100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where do morals come from??? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Why would there be a need for a feeling of justified sacrifice to be moral?
That often comes with a conflict between wants/needs. That doesn't make sense unless we revert to the belief that man in natural form is evil and will do evil things if not controlled
Man need not be inherently evil in order to be egoistic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it is true that different things matter to different people, cultures, groups, etc, we cannot use that to conclude that there are not some things which matter to everyone.
Really, which ones exactly?? Trust being one. Warrant another. Truth yet one more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They come from Turtle's.....
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the way down...
Heya Iam! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats happening soul????
I am in a bet,,to include turtle's in every forum.. How you Been? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been better, Been worse. suppose that means ok.
Good ta see ya! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right back at ya and I hope we see more of ya,,,
You've been MISSED.... Been better, Been worse. suppose that means ok.
Good ta see ya! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it is true that different things matter to different people, cultures, groups, etc, we cannot use that to conclude that there are not some things which matter to everyone.
Really, which ones exactly?? Trust being one. Warrant another. Truth yet one more. Trust and truth being the samething.....but I would not say that it was a moral amongst humans or even an existence of a moral but more of a collaboration for survival that everyone did a portion conducive to their own and their clans survival as one supported the other......it may have evolved into a moral but negun as one I do not believe so............I would say it was more a selfish need Now as for warrant I am not sure what you mean by warrant.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll have to explain to me why you hold trust and truth to be the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll have to explain to me why you hold trust and truth to be the same thing. Without truth people today have no trust without trust we hear no truth......anyways they were both once a non entity as a moral......death brought upon your head if non action in a a village type collaboration type society.....therefore they were not a moral.... Now explain to my why warrant would be considered a moral? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 01/20/11 10:18 AM
|
|
Seakolony:
Without truth people today have no trust without trust we hear no truth I cannot make sense of this. Can you rewrite it? anyways they were both once a non entity as a moral...death brought upon your head if non action in a a village type collaboration type society.....therefore they were not a moral.
Agreed. Now explain to my why warrant would be considered a moral?
I did not claim that trust, truth, or warrant were morals. I said that they matter to everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thorb:
After reading some of the posts and the .... you can't equate morality to moral belief. I have to disagree with that statement completely. that is implying morals are some universal law ... like gravity. they are not. It implies no such thing about morals Thorb unless one holds that morals, moral belief, codes of behavior, and morality are one in the same thing. I do not hold such a position, and argue against it. the closest to a law morals comes is the will to survive. And has often shown that it trumps any moral beliefs we think we have.
We must not interchange morality and moral belief as though they are one in the same thing, because they clearly are not. Moral belief is relative to individual particulars and therefore changes along with different culture and upbringing, whereas morality underwrites them all equally. Morality is a combined set of universal human conditions that give rise to the individual particulars, they exist and apply to all cases, without exception. The difficulty is had in identifying what those universal conditions are. I put it to you that humanity has yet to have successfully done this, but rather we get closer and closer as our knowledge grows and is applied retrospectively to the things we once thought were true. Pointing out that there are/were differences in codes of conduct and/or moral belief does not tell us anything at all about morality. lol n... you say no and then go on and describe yes claiming morality is some universal human thing ... like a law .... ie like the law of gravity... how confusingly hypocritical of you. you may try to make it sound different by saying its universal conditions of humanity ... that have not been discovered ... but that is just a smoke screen for the original implication that its some universal law of humanity.... and it is not. the onis is on you to prove there is. extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing extraordinary about that claim Thorb. It is a simple logical truth that morality and belief about morality are not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I describe a fairly standard philosophical view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Fri 01/21/11 03:21 PM
|
|
There's nothing extraordinary about that claim Thorb. It is a simple logical truth that morality and belief about morality are not the same thing. Its not a matter of 'truth', its a matter of 'definition'. It seems to me that philosophers are fond of mistaking their definitions for truths. The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008 The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. Creative, do you accept the above definition for 'morality'? If so, can you define morals in a way that makes clear the distinction you draw between the two? If you don't accept the above definition, would you be willing to provide the formal definition that make that same distinction clear? Edit: taken from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting thing about moral claims are that they are supposed to apply to others as well as ourselves. I agree that this is usually true, but disagree that it is always true. Me: I am motivated to some specific ... behaviors...while feeling that its perfectly okay for other people to not be motivated to those behaviors.
Creative: So those kinds of things are more like a personal preference, and not of moral import; not a matter of being right/wrong? Perhaps they are not moral behaviors? Of course, if you want you want your definitions to meet your conclusions. Lets just define 'morals' as 'that which we expect others to do' and be done with it. Or maybe morality is bit more subtle and complex for some people than it is for others. This is suggesting that some concerns are relative to one's experience.
True, but not the whole story. Why would these kinds of concerns be ethical, or the behaviors moral?
For me, this is based on reducing harm done to other feeling beings. Doesn't that require endorsing/employing what you believe is good for all?
No, especially not in the form of specific statements of conduct. If we hold that "moral behavior" is following the rules, Why start a sentence with that clause? Did someone state that they believe so? Understood. However, does sincerely believing that something is the right thing to do make it so? This question appears to me to be unrelated to any of my points. using self-interest as a sole guide.
You appear to be going on wide in your tangents. If you want to springboard off my comments to deliver your own, by all means go ahead. Lest anyone take your words as an indirect indication of my position, I assert that many of your comments are unrelated to my comments. Agreed. Those may not be needs at all, but rather preferences. 
All needs are preferences, inasmuch as we generally prefer to be alive, prefer to be happy, prefer for the species to continue. There are no intrinsic needs. Believing in the myth of intrinsic needs often leads dangerous positions on morality. We should be careful how we parse these things out.
Agreed. Companionship is a need. Humans cannot survive as humans without it. .... Same goes for trust. They are all irrevocable human conditions.
I find these statements, taken together, to be so ambiguous as to be empty of meaning. They are nice myths on which we can build a worldview, if we like. Thankfully you at least hint at causality 'surviving as humans', but what does it mean for homo sapiens to exist as 'non-humans'? I could just as easily say that humans need flush toilets to 'survive as humans', because I find those who **** in a hole to be 'sub human'. Earlier it seemed you were heading in that direction in some ways but not in others.
This appearance probably has more to do with your scheme of categorizing beliefs than my own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
There's nothing extraordinary about that claim Thorb. It is a simple logical truth that morality and belief about morality are not the same thing. massage: Its not a matter of 'truth', its a matter of 'definition'. It seems to me that philosophers are fond of mistaking their definitions for truths. Ah... righteous indignation! That's what I'm taking about! What I stated was a matter of logical truth, massagetrade. X and belief about X are necessarily different things, unless there is no distinction between the two. For instance, God and belief about God are completely indistinguishable. Morality is not a manmade concept. We do not define it, we can only hope to better understand what it is that we are attempting to define. Language has it's limits. Be that as it may... massagetrade:
The term “morality” can be used either Creative, do you accept the above definition for 'morality'? I accept that when morality is being approached from a descriptive or normative standpoint, that that definition satisfies. I do not hold that position. Both of those approaches equate morality to a code of conduct. Those are not the only positions. We must keep that in mind here. Hell, those two are essentially the same. Many, perhaps even most people interchange the two without suffering any loss of understanding, for they hold them equivalent to one another. Most people talk in descriptive terms. If so, can you define morals in a way that makes clear the distinction you draw between the two?
Merriam Webster's Collegiate definition works fine. As an adjective, it means pertaining to right and wrong behavior. As a noun it usually means to indicate a lesson about such. If you don't accept the above definition, would you be willing to provide the formal definition that make that same distinction clear?
Again Merriam Webster's Collegiate works fine... Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Date: 14th century 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE Note the primary use here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
An interesting thing about moral claims are that they are supposed to apply to others as well as ourselves. massage: I agree that this is usually true, but disagree that it is always true. Usually true about moral claims, or about how they are applied? Perhaps something else? massage:
I am motivated to some specific ... behaviors...while feeling that its perfectly okay for other people to not be motivated to those behaviors. creative: So those kinds of things are more like a personal preference, and not of moral import; not a matter of being right/wrong? Perhaps they are not moral behaviors? massage: Of course, if you want you want your definitions to meet your conclusions. Lets just define 'morals' as 'that which we expect others to do' and be done with it. Question marks denote inquiry. The dictionary definition works fine. Or maybe morality is bit more subtle and complex for some people than it is for others.
Morality, itself, is very subtle and very complex for all people. I suspect that you're talking about moral belief, from a descriptive standpoint. creative:
Why would these kinds of concerns be ethical, or the behaviors moral? massage: For me, this is based on reducing harm done to other feeling beings. Indeed, taking others' wellbeing into consideration is a necessary component. I've heard it said that acting morally is to act in respect of others. I would not disagree. creative:
Doesn't that require endorsing/employing what you believe is good for all? massage: No, especially not in the form of specific statements of conduct. Can you offer an example as to tease out the meaning here? massage:
All needs are preferences, inasmuch as we generally prefer to be alive, prefer to be happy, prefer for the species to continue. There are no intrinsic needs. Believing in the myth of intrinsic needs often leads dangerous positions on morality. All P are Q is indefensible in the above context. Neglecting the necessary difference between needs and preferences does not make them equal, nor does our imagining that needs do not exist make them go away. creative:
Companionship is a need. Humans cannot survive as humans without it. Same goes for trust. They are all irrevocable human conditions. massage: I find these statements, taken together, to be so ambiguous as to be empty of meaning. The words have conventional meaning. The use adheres. The above is not incoherent. I do not 'see' the problem you espouse. They are nice myths on which we can build a worldview, if we like.
It's never a good sign when facts are called "myths". I have to wonder where this is coming from. Perhaps it is the extraneous "as humans"? Occam's razor should have cut that part off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
righteous indignation! That's what I'm taking about!
Why do you say this? Are you experiencing righteous indignation? Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions? Or trolling? Those are not the only positions.
Do other positions require different definitions? Merriam Webster's Collegiate definition works fine. As an adjective, it means pertaining to right and wrong behavior. As a noun it usually means to indicate a lesson about such. Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Date: 14th century 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE Note the primary use here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
Ah, righteous indignation! That's what I'm taking about! massage: Why do you say this? Are you experiencing righteous indignation? Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions? Or trolling? I don't appreciate the negative personal implications. Let's resolve this respectfully. Perhaps it could be based purely upon the manner in which you objected? Jumping into a conversation between Thorb and I, while first neglecting ours, in order to object upon the grounds which you did clearly suggests that your moral/ethical sensibilities were somehow offended by my claims. Not that there is anything unreasonable or inherently 'wrong' about that. To quite the contrary, it happens to everyone, and marks morality as I see it. Of course, I could very well be mistaken as well, and it would not be the first time, nor will it be the last. No offense meant, of that I am certain. Do other positions require different definitions?
Yes, they do. There are other positions which reject the idea that morals and/or moral belief and morality are equivalent. As I've already stated, that particular article is based upon the descriptive and/or normative position. However, if one arrives at a position that holds morality and moral belief as distinct, then it necessitates a wedge be driven between codes of conduct and morality. That is arrived at through metaethical considerations. IOW when we examine the history of what people mean when making moral claims, the distinction becomes more than apparent. Hopefully this clears things up a bit. |
|
|
|
|
