A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 06:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 05:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It is generalizations which isn't a path I'm often a fan of, especially when it comes to the other angle of picking out an individual's presumed other views based on a few generalization.
OK, cool. I was just wanting an acknowledgement of that from TBD. Perhaps this is what he means, perhaps not. I'm not sure.

But if he is saying that he determines the morality of a society merely by making a generalisation based on, perhaps, his own personal experiences with individuals from that society or just perhaps on his own personal perception of that society, then his assessment (although holding some purpose for himself, perhaps helping him to narrate some perceived understanding or meaning about that society), his assessment holds no weight for others unless those others value his personal opinions no matter how lacking of supporting of evidence or method they built upon

"An individual's personal morality IMO should, and does not affect society at large Unless the morals chosen are criminal in nature,."

But in the context of "morality" the moral believers tend to have the idea that people are held accountable regarding a moral obligation'

^To whom do you refer?"

IF they deem that morality is a construct of society (owned at the level of society) then do they suggest that members of that society ought to live upto that moral obligation?

"See above."


For example, in a majority religious society where gay sex is deemed as immoral, should an unreligious gay member of that society accept that their physical love for their significant partner is an immoral act?

If the society had laws in place to uphold the morality of that society, then would they be morally justified in locking up a gay person for behaving immorally?

"Some laws are based in ancient ideas, such as xianity and islam. If the law is the law, what can one do about it? It is for the courts to decide. Not the individual."

If the consequences are so dire that someone loses their own freedom then shouldn't the law be based on some real determination rather than just the law maker's own perceptions and generalisations regarding the morality of a society?

"Recently Indonesia shot Australian drug traffickers. Australia protested, but it was Indonesian law and they followed suit."

Personally, I feel the individual's moral beliefs are what holds weight. The individual determines for themself what they perceive to be right and wrong. They then feel guilt themselves if they feel that they have acted immorally. A person does not feel guilt if they feel they have acted immorally according to someone else's perception and generalisation regarding the society within which they live.

"I can agree with this. Many have their own moral code. Whether that code benefits society is up to the courts."

If, for example a devout Catholic has sex with his wife and uses a condom because he doesn't want a baby. He will feel guilt even if having sex with your own wife with a condom is legal and isn't perceived by the majority of citizens to be immoral.

The guilt comes with the person's own moral beliefs, the moral beliefs of others within society has nothing to do with it.

"I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."

My answers in bold above.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 07:04 PM)Banjo Wrote:  "I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."
They became his, regardless of where they came from, because he chose to believe them. If he didn't believe them then he wouldn't feel guilt.

There are probably lots of Catholics that don't believe this to be a sin and hence they don't feel guilt. But I'm sure there are some Catholics that do believe this to be a sin, they do the "crime" feel the guilt and ask for forgiveness at the confessional.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 07:54 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 07:04 PM)Banjo Wrote:  "I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."
They became his, regardless of where they came from, because he chose to believe them. If he didn't believe them then he wouldn't feel guilt.

There are probably lots of Catholics that don't believe this to be a sin and hence they don't feel guilt. But I'm sure there are some Catholics that do believe this to be a sin, they do the "crime" feel the guilt and ask for forgiveness at the confessional.

No if he is catholic it comes through the church as a directive from god. Do it as I command. This person his given away his free thought.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 08:14 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 12:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 11:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Culture is an aggregation of behaviours of individuals.

Culture incapsulates a variety of factors, including values. You may try to draw lines here, but that's perhaps more of western thing. The lines are fuzzy, because morality, culture, religion, etc.. are so interwoven, that you can't really draw fences between them. In many cultures, particularly early ones it was all religion, encapsulating the moral, cultural, and political dimensions of human life.

Quote:Individual behaviour is influenced by the compromise between Organisational Ethics and Individual Ethics.

Organisational (state / business / family / etc.) Ethics are embodied in the practices derived from the organisation's values / principles and encoded in their policies / laws / edicts.

And those lines are fuzzy as well, between the individual and the organizational. The bonds and influence are likely stronger at the more immediate ends than the abstract ones like the state. My circle of friends, my family contributing more to my moral shaping than the state, or the larger society, or my employer, and educational institutions. And the individual ethic starts to blend a considerable deal with these immediate bonds. My friends, family, community more pliable to my own moral values, than you are.

And none of the shaping of our morality need be deliberate, or shaped solely by the moral views of others. Your moral perceptions and attitudes can shift considerably just by life events, our relationship with our parents, failed marriages, death, terror, isolation, etc...


Quote:So, St.Evil is right when he says that NZ does not have morals.

I'm sure St. Evil would say that if he lived anywhere else as well, particularly any other western nation.

Huh I'm not sure but I think you were just rewording what I said but with less clarity?

You say "you can't really draw fences between them" ... fence-drawing is not the point of the exercise.

Think of it a bit like an Ishikawa diagram.

[Image: -font-b-Fishbone-b-font-font-b-diagram-b...arment.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 08:16 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 07:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  ...
No if he is catholic it comes through the church as a directive from god. Do it as I command. This person his given away his free thought.

So you're saying that this person has chosen to give away his free thought?

I guess he had no choice.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
05-01-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 08:16 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 07:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  ...
No if he is catholic it comes through the church as a directive from god. Do it as I command. This person his given away his free thought.

So you're saying that this person has chosen to give away his free thought?

I guess he had no choice.

Consider

I do not think choice ever entered into it. Perhaps given was a bad choice of word. Taken, may have been better.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 12:31 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 11:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 08:16 PM)DLJ Wrote:  So you're saying that this person has chosen to give away his free thought?

I guess he had no choice.

Consider

I do not think choice ever entered into it. Perhaps given was a bad choice of word. Taken, may have been better.

Either way ... doesn't matter.

By arguing that an individual has transferred their personal powers of decision-making to a higher moral authority (state / god / social club / etc.), you are legitimising "god made me do it" or "I was only following orders" as a legal defense.

In the case of a slave, or even an employee, the latter may be true but is it just/right/moral/ethical?

The individual still has ownership of the moral decision (based on their evolved emotions) even if the organisation owns the policy.

The organisation's policy came from its defined (usually defined by the leadership (CEO or pope or parliament)) values / principles.

To clarify ... I'm taking issue with your statement: "I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."

I'm saying that the 'morals' belong to the individual relating to his own ethics. His behaviour (the decisions he makes) are a choice between his own set of ethics and the organisational ethics (which are realised in policies and practices).

Reasons why he may not feel he has a choice (personal risk etc. in the example of a slave or an employee etc.) are worth discussing but are not relevant ... he still has that choice.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 04:24 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 07:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They became his, regardless of where they came from, because he chose to believe them. If he didn't believe them then he wouldn't feel guilt.

There are probably lots of Catholics that don't believe this to be a sin and hence they don't feel guilt. But I'm sure there are some Catholics that do believe this to be a sin, they do the "crime" feel the guilt and ask for forgiveness at the confessional.

No if he is catholic it comes through the church as a directive from god. Do it as I command. This person his given away his free thought.

Ain't nobody givin' me away, I don't belong to anyone.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(06-01-2016 12:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 11:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I do not think choice ever entered into it. Perhaps given was a bad choice of word. Taken, may have been better.

Either way ... doesn't matter.

By arguing that an individual has transferred their personal powers of decision-making to a higher moral authority (state / god / social club / etc.), you are legitimising "god made me do it" or "I was only following orders" as a legal defense.

In the case of a slave, or even an employee, the latter may be true but is it just/right/moral/ethical?

The individual still has ownership of the moral decision (based on their evolved emotions) even if the organisation owns the policy.

The organisation's policy came from its defined (usually defined by the leadership (CEO or pope or parliament)) values / principles.

To clarify ... I'm taking issue with your statement: "I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."

I'm saying that the 'morals' belong to the individual relating to his own ethics. His behaviour (the decisions he makes) are a choice between his own set of ethics and the organisational ethics (which are realised in policies and practices).

Reasons why he may not feel he has a choice (personal risk etc. in the example of a slave or an employee etc.) are worth discussing but are not relevant ... he still has that choice.

You may be right. I as you know was never religious. So perhaps understand little. Many brilliant people such as Newtown, Aurelius and others believed. Why, I do not know.

I do know xianity and islam were forced upon individuals by pain of death. Justinian banned paganism and the penalty was death. Xians burned people at the stake and whatnot. How many non believers did not let on is not known.

I have seen people who have been indoctrinated. That this happens is beyond repute. Indeed many stories exist on these pages and many do not escape. So was this system forced upon them?

It is not for me to say really.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(06-01-2016 05:12 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(06-01-2016 12:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Either way ... doesn't matter.

By arguing that an individual has transferred their personal powers of decision-making to a higher moral authority (state / god / social club / etc.), you are legitimising "god made me do it" or "I was only following orders" as a legal defense.

In the case of a slave, or even an employee, the latter may be true but is it just/right/moral/ethical?

The individual still has ownership of the moral decision (based on their evolved emotions) even if the organisation owns the policy.

The organisation's policy came from its defined (usually defined by the leadership (CEO or pope or parliament)) values / principles.

To clarify ... I'm taking issue with your statement: "I disagree. In this case these morals are not his own. They were given to him to follow my the catholic church."

I'm saying that the 'morals' belong to the individual relating to his own ethics. His behaviour (the decisions he makes) are a choice between his own set of ethics and the organisational ethics (which are realised in policies and practices).

Reasons why he may not feel he has a choice (personal risk etc. in the example of a slave or an employee etc.) are worth discussing but are not relevant ... he still has that choice.

You may be right. I as you know was never religious. So perhaps understand little. Many brilliant people such as Newtown, Aurelius and others believed. Why, I do not know.

I do know xianity and islam were forced upon individuals by pain of death. Justinian banned paganism and the penalty was death. Xians burned people at the stake and whatnot. How many non believers did not let on is not known.

I have seen people who have been indoctrinated. That this happens is beyond repute. Indeed many stories exist on these pages and many do not escape. So was this system forced upon them?

It is not for me to say really.

I agree entirely that the system was forced upon them ... or for later generations it's what they grew up with so accepted it as normal.

This latter aspect can also be seen in any culture ... we have evolved to accept the wisdom of our elders.
Somewhat blandly, I grew up thinking that having a church in every village was normal. As an extreme I have Chinese friends who were flummoxed when I mentioned the purges of chairman Mao ... they'd quite simply never heard of that! The system they grew up with was normal.

Aurelius and Newton get a pass as the were pre-Darwin.

But this 'force' is what I was referring to earlier ... Organisational Ethics vs. Individual Ethics.

The ones who did not accept the system of ethics decreed (christianity or Islam) i.e. their individual ethics wouldn't let them, were 'removed'. Those that did were assimilated.

Less dramatically, if I don't agree to sign a company's Code of Ethics, they won't recruit me or I won't want to be recruited.

Of course, I could decide that the salary is big enough that I'll put aside my qualms but this just means that financial remuneration is high on my list of my individual ethics.

The choice is still mine.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: