1 2 3 5 7 8 9 28 29
Topic: Where do morals come from???
no photo
Fri 01/21/11 06:30 PM

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.


By 'respectfully', do you mean 'abstaining from putting words in other's mouths' and 'abstaining from incorrectly ascribing motives' and the like?

clearly suggests


To you that is what this 'clearly suggests'.


no photo
Fri 01/21/11 06:31 PM
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.



All P are Q. Any intelligent example of a P will have the form "X is needed for Y", not "X is a need". While acknowledging that X is indeed needed for Y, I could then argue that Y is, itself, simply a preference, a want, a choice. In this way, all P are found to be Q. My own existence is a preference, not an intrinsic need. The existence of humanity is a preference, not an intrinsic need.

Neglecting the necessary difference between needs and preferences does not make them equal,


Yet another true statement which is unrelated to my statements.

nor does our imagining that needs do not exist make them go away.


YATSWIUTMS.


The words have conventional meaning.


Conventional meanings are sometimes empty and unexamined.


I have to wonder where this is coming from. Perhaps it is the extraneous "as humans"?


Its very simple. There are no intrinsic needs. Its meaningless to say "X is a need", and meaningful to say "X is needed for Y".

You were on to something when you said "needed to survive as humans". It sounds like the 'needs' you assert are either 'needs for survival', or 'needs for a group of humans to meet some unstated criteria for how a group of humans ought to be'.

creativesoul's photo
Fri 01/21/11 06:39 PM
creative:
Ah, righteous indignation! That's what I'm talking about!


massage:

Why do you say this? Are you experiencing righteous indignation? Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions? Or trolling?


creative:

I don't appreciate the negative personal implications. Let's resolve this respectfully.


massage:

By 'respectfully', do you mean 'abstaining from putting words in other's mouths' and 'abstaining from incorrectly ascribing motives' and the like?


Amongst other things.

massage:

To you that is what this 'clearly suggests'.


And still does.


creativesoul's photo
Fri 01/21/11 07:21 PM
massage:

All P are Q. Any intelligent example of a P will have the form "X is needed for Y", not "X is a need".


No true scotsman.

P is necessary for Q does not make all P's Q's.

massage:

While acknowledging that X is indeed needed for Y, I could then argue that Y is, itself, simply a preference, a want, a choice. In this way, all P are found to be Q.


That way is invalid.

massage:

My own existence is a preference, not an intrinsic need. The existence of humanity is a preference, not an intrinsic need.


Offering an example such as one's own continued existence and claiming that that is not a need does not suffice. That claim is rather uncontentious.

Sustenance is necessary in order to live. To continue living could be a preference or a need. That depends soley upon what is necessarily contingent upon one's continued existence.

creative:

Neglecting the necessary difference between needs and preferences does not make them equal,


massage:

Yet another true statement which is unrelated to my statements.


Untrue. It points out the error contained within.

creative:

The words have conventional meaning.


massage:

Conventional meanings are sometimes empty and unexamined.


Not in that case.

massage:

Its very simple. There are no intrinsic needs. Its meaningless to say "X is a need", and meaningful to say "X is needed for Y".


Repeatedly asserting the same claim does not make it true.

X being needed for Y, does not make Y a need, nor does it make X a preference. It makes Y contingent upon X. That is what makes X a need. It marks the difference between the two.

massage:

You were on to something when you said "needed to survive as humans". It sounds like the 'needs' you assert are either 'needs for survival', or 'needs for a group of humans to meet some unstated criteria for how a group of humans ought to be'.


Perhaps. We are necessarily interdependent social creatures, first and foremost. "As humans" was superfluous.

Nyteflame's photo
Fri 01/21/11 07:49 PM
Edited by Nyteflame on Fri 01/21/11 07:53 PM
Dictionary.com defines "moral" as "conforming to the rules of right conduct" (among many other definitions of course).

The question then, is what determines "right conduct", and I would have to agree with the majority in saying that society determines this.

My society tells me that there are many things that are not defined as "right conduct". To use a common example: sleeping around. My favorite stray cat is in heat right now. She has been bringing her "boyfriends" to my front porch every night this week, and she is not ashamed that there are several of them. Because she is a cat, this is not an immoral way for her to act. If I acted like this however, most people would consider me to be immoral. Morality, in this case, is not defined by nature, but by the society one lives in.

Another example (human this time) is the practice of cannibalism. In most developed societies, canabalism is considered immoral. It does not meet society's view of "right conduct". In some areas of the world however, canabalism is a ritualistic part of the funeral process, and not participating could be considered an insult to the deceased (though I believe that depends on your status in the community).

For almost every immoral thing one can think of, there is an example in the world (or at least in history) of a society that would not view the act as immoral. (I said almost for a reason, for those of you with particularly macabre minds, leave it be, my imagination can fill in the gaps without your help)

creativesoul's photo
Fri 01/21/11 07:49 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Fri 01/21/11 07:52 PM
Crap massage...

If you're pointing out the relationship between the two, then I agree that "X is a need" is meaningless if we do not know what is contingent upon it. That does not make all P's Q's however. Nor does it follow that there are no intrinsic needs.




Dragoness's photo
Fri 01/21/11 07:52 PM
Social morals come from two or more humans communicating what they have observed and how they feel about it and agreeing that certain actions are not good or some are good.f

Personal morals are different though they come from empathy during observations.

My opinion.

creativesoul's photo
Fri 01/21/11 08:00 PM
Well I agree with both of you ladies here in a sense. I mean throughout history it has been society, or those in power who make the rules. The further from religion we get, it seems the more that the people have a say in the matter. Thankfully, there is strong philosophical influence now-a-days to keep reaon intact while honoring as much freedom as possible.

I think the greater the world-wide agreement is upon what is right and wrong, the more freedom we will see. Implementing morality, even in the sense that I and others approach it, will require concensus.

no photo
Fri 01/21/11 08:43 PM
X being needed for Y, does not make Y a need,


Exactly. I'm glad you agree.

nor does it make X a preference.


When Y is found to be only a preference, then X becomes at most a prerequisite for a preference. Its a need relative to Y, but intrinsically it is itself at most a preference.


Crap massage...

If you're pointing out the relationship between the two, then I agree that "X is a need" is meaningless if we do not know what is contingent upon it.


I'd go farther and say that its not enough for it to be known, but it also ought to be stated.

That does not make all P's Q's however.


I wonder if you thought I was attempting a logical derivation based on X as a member of P, Y as a member of Q, X is needed for Y, and trying to prove symbolically that X is a member of P. That is not the case.

A summary of my actual argument for asserting that all P's are Q's is the paragraph above that starts with "When Y is found...". I never stated nor implied equivalence of P and Q.

Nor does it follow that there are no intrinsic needs.


Then we are probably using the word 'intrinsic' differently. I am using the phrase 'intrinsic need' to refer to a need which can be claimed to exist without any sense of 'being needed for something'.

The hypothetical (imaginary) 'intrinsic need' just exists, as a 'need', onto itself.

A: I need X.
B: For what do you need X?
A: For nothing. Its simply a need, not a need 'for' anything.

It makes Y contingent upon X. That is what makes X a need. It marks the difference between the two.


If R is the set of non-intrinsic needs (prerequisites for something), and S is the set of preferences, then I agree that knowing whether Z is a member of R or S tells us something meaningful about Z.


creativesoul's photo
Fri 01/21/11 10:15 PM
It seems to me massage, that you're marking the oh-so-common incorrect use of the term "need". I agree that - say, "I need a new pair of shoes" is not intrinsic(essential to life), conversely it is 'needed' to maintain a standard of living that that person holds.

I'm still quite unsure of the logic you're using though. I may have misunderstood, but when you claimed that all needs were preferences, that is where I derived all P's are Q's.

It seems we largely agree here though that in terms of identification, a plurality is needed. I mean A=A is the so-called 'law' of identity, but I find it utterly meaningless. Identification requires distinction, which in turn requires a plurality.

Did you better understand what I meant when I objected to morals and morality being one in the same thing?

no photo
Sun 01/23/11 07:50 PM

intrinsic(essential to life)


If you are using 'intrinsic' to mean 'essential for life' then we've been talking about two different ideas for this entire conversation. By intrinsic I mean 'existing onto itself', not 'essential for [insert whatever]'.

For any need, I declare 'needs' don't exist onto themselves, only 'for' something else. So what is this 'need' needed for?

In this case, your answer would be 'life', and thats a perfectly legitimate answer. It seems to me that you claim that certain needs exist which are essential for life, and I agree.


have misunderstood, but when you claimed that all needs were preferences, that is where I derived all P's are Q's.


My position is that life is itself is a preference, not a 'need onto itself', so anything needed for life still fail to exist as needs unto themselves, they are needs for a preference.




Did you better understand what I meant when I objected to morals and morality being one in the same thing?


For me this is a semantic issue, on which must be addressed between the the people who are debating points that are built on those terms.

Separately, there was never any disagreement between you and I regarding the question of whether beliefs about thing is the same thing as the thing itself.

creativesoul's photo
Mon 01/24/11 12:07 AM
If you are using 'intrinsic' to mean 'essential for life' then we've been talking about two different ideas for this entire conversation. By intrinsic I mean 'existing onto itself', not 'essential for [insert whatever]'.


Indeed. I do not normally use the term intrinsic(although there are intrinsic needs), rather I applied my understanding of what that term is normally used to mean. I've never seen it used in the manner you employ, nor have I witnessed anyone else use it in that way. I suppose I'm slightly taken aback. I cannot even think of a need which would satisfy that description of 'existing onto itself'.

Can such a criterion even be satisfied? I don't see how it can, and therefore I must wonder what the purpose of drawing such a 'distinction' is.

For any need, I declare 'needs' don't exist onto themselves, only 'for' something else. So what is this 'need' needed for?


Of course, needs are always parsed out in relation to that which is contingent upon them, for that is what makes them needs. I had no idea that that was a matter of contention. In the context of morality, needs would regard what is necessary to improve and sustain the overall wellbeing of humanity.

AdventureBegins's photo
Mon 01/24/11 07:24 PM
Who decides what constitutes the 'overall wellbeing of humanity'?

me? I? You? US? or THEM?

Since everyone has an opinion that could be a very wide gate.

creativesoul's photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:14 PM
That's a good question AB. I think that that can only be answered by looking at the state of humanity, and taking measures to improve where necessary. The goal ought to be increaisng the overall wellbeing of humanity. There are ways to test whether or not measures would work without necessarily putting them into practice. As history has it, it would need to be a matter of social convention, undoubtedly debated.

no photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:17 PM

That's a good question AB. I think that that can only be answered by looking at the state of humanity, and taking measures to improve where necessary. The goal ought to be increaisng the overall wellbeing of humanity. There are ways to test whether or not measures would work without necessarily putting them into practice. As history has it, it would need to be a matter of social convention, undoubtedly debated.


How can you know what would be an improvement? There would have to be a goal that you are trying to reach in order for morality to make progress. If there is no goal, then changes are just changes and cannot be considered improvements.

Thorb's photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:42 PM
and the Moral of the story of Morality is .... semantics in such a way that that in itself breaks its universality.

what makes morals..... story tellers.

creativesoul's photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:47 PM
@ Spider:

By applying current knowledge. What an odd question. The goal has already been put forth. Can you think of a better goal?




@ Thorb:

I have no idea what you meant.

no photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:51 PM

By applying current knowledge. What an odd question. The goal has already been put forth. Can you think of a better goal?


This answer makes no sense to me. What is your measuring stick for morality?

creativesoul's photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:55 PM
That's a long story Spider.

Basically trust and truth.

no photo
Mon 01/24/11 08:57 PM

That's a long story Spider.

Basically trust and truth.


Trust and truth in what?

What value do trust and truth have? By lying and betraying people, you can become rich and powerful, why limit yourself to being trustworthy and truthful?

1 2 3 5 7 8 9 28 29