry to say, a garbage statement. My INTP friend says that to me all the time, and it makes no sense. If you're sitting in a park contemplating the no 'truth theory' (maybe anti-theory is a better description?) and someone stabs you in the face and takes your wallet, you've just suffered a reality check. As that knife is coming down, sure you could be thinking to yourself "cause and effect? pfffft, that's not necessarily true. If I pick apart the semantics of a knife coming towards me and look at what Zeno argued..." **THUNK** and you're dead. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are many 'truths' that you know about. Sure, maybe reality could change and simple 'cause and effect' rules are altered which would be a first in human history. But let's face it, this isn't going to happen any time soon. If we start building on reality instead of conceptualized 'truth' we can actually go somewhere with morality.

Reality is this: you're stuck in a world composed of many things you don't understand, as well as many things that have their own beliefs. You also have your own beliefs. Conflicts will naturally arise between the two. Being moral is trying to balance your beliefs with the beliefs around you; balancing selfishness with selflessness. As such, a system such as this doesn't require us to observe it. Anything that is capable of choice has it's own sets of beliefs as in what choices it should make. A little more progress than 'there is no truth' don't you think? I don't claim to have answers for all the details as at this point you're arguing shades of grey. Most of these moral decisions (at least the major ones) however can be boiled down to purpose. There are too many examples and contention points that could be discussed. That, and I don't particularly want to bring any up :o

[Tarrick]

Loller you appeared to have misinterpreted what I was saying.

First of all, Good and Evil/Right and Wrong only exist because of sentient beings. Therefore, the only way it can be perceived is by the human mind/ego.

However, just because only sentients can see it doesn't make things relative. If one person does something that they don't perceive as evil, that doesn't mean that it isn't. It doesn't mean that only because that one individual is aware of it, its not wrong.

[lollercancer]

@ tarrick

look at reality, though. *reailty is a construct of our brain. *surely, there is an apple there, but maybe i have different emotions associated with my apple. *maybe it disgusts me for some reason. *you see the same apple and feel elation.

in the same way there may be an act of some kind. *the act is there and is observable. *Though, people have been touched in different ways and therefore associate different emotions and thoughts to that act that has passed.

what is the difference between the apple and the act?

throw me a definition of good and of evil, or of right and wrong. *I promise you that you'll hit the grounding problem very fast.

----

as for guido's response:

someone stabs me in the face and takes my wallet. *He has hurt me and helped himself. *He has caused "evil" to me and "good" to himself. *but there is both evil and good in that action. *there is no god to meet me on my way down to death, and none to punish him. *suppose no one finds out, then there is no one to feel that something unjust has occured.

we are left with an action that is relative, and a reality that passed right by the act.

morality is a tool of survival!

"Reality is this: you're stuck in a world composed of many things you don't understand, as well as many things that have their own beliefs. You also have your own beliefs. Conflicts will naturally arise between the two. Being moral is trying to balance your beliefs with the beliefs around you; balancing selfishness with selflessness. As such, a system such as this doesn't require us to observe it. Anything that is capable of choice has it's own sets of beliefs as in what choices it should make. A little more progress than 'there is no truth' don't you think?"

Why should I balance or check my beliefs with those that exist around me? I am me, aren't I? I have an interest in forwarding mine own beliefs.

morality, if it is a game of balancing selflessness and selfishness, is still a tool of psychology that gets you to places you want to be.

[Tarrick]

If that's true, then by what right do we have in punishing anyone? How can we justify imprisoning rapists and murderers, let alone executing them? If we accept what you are saying then all atrocities in history are not condemnable by anyone.

[lollercancer]

well, you can't punish people by the standards of morality, but by the fact that by living in society they have made an unspoken pact with the rest of society. "If you want the benefits, then you must give up freedom"

[rwyatt365]

Just read this thread and this is deep stuff so I'm going to wade in...

look at reality, though. *reailty is a construct of our brain. *surely, there is an apple there, but maybe i have different emotions associated with my apple. *maybe it disgusts me for some reason. *you see the same apple and feel elation.

in the same way there may be an act of some kind. *the act is there and is observable. *Though, people have been touched in different ways and therefore associate different emotions and thoughts to that act that has passed.

what is the difference between the apple and the act?

throw me a definition of good and of evil, or of right and wrong. *I promise you that you'll hit the grounding problem very fast.

I would say that our perception of reality is a construct of our brain. The apple exists, it occupies physical space and has particular properties (color, weight, odor, etc...). Those properties are there and are not dependant on recognition from any being. Our perception of that apple elicits responses that are individualized for anyone/anything that senses the presence of the physical properties of the apple. Thus, you are disgusted by some aspect of the apple while I am pleased. Our perception has not altered the "reality" of the apple, just modified our partular response to it's "reality".

as for guido's response:

someone stabs me in the face and takes my wallet. He has hurt me and helped himself. He has caused "evil" to me and "good" to himself. but there is both evil and good in that action. there is no god to meet me on my way down to death, and none to punish him. suppose no one finds out, then there is no one to feel that something unjust has occured.

we are left with an action that is relative, and a reality that passed right by the act.

morality is a tool of survival!

Once again, the act - in and of itself - "is", the knife, the face, the wallet, the people and the events surrounding all of these objects happen. The action is definite and "real", there is no relativity to it. The perception of the action by the parties involved and those observing (or not observing) is relative. In that, I would say that morality is a result of perception and perception is relative.

Given that, one could say that no act is inherently moral or immoral until the act has been perceived by some sentient being. But, if the act is performed by a sentient being then the act is perceived by that being and - in the absence of any other being - can be only judged to be moral or immoral by that being. So, a meteorite crashing into a mountain, causing a landslide that destroys an unoocupied house cannot be judged to be immoral or evil. But when the homeowner comes home, that whole event might be considered to be evil (or at least destructive), depending on their perception.

[lollercancer]

Just read this thread and this is deep stuff so I'm going to wade in...

look at reality, though. *reailty is a construct of our brain. *surely, there is an apple there, but maybe i have different emotions associated with my apple. *maybe it disgusts me for some reason. *you see the same apple and feel elation.

in the same way there may be an act of some kind. *the act is there and is observable. *Though, people have been touched in different ways and therefore associate different emotions and thoughts to that act that has passed.

what is the difference between the apple and the act?

throw me a definition of good and of evil, or of right and wrong. *I promise you that you'll hit the grounding problem very fast.

I would say that our perception of reality is a construct of our brain. The apple exists, it occupies physical space and has particular properties (color, weight, odor, etc...). Those properties are there and are not dependant on recognition from any being. Our perception of that apple elicits responses that are individualized for anyone/anything that senses the presence of the physical properties of the apple. Thus, you are disgusted by some aspect of the apple while I am pleased. Our perception has not altered the "reality" of the apple, just modified our partular response to it's "reality".

as for guido's response:

someone stabs me in the face and takes my wallet. *He has hurt me and helped himself. *He has caused "evil" to me and "good" to himself. *but there is both evil and good in that action. *there is no god to meet me on my way down to death, and none to punish him. *suppose no one finds out, then there is no one to feel that something unjust has occured.

we are left with an action that is relative, and a reality that passed right by the act.

morality is a tool of survival!

Once again, the act - in and of itself - "is", the knife, the face, the wallet, the people and the events surrounding all of these objects happen. The action is definite and "real", there is no relativity to it. The perception of the action by the parties involved and those observing (or not observing) is relative. In that, I would say that morality is a result of perception and perception is relative.

Given that, one could say that no act is inherently moral or immoral until the act has been perceived by some sentient being. But, if the act is performed by a sentient being then the act is perceived by that being and - in the absence of any other being - can be only judged to be moral or immoral by that being. So, a meteorite crashing into a mountain, causing a landslide that destroys an unoocupied house cannot be judged to be immoral or evil. But when the homeowner comes home, that whole event might be considered to be evil (or at least destructive), depending on their perception.

Color and odor do not "exist." Certain objects absorb certain spectrums of light and reflect others. You perceive the reflections and your brain infers a color. Odor does not exist, but rather miniscule particles of an object break off of it and fill up a room. they enter your nasal cavity and receptors react to those particles in certain ways, giving you the illusion of smell. Our *sense* of reality is only an interpretation. Surely, an apply takes up physical space and has mass, but many of the other properties it has for us can only be likened to taste.

[rwyatt365]

Color and odor do not "exist." Certain objects absorb certain spectrums of light and reflect others. You perceive the reflections and your brain infers a color. Odor does not exist, but rather miniscule particles of an object break off of it and fill up a room. they enter your nasal cavity and receptors react to those particles in certain ways, giving you the illusion of smell. Our *sense* of reality is only an interpretation. Surely, an apply takes up physical space and has mass, but many of the other properties it has for us can only be likened to taste.

If color is defined as the particular wavelength of light that an object refects then "color", as such, exists. What we (with our perception) interpret that particular wavelenght of light to be (i.e. red, green, yellow) is manufactured in our brain.

If odor is defined as the particular set of molecules that dispatch from a given object then "odor", as such exists. As with the interpretation of a particular color, the interpretation of that odor is fashioined by our brain.

Any object that occupies space/time can be said to exist and is "real". I agree with you in that our "sense" of that reality is an interpretation, and our interpretation shapes our judgement of that reality. But our judgement of the reality does not necessarily deny the existance of reality. If I see the apple because of the light reflected from it, and the image of the apple is constructed in my mind which elicits "apple emotions" within me. That does not mean that the apple is not there, it had to reflect the light in order for me to perceive it in the first palce.

[wedekit]

Good and evil aren't two sides of one coin. Evil is simply a lack of good.

[Tarrick]

Good and evil aren't two sides of one coin. Evil is simply a lack of good.

Perhaps, from one point of view.

If Evil is an absence of Good, is everything inherently Evil or Good to some degree? And if so, could the coin analogy be valid if life/reality is the coin?

[lollercancer]

Good and evil aren't two sides of one coin. Evil is simply a lack of good.

You attempt to define evil by use of it's opposite. This leads no where. Evil is the lack of good. Good is the lack of evil. That doesn't tell us anything. We can't define one without invoking it's opposite, therefore, there can be no real definition of it.

this is basically the point i've been beating around.

[matthew]

Good and evil aren't two sides of one coin. Evil is simply a lack of good.

You attempt to define evil by use of it's opposite. This leads no where. Evil is the lack of good. Good is the lack of evil. That doesn't tell us anything. We can't define one without invoking it's opposite, therefore, there can be no real definition of it.

this is basically the point i've been beating around.

Actually he has confused you with his wording. His first sentence makes the same point that you are arguing. His second sentence extends the argument into the territory of a combination of good and evil outcomes (perhaps defined in a utilitarian way as benefit and detriment) within the events of a given situation - thus he is actually most likely leading toward the conclusion that there is a hierarchy of benefit and detriment ranging from negative, neutral, and positive benefit (distributed), and negative, neutral, and positive detriment (distributed), which can occur simultaneously, and also to a certain extent depend upon both perspective, and accurate extrapolations of eventual outcome.

There can be no nomothetic definition of such things while they are merely abstracted representations.

[Evalis]

someone stabs me in the face and takes my wallet. *He has hurt me and helped himself. *He has caused "evil" to me and "good" to himself. *but there is both evil and good in that action. *there is no god to meet me on my way down to death, and none to punish him. *suppose no one finds out, then there is no one to feel that something unjust has occured.


I believe that you have the notion of "good" as a moral concept confused with the notion of "good" as an improvement or benefit to someone. This statement would make more sense if you used "harm" to me, and "good" to himself. Morality is not so easily defined as something being positive or negative. There are likely lines of positive and negative throughout. Perhaps this person killed you, because he believed that he would not otherwise be capable of surviving. Had this individual been acting purely on instinct, this perhaps would have been forgivable - the act was balanced in that one survived so that another might live. However, this was certainly not the case because that person killed you to steal your money, which includes an element of reasoning, as one needs to understand the concept of money, and how it would assist them to survive. Had it been purely instinct, he would have attempted to eat you instead (yes I know.. barbaric but true). Therefore this act was not 'balanced', as once cognitive reasoning steps in, this person becomes accountable for their actions, and is required to take steps within the confines of others right to their own survival, or in contrast to those that were the -direct- cause of their suffering. Perhaps there were other motivators involved.. but assuming the above is true, this act was 'wrong', irregardless of who witnessed it. The potential for punishment is not a requirement of morality.


Why should I balance or check my beliefs with those that exist around me? *I am me, aren't I? *I have an interest in forwarding mine own beliefs.


I seriously hope that you were just making this statement for the sake of argument, as you have essentially stated that if you needed to kill/rape/maim or otherwise bring harm to another for your own pleasure, you would do so.

[lollercancer]

someone stabs me in the face and takes my wallet. *He has hurt me and helped himself. *He has caused "evil" to me and "good" to himself. *but there is both evil and good in that action. *there is no god to meet me on my way down to death, and none to punish him. *suppose no one finds out, then there is no one to feel that something unjust has occured.


I believe that you have the notion of "good" as a moral concept confused with the notion of "good" as an improvement or benefit to someone. This statement would make more sense if you used "harm" to me, and "good" to himself. Morality is not so easily defined as something being positive or negative. There are likely lines of positive and negative throughout. Perhaps this person killed you, because he believed that he would not otherwise be capable of surviving. Had this individual been acting purely on instinct, this perhaps would have been forgivable - the act was balanced in that one survived so that another might live. However, this was certainly not the case because that person killed you to steal your money, which includes an element of reasoning, as one needs to understand the concept of money, and how it would assist them to survive. Had it been purely instinct, he would have attempted to eat you instead (yes I know.. barbaric but true). Therefore this act was not 'balanced', as once cognitive reasoning steps in, this person becomes accountable for their actions, and is required to take steps within the confines of others right to their own survival, or in contrast to those that were the -direct- cause of their suffering. Perhaps there were other motivators involved.. but assuming the above is true, this act was 'wrong', irregardless of who witnessed it. The potential for punishment is not a requirement of morality.


Why should I balance or check my beliefs with those that exist around me? *I am me, aren't I? *I have an interest in forwarding mine own beliefs.


I seriously hope that you were just making this statement for the sake of argument, as you have essentially stated that if you needed to kill/rape/maim or otherwise bring harm to another for your own pleasure, you would do so.


I'm still waiting for a definition of "good" -_-
I do not believe that one can logically come to a definition of it without running into the pitfalls of the grounding problem.

As for the second response... hey, is that an attack on my character? That's no response to the problem of "I am me." :-p

[lollercancer]

We've gotten so offtrack in this thread, and it's partly my own fault.

Let me give you something concretely logical:

Reality, as I experience it, is an effect of the workings of my brain.

Reality, as you experience it, is an effect of the workings of your brain.

Human "reality" differs from the "real".

No human can correctly see the "real".

Good and bad do not exist in the "real".

Good and bad are actually effects of our egotistical perception of the "real".

Therefore, all the points i've been making. :-p

[wedekit]

There are basic humans morals that have nothing to do with religion, which are tediously covered in many philosophical texts. I recommend Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. I had questioned morality and this book gave me the answers.

Greek philosophy is probably the best since the philosophers have no religious affiliation. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all denied the religious system of their time, due to most of the myths being created by the poets. I think they all have a belief in a higher creator, due to causation, though. In fact, religion seems to have plagarised a lot of the Greek philosophers' work.

[Tarrick]

We've gotten so offtrack in this thread, and it's partly my own fault.
Let me give you something concretely logical:

Reality, as I experience it, is an effect of the workings of my brain.
Reality, as you experience it, is an effect of the workings of your brain.
Human "reality" differs from the "real".
No human can correctly see the "real".
Good and bad do not exist in the "real".
Good and bad are actually effects of our egotistical perception of the "real".


Reality is very commonly defined as what is real. The phrase "You need to accept reality" supports this. If reality was in our minds, then the only way for anything to happen to us is if not only we allow it, but will it.

What you neglected to add was perspective. Perspective is our view of the world; of what is happening in the "real" or reality.

As for if humans can see the "real" no of course not. We are limited to our perspective. It's not that we can't see it correctly, it's that we are incredible limited in both perception and understanding.

If no sentient, then no good or evil could be committed, so saying that it comes from our "ego" is correct, but not in your context. Having an ego does not give us Good and Evil, it allows us access to it.
Why, and how, can I say that? Because Good and Evil is universal. It is universally Good to protect the innocent. It is universally Evil to prey on the innocent. In your reasoning, innocence isn't even possible, is it?

[lollercancer]

There are basic humans morals that have nothing to do with religion, which are tediously covered in many philosophical texts. I recommend Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. I had questioned morality and this book gave me the answers.

Greek philosophy is probably the best since the philosophers have no religious affiliation. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all denied the religious system of their time, due to most of the myths being created by the poets. I think they all have a belief in a higher creator, due to causation, though. In fact, religion seems to have plagarised a lot of the Greek philosophers' work.

Greek philosophers believed in the theory of forms. I see a huge mistake in their thinking of subjects as having a perfect, true, objective form, from which things receive a definition.

Greek philosophers could have arguably believed in Zeus.

[lollercancer]

We've gotten so offtrack in this thread, and it's partly my own fault.
Let me give you something concretely logical:

Reality, as I experience it, is an effect of the workings of my brain.
Reality, as you experience it, is an effect of the workings of your brain.
Human "reality" differs from the "real".
No human can correctly see the "real".
Good and bad do not exist in the "real".
Good and bad are actually effects of our egotistical perception of the "real".


Reality is very commonly defined as what is real. The phrase "You need to accept reality" supports this. If reality was in our minds, then the only way for anything to happen to us is if not only we allow it, but will it.

What you neglected to add was perspective. Perspective is our view of the world; of what is happening in the "real" or reality.

As for if humans can see the "real" no of course not. We are limited to our perspective. It's not that we can't see it correctly, it's that we are incredible limited in both perception and understanding.

If no sentient, then no good or evil could be committed, so saying that it comes from our "ego" is correct, but not in your context. Having an ego does not give us Good and Evil, it allows us access to it.
Why, and how, can I say that? Because Good and Evil is universal. It is universally Good to protect the innocent. It is universally Evil to prey on the innocent. In your reasoning, innocence isn't even possible, is it?



I'll hit this up tommorow. I'm gonna be bringing some nietzche and possibly some linguistic philosophers on board of my regime, goodnight for now, though :-p

[wedekit]

There are basic humans morals that have nothing to do with religion, which are tediously covered in many philosophical texts. I recommend Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. I had questioned morality and this book gave me the answers.

Greek philosophy is probably the best since the philosophers have no religious affiliation. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all denied the religious system of their time, due to most of the myths being created by the poets. I think they all have a belief in a higher creator, due to causation, though. In fact, religion seems to have plagarised a lot of the Greek philosophers' work.

Greek philosophers believed in the theory of forms. I see a huge mistake in their thinking of subjects as having a perfect, true, objective form, from which things receive a definition.

Greek philosophers could have arguably believed in Zeus.

Plato was the one who argued about the forms, which I why I didn't recommend The Republic for researching the topic, but rather Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Aristotle was Plato's student and even he criticized Plato's writings on the forms, calling it "idle chatter". Atheism was very common in Greek Society. Aristophanes' plays were award winning, yet were thematically atheist and actually made fun of the gods. Socrates was put to death on charges that included him being an atheist, and that was simply because people wanted him dead and were putting any charge they could against him.

So anyways, Aristotle was not necessarily an atheist since he believed in some kind of higher power, but he did not know or assume anything more than that. Philosophy uses logic and reason for the sake of knowledge, which should be very acceptable to INTJs.

[Evalis]

I'm still waiting for a definition of "good" -_-
I do not believe that one can logically come to a definition of it without running into the pitfalls of the grounding problem.


Tarrick adequately addressed this concern, so I won't argue anything further on it.


As for the second response... hey, is that an attack on my character? *That's no response to the problem of "I am me." :-p

That was a response to: "Why should I balance or check my beliefs with those that exist around me?" not that you are you. This was not meant as an attack on your character, simply an effort to bring to your attention what you have just stated with that claim. Without accepting the responsibility of balancing your beliefs of reality with others, you would fail to recognize situations where your pleasure may cause another's suffering. This line of thinking is along the same lines as serial killers and rapists, and if you truly believe this, you need to seek counsuling. (I'm currently making the assumption you were just grabbing at possible arguments to support your claim without realizing the ramifications of that statement..)

[lollercancer]

We've gotten so offtrack in this thread, and it's partly my own fault.
Let me give you something concretely logical:

Reality, as I experience it, is an effect of the workings of my brain.
Reality, as you experience it, is an effect of the workings of your brain.
Human "reality" differs from the "real".
No human can correctly see the "real".
Good and bad do not exist in the "real".
Good and bad are actually effects of our egotistical perception of the "real".


Reality is very commonly defined as what is real. The phrase "You need to accept reality" supports this. If reality was in our minds, then the only way for anything to happen to us is if not only we allow it, but will it.

What you neglected to add was perspective. Perspective is our view of the world; of what is happening in the "real" or reality.

As for if humans can see the "real" no of course not. We are limited to our perspective. It's not that we can't see it correctly, it's that we are incredible limited in both perception and understanding.

If no sentient, then no good or evil could be committed, so saying that it comes from our "ego" is correct, but not in your context. Having an ego does not give us Good and Evil, it allows us access to it.
Why, and how, can I say that? Because Good and Evil is universal. It is universally Good to protect the innocent. It is universally Evil to prey on the innocent. In your reasoning, innocence isn't even possible, is it?



a mature person has no right to claim innocence for anything short of actualy retardation (still actually being a child).
there is will and there is lack of will. if i am strong enough, i can make something incredible happen. if i am weak, i will die as someone who has been superfluous.

mature people, in my opionion, MUST develop a will and a rationality and then act to better the world, otherwise they are a complete waste of life and space. but that's just a sidepoint on me.

I think you're all missing my point:
What is real?

Well, everything that is real is real... LOGICAL FALLACY.

What is real?

That which is real is not fake... LINGUISTIC FALLACY.

What is real?

What we see is real!
What happens when we hallucinate? Don't we always have some sort of taint with our reality? PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM!

What is real?

Etc... I don't believe you can have a definition of real that includes a morality. almost none of you have given evidence on your points, and i'll be a stickler for that. you've been giving me points that i can't argue back at, because there is no evidence to attack.

[bikerscars]

moral relativist here

circumstances determine how hard and fast rules apply

[matthew]

If reality was in our minds, then the only way for anything to happen to us is if not only we allow it, but will it.


Actually, this is problematic.
But not really essential to the argument yet.

[Tarrick]

a mature person has no right to claim innocence for anything short of actualy retardation (still actually being a child).
there is will and there is lack of will. if i am strong enough, i can make something incredible happen. if i am weak, i will die as someone who has been superfluous.


No right to claim innocence? I've never killed anyone! I'm innocent of that! I've never raped a woman, I'm certainly not guilty of that! I have lied before, so I am guilty/not innocent of that.

You appear either to be way off the line of discussion, or you have grossly misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that in your view, innocence isn't possible, because everyone always does good for themselves, even if it hurts others, unless they are doing harm/bad to themselves deliberately. Which means that everyone has no innocence/guilty because no one can hold anyone to anything; at least in the moral sense.


I think you're all missing my point:
What is real?

Well, everything that is real is real... LOGICAL FALLACY.

What is real?

That which is real is not fake... LINGUISTIC FALLACY.

What is real?

What we see is real!
What happens when we hallucinate? Don't we always have some sort of taint with our reality? PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM!

What is real?

Etc... I don't believe you can have a definition of real that includes a morality. almost none of you have given evidence on your points, and i'll be a stickler for that. you've been giving me points that i can't argue back at, because there is no evidence to attack.

First: How is it a logical fallacy to do R1=R1 ? It isn't, it just doesn't take you anywhere. It's like saying 4=4, or x=x.

Second: What is real is not what is fake depends on what extensions you put on real and what you label as fake. If you see a mirage, is it fake? Or is it something that you saw, that was real, but were mistaken about what it was? Also, are your thoughts real? I can't tell what they are, so they are not scientifically valid, are they?

Third: Hallucinations are a figment of your imagination that cross over and cloud your perceptive of reality. They exist within the confines of your thoughts which do not necessarily reside in 3D space.

Fourth: How about I explain it like this: Morality is a Law, like Gravity is a Law. Morality exists upon the plane of our thoughts and governs them, in a similar manner to Gravity existing on a 3D plane and governing there.
Morality, as a Law, governs what is Right and Good and what is Wrong and Evil. You can choose to ignore it, but it's still there, painting your thoughts based on intentions either Good or Evil. What makes it something good? What is elemental, pure, Goodness? What is elemental, pure, Gravity? It is and we all accept it, but we only see it's effect, not it itself. Something is not made Good, it is Good at the core.

Mystery props to mystery person that PM'd me earlier.

[Jbmontag]

First, good and evil are not nouns, they are adjectives. They are subjective descriptions of actions.

I cannot witness evil. I can only witness an action, and decide it is evil based upon the positive or negative effects of that action. Making the judgment relies on personal experience or empathic experience.

A man walks into a bar and opens fire, killing several patrons. I know from personal experience that when someone dies, whom I know, there is a negative effect, in that I feel sad. No one I know was killed in the bar. I do know that the people killed did know somebody, and that somebody will be sad that they died, a negative effect. I therefore judge that this generic action as evil.

This example can continue to be modified with specific information, adjusting the value I place on the action as positive or negative. For instance, If I name the patrons killed Charles Manson, Stalin, and Hitler.

[Tarrick]

First, good and evil are not nouns, they are adjectives. They are subjective descriptions of actions.

I cannot witness evil. I can only witness an action, and decide it is evil based upon the positive or negative effects of that action. Making the judgment relies on personal experience or empathic experience.

A man walks into a bar and opens fire, killing several patrons. I know from personal experience that when someone dies, whom I know, there is a negative effect, in that I feel sad. No one I know was killed in the bar. I do know that the people killed did know somebody, and that somebody will be sad that they died, a negative effect. I therefore judge that this generic action as evil.

This example can continue to be modified with specific information, adjusting the value I place on the action as positive or negative. For instance, If I name the patrons killed Charles Manson, Stalin, and Hitler.



First of all, congratulations! After 2787 Posts within 200 Topics, we have finally met Godwin's Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_law)! Yay us!

Now then, where was I? Ah yes. As I stated before, Good and Evil exist on the planer level of thought, so of course you can't see it in and of itself. However, that does not preclude it from existing. I have never seen a thought, yet we all (I would think) know that they exist.
Good and Evil exist and are carried out in action, which is motivated by intent. That intent is Good or Evil in some degree. It was the intent that made Stalin, Mao and Hitler evil and their actions spoke of their intent.

[Jbmontag]

I have an intention of bringing peace to the earth, no war, no hunger, just absolute tranquility. I then kill everyone who isn't me!!!

I have good intent. It would take an outside observer to judge my actions evil. Luckily I killed all those sorry bastards ;D

[Tarrick]

I have an intention of bringing peace to the earth, no war, no hunger, just absolute tranquility. I then kill everyone who isn't me!!!

I have good intent. It would take an outside observer to judge my actions evil. Luckily I killed all those sorry bastards ;D

Perhaps if you were sick in the head. But that's a different topic.

[deicruxified]

i do think morality depends on the circumstances. we do act everyday but at a particular moment when rules does not make sense anymore, you have to judge.

[Quincunx]

Personally, I'm a moral relativist. I've never met a time where someone has called something immoral where I haven't been able to see an alternate perspective where it could be acceptable. "Morality" seems to have become a neat catchall to denounce something without actually requiring someone to explain why they oppose an idea.

If I were to get up onto the stage in a packed, mixed-age-group auditorium, select a random infant from a mother's hands, and cut that infant into pieces before the eyes of the entire crowd, would that be an immoral act?

Moral right and wrong in the universe exist, even if people can't quite grasp them. I'm sure that social standards may form our sense of morality to a point, but in respect to the broader scheme of things, there are moral absolutes, and they come out at the moments when you least expect them.

[Epicurus]

Morality is only bound to what you think is righteous, your ideals.

[Xenolar]

Personally, I'm a moral relativist. I've never met a time where someone has called something immoral where I haven't been able to see an alternate perspective where it could be acceptable. "Morality" seems to have become a neat catchall to denounce something without actually requiring someone to explain why they oppose an idea.

If I were to get up onto the stage in a packed, mixed-age-group auditorium, select a random infant from a mother's hands, and cut that infant into pieces before the eyes of the entire crowd, would that be an immoral act?

Moral right and wrong in the universe exist, even if people can't quite grasp them. I'm sure that social standards may form our sense of morality to a point, but in respect to the broader scheme of things, there are moral absolutes, and they come out at the moments when you least expect them.

I'm not saying that killing an innocent child in front of many people isn't a terrible thing to do, yet you cannot claim with such great certainty that the act is "immoral." Surely the act would be deemed immoral by the standards of (presumably) most people, however, this does not mean that morals exist in such simplistic black and white terms. Do you believe that morals existed before the existence of humans? Moral values, in my opinion, are simply tools that have evolved to prevent a lack of balance or order amongst societies.

P.S. I can't quite put my finger on it, but your argument in support of the definite existence of morals smells a bit strange. The "if I were to get up onto the stage in a packed, mixed-age-group auditorium, select a random infant from a mother's hands" etc. section sounds like something similar to an argumentum ad misericordiam, or something similar.

[OneBadMother]

I think some of you are mixing up morality with "justice". What is just and what is right are not necessarily the same thing. For instance, if a homeless person slept on a street corner, and the city demanded that he be fined for it, that may be considered just. Technically, it's the city's streetcorner. But it could be argued that it's not right: after all, that man may have nowhere else to go, and probably doesn't have the means to pay. Tearing the infant to pieces is certainly injust, at least to the mother and the child, but whether or not it's morally "right" is more subjective.

[athenian200]

What do you think of this INFJ perspective:

Morality is whatever benefits society as a whole, and is the result of the social contract we enter into as a result of participating in a society. Consequently, actions that benefit society are praised, and actions that are against the interest of those in the society are discouraged. Good and Evil can be relative to an extent. For instance, during the Cold War, the USSR considered the US evil, and themselves to be good. The US believed the opposite. Who was right depends on your perspective. However, I would say that for situations such as murder or theft in general, those would be evil because they are perceived by the majority of people in any given society to be evil actions. Therefore, those who wish to participate in that society must accept that perception. It is also beneficial to you as an individual to accept and promulgate this perception, because it creates an environment where actions that harm you as an individual, and by proxy your friends/family, are discouraged, and the inherent order resulting from such beliefs makes your life easier than it would be otherwise. As it does so for the majority of people in a given society, they adopt and enforce such standards. And since the majority of people find such a situation desirable and beneficial to themselves and their families, they choose to participate in such societies.

As for the idea that morality doesn't matter because it's based on perception, I would argue that everything a person can be aware of, including language, is perceived subjectively to a degree. We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. Truth, language, emotion, color, idea, technology, all of it is based on how a human mind interprets and sees patterns in a reality. However, reality really only matters to us in terms of how it affects us and our interest in affecting it, so our perceptions are normally sufficient. In human terms, awareness of our perception of reality is as important to understand as reality itself. That's why we study psychology and neurology.

Did that make sense?

[Epicurus]

I think some of you are mixing up morality with "justice". What is just and what is right are not necessarily the same thing. For instance, if a homeless person slept on a street corner, and the city demanded that he be fined for it, that may be considered just. Technically, it's the city's streetcorner. But it could be argued that it's not right: after all, that man may have nowhere else to go, and probably doesn't have the means to pay. Tearing the infant to pieces is certainly injust, at least to the mother and the child, but whether or not it's morally "right" is more subjective.I mix up a lot of things including this detail, thanks for helping correcting it anyway. :)

[sriv]

"inherently subjective" for you (as I'm sure you meant to say).


Good is subjective.

Only the narrow-minded think it isn't.

Apparently open minded people have such vague definitions that it's impossible to communicate.

There are some absolutes out there, if there aren't any absolutes then communication is an exercise in futility.

:laugh: I think it is meant to be vague.

If morality was subjective, then we wouldn't have a huge problem battling over what is and what isn't good.

Morality is what we say when we think of how things ought to be. Someone else may think differently and it would still be under even specific definitions of morality.

I disagree that morality is an absolute.

Damn this is a topic unto itself.

Sorry about the vague definitions, but I think this thread will clear things up and prove my earlier point.

[zhangxy]

I'm completely fine with morality as relative. But if we think that morality is relative, then our War on Terror isn't backed up by any reason. North Korea, Iraq, Iran can just walk off doing whatever they want to. We can't interfere with their decisions because morality is relative. The best argument is “we do what we want because we like it”. There is no right for the western world to impose their belief on others. It all comes down to survival of the fittest.

Yet, even though morality may be relative, we are still moral creatures. When we see someone fall into a river, our first reaction is to save them. Not doing so almost makes us... “evil”. I don't believe that there's someone with so much evil that they cannot think of one moral act/impulse to do. That small universal quality of all humans points is a possibility that morality is absolute. We have it but animals don't... ? .... can animals feel guilt? I don't think so.

[Antares]

Moral relativist here. There is no 'absolute morality' in my opinion. It's merely a social construct because no one wants to get hurt. I can almost hear our ancestors first inventing morality.

Tribe Leader 1: I don't want your tribe on my land
Tribe leader 2: I have nowhere else to go. This land is vast enough, has enough resources for everyone and has temperate climate. Why do you get to force me out? Mark that any attempts to expel us will result in violent bloodbath.
Tribe Leader 1: Very well; your people don't employ violence against ours, and we'll do the same, meanwhile letting you stay on this land.

Zhangxi: My dog feels guilt.

[sriv]

There are plenty of ambiguous points that are open to debate but there is a moral "core" without which a society ceases to exist. An example of a fundamental moral value would be it's wrong to murder other members of your society and take their stuff.

If you don't agree this is an absolute moral value step into this dark alley with me and I'll explain it to you ;)


I know there are morals cores and some absolutes, but when I said "inherently", I was specifically addressing those ambiguous points.

[Airfire]

Morality is defined both by subjective and objective constructs. While the majority can be viewed objectively (in terms of ethics) it also has a portion that is interpreted subjectively. I like Antares's take on its origins :)

Every time I hear the word morality, I can't help but play the mantra inscribed in my brain through my childhood from watching The Animaniacs on Fox Kids. "Wheel of Morality turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn." I remember one instance that went like "The Wheel of Morality provides boring educational value to what would otherwise be an entirely entertaining program through the efforts of the Fox Kids Network executives." Good times...

That gets me thinking, how are morals taught to today's kids? Subliminal queues through the television shows they watch, family upbringing, peer pressure, or a combination of them all?