Poll: Where do you stand ethically/morally?
Ethical Egoism
Moral Relativism
Kantianism/Categorical Imperative
Utilitarianism
Emotivism
Hobbes' Social Contract Theory
Religious Based
Other
[Show Results]
 
Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2012, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2012 09:03 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 07:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You have nothing to offer but arrogance and straw.

Your dogmatism is simply a baseless assertion that morality exists and that somehow magically in your mind reason alone can provide absolute right and wrong without the focus of any goal (subjective or absolute). You show very limited understanding of human behavior and thus lack any foresight into how collective laws are formed in societies via voting on personal preference.

You build strawmen because you think you know all the answers and are not willing to listen to people whom have different viewpoints to your own. You insist that their position is your strawman, despite them repeatedly telling you what their position is. You then gleefully set fire to your strawman declaring victory as your opponent shakes his head thinking was a waste of time that was.

Give me one example of a strawman argument I formed?

Also, either you can't read or can't comprehend, because I gave more than enough explanation for my viewpoint.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't even know your own damn viewpoint, let alone any of the others.

I know I invited anyone to the discussion regardless of their knowledge on the subject, but I wasn't expecting the most ignorant person to show up and put on a five page display of their lack of wisdom.

EDIT: Actually, don't respond to that, I'm tired of this.

Here was a guy who is very highly respected by me and was a great philosopher. They didn't believe exactly the same thing as you, but close enough: they believed that moral judgements had absolutely no truth. They wanted to say, since it wasn't empirically testable, that morality, as well other metaphysical claims, should be thrown out the window as absurdity. That's similar to saying morality doesn't exist, they were just smart enough to come up with a theory to back their claim up.

AJ Ayer: I suppose the greatest defect...is that nearly all of it was false.

According to Dr. Eric Unger, Professor Ayer’s originality consisted in the fact that no philosopher had been more “outspoken in his denial of the possibility of any moral knowledge,” but there is nothing particularly praiseworthy in the originality which consists in expounding views too foolish ever to have been anticipated by all the sophists of the past. What finally killed logical positivism was the fact that every logical positivist was forced to admit some moral judgements were far from meaningless.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 01:45 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
You started off by suggesting that I thought that morality is the cause of religion. You debunked that strawman by presenting a personal assertion that religion is the cause of immorality. Followed up by your personal assertion that people blow themselves up in the name of God (rather in support of morality).

You suggested that I was worried about the survival of the human race, you then went to effort to debunk that theory by explaining that humans were around for a great deal of time before laws.


There you go, two strawmen. There are many others, you seem to do it without even knowing. I have highlighted these two to you before, and you still choose not to see them.

You keep insisting that my position is that of personal preference only which is fine, it is a personal preference, you then repeatedly build a strawman and suggest my position is merely that of preference of something such as that of a particular colour of the rainbow. That I have no grounds or motivation to support or influence law, that I am only capable of physically fighting those whom oppose me rather than wanting law within my society. This is very frustrating and kills any potential for open discussion with you. I have showed you many times how this is wrong and is not my position, but it seems with your arrogance you insist on being right, you insist on knowing my position better than me, and hence you insist that my position is flawed. And I would agree with you, this strawman that you have carefully constructed comes from a flawed position. You have burnt it down many times, Well done, you are so smart, must be the smartest person in the world, where do I purchase my prayer mat so that I can start worshipping you?

But if you instead, drop your arrogant act, drop your preconceptions and listen to me then we could discuss my position, my brand of being an amoralist. It is possible for us to discuss this, maybe not right now because there is too much heat at the moment, maybe not ever because there is so much baggage now, but theoretically it is possible. I have been trying so hard to have this conversation with you. I do see value in it, you do seem to have pondered various aspects of various brands of morality and I would be interested to read what you think about my position.

What you refuse to see is that unlike a preference of the colour of the rainbow, I am highly motivated to survive. If you have an understanding of natural law then you will know that government is not the highest authority. Regardless of the laws that government set, people will react with violence if certain natural rights are violated. It is simple to comprehend. If someone tries to kill me or my children I will react violently and try to kill that person. I am highly motivated on some preferences. Not because of an understanding of absolute rights and absolute wrongs (morality) but merely and selfishly because I want to live. If there are enough people with similar preference for survival then we can agree to create a set of laws to help us survive, we don't need to take on the world individually, we can form a society and create laws without having to invoke a belief in morality. Does natural law imply morality? I don't believe so, this is where I don't entirely agree with natural law. Natural law implies that each species of animal has some blueprint of behaviours as if it is written into their DNA somehow. Than monkeys socially behave in a way because they are monkeys that humans socially behave in a way because they are humans and something special about humans is that they value property. I believe humans value property because it improves their lives in someway. The most important property is that which can be tied to our own survival, e.g a house, clothes, food. A person might argue that they value their Ferrari more than these items, but if they have no money and cant afford a house, clothes or food, they will surly sell the Ferrari, they know its value they know that it can be transferred into the necessities if necessary.

But anyway, a society is made up of a collection of people, each with their personal preferences, political parties try to understand collectively what those are and try to campaign on issues that people will collectively vote for. Political parties get to this understanding by going out into the public and talking to the people. They don't do it by sitting in a room and meditating or using reason alone to get an understanding on absolute right and absolute wrong (morality). Shortcuts can certainly be made by invoking principles such as the golden rule, the vast majority of people have a personal preference for that.

If a government campaigns on morality, says that they will always do the moral thing, and that all laws will be in support of morality, I doubt that they will get many votes because people will be scared about what the government might deem as moral or immoral. If they campaign on specific issues e.g. social welfare, three strikes and you are out, reduction in taxes, then people will take interest, people, just plain and simply want to survive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(06-06-2012 07:54 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Here was a guy who is very highly respected by me and was a great philosopher. They didn't believe exactly the same thing as you, but close enough: they believed that moral judgements had absolutely no truth. They wanted to say, since it wasn't empirically testable, that morality, as well other metaphysical claims, should be thrown out the window as absurdity. That's similar to saying morality doesn't exist, they were just smart enough to come up with a theory to back their claim up.

AJ Ayer: I suppose the greatest defect...is that nearly all of it was false.

According to Dr. Eric Unger, Professor Ayer’s originality consisted in the fact that no philosopher had been more “outspoken in his denial of the possibility of any moral knowledge,” but there is nothing particularly praiseworthy in the originality which consists in expounding views too foolish ever to have been anticipated by all the sophists of the past. What finally killed logical positivism was the fact that every logical positivist was forced to admit some moral judgements were far from meaningless.
The sad thing about this is that it is yet another strawman with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure.

Ayer's argument is not my argument thus debunking Ayer does not address my argument. STRAWMAN!
Stating that Dr Unger thinks Ayer's views are too foolish, is purely an appeal to authority, you have offered no reasoning why he thinks it is foolish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 12:32 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(06-06-2012 01:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You started off by suggesting that I thought that morality is the cause of religion. You debunked that strawman by presenting a personal assertion that religion is the cause of immorality. Followed up by your personal assertion that people blow themselves up in the name of God (rather in support of morality).

...................

If a government campaigns on morality, says that they will always do the moral thing, and that all laws will be in support of morality, I doubt that they will get many votes because people will be scared about what the government might deem as moral or immoral. If they campaign on specific issues e.g. social welfare, three strikes and you are out, reduction in taxes, then people will take interest, people, just plain and simply want to survive.

How about this?????

How about you give me your argument in simple syllogistic from?

Since I apparently didn't understand it, and was arguing against a stickman, even though I wasn't arguing at all:

How about you just lay out your argument in syllogistic form, and I respond to your argument?????

By the way, all you just said was way off. It's almost 8 pages deep and you still don't understand my original point. How many days have you had to think it over? You're telling me you still can't understand?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 12:46 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(06-06-2012 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The sad thing about this is that it is yet another strawman with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure.

Ayer's argument is not my argument thus debunking Ayer does not address my argument. STRAWMAN!
Stating that Dr Unger thinks Ayer's views are too foolish, is purely an appeal to authority, you have offered no reasoning why he thinks it is foolish.

Again, that wasn't an argument you dumb fuck.

Quote:They were just smart enough to come up with a theory to back their claim up.

Why in the hell would I build a stickman and worry about arguing against somebody who doesn't even have a viable argument yet?

You have yet to make a good point through this entire thread.

You seriously have to be joking at this point.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2012 03:40 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
What is this, Philosophy 101?

I came onto this thread because I liked the OP, it was asking people to state their position.

"Other- any alternative theory I left out, a combination of the above theories and/or your own personal theory or views on ethics and morality."

So I did, I said that I had no beliefs in morality and I offered a personal opinion with regards to separating religion from morality. Stating that it was the morality of religion that I didn't like rather than religion itself.

You immediately start off "You are missing the point" as if there is something wrong with me. There is a wise saying "Speak from the I", I have noticed, and it happened in this case, when a person starts of with "you" it seems like a personal attack.

Then you state "Morality isn't the cause of religion" presumably because you think I was stating that it was, presumably this is why you said "I" was missing the point.

In this first post to me you state "If it is neither right nor wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with religion".

But how can this be a response to me, at no point did I state that I have a problem with religion?

So I respond to you and politely clarify my position “I claimed that belief in morality is the cause of religious wars, which is different to claiming that belief in morality is the cause of religion.”

I also state my understanding of the term morality just to make sure that we aren’t arguing semantics
“To claim that anything is immoral is to claim knowledge of absolute right and absolute wrong”

I then go to some description to explain why I think the issue is religious morality rather than religion itself.
“Religion becomes dangerous with belief in morality. With this moral belief they then think it is their purpose to be morality agents. To ensure all of humanity
conforms to their morality belief”

You then respond again with a personal attack “You're still missing the point then”

And you state that “Religion isn't morality” as if that was the position that I held, which clearly it is not.

And then arrogantly you say this “I really can't go into detail explaining it all to you, I have better things to do, but you're way off. Go back to the drawing board.”

Making me out to be dumb presumably because of an appeal to authority, which in this case is merely an appeal to yourself. A suggestion for
you, if you state that someone is incorrect then go to the effort to provide reasoning, otherwise don’t publically make the claim that they are incorrect.

You then state “I know morality like I know math and language/description.”

Which sounds like one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. Are you making a claim that you are the authority on morality thus mere mortals aren’t to disagree with you?

And then yet more arrogance “I knew (no I can't actually see the future) that was how you were going to respond; I was going to defeat that view prior to you responding, but I didn't feel like it, still don't.”

And you end it with a personal attack on me “My friend always would say: "have you tried to stop being a bitch". I think that is the solution to your problem.”

So how do you think a conversation between you and me is going to progress after this?

I have tried very hard to have a decent conversation with you. I even went to the trouble to use your jargon "strawman" so that you could understand me. Understand that you haven’t been addressing my position. Understand that you have been debunking a position that is different from mine.

At no point do I profess to being a student of philosophy, I am just a normal guy with a career very far removed from philosophy. I have done some thinking with regards to morality and have come to the personal realisation that I don’t believe in morality. I am certainly keen to discuss it with people, especially people that have done some research in the field. What a great opportunity to talk to someone like that.

But when they attack a position that I don’t hold, debunk it and then fire personal insults at me in their victory. Well, I am left dumbfounded, wouldn’t it be great if this person could stop the insults and instead discuss with me my position. My position, not his own preconceived ideas, not positions he has read about in books or in the internet, not throw at me the refutes of amorality that he has read in books or the on the internet, but instead, discuss my position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
07-06-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Would you guys take a break from arguing about personality, and consider addressing the topic at hand? Seriously, half this thread is a restatement of the debunked moral argument "I know you are, but what am I?".

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
07-06-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(07-06-2012 05:30 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Would you guys take a break from arguing about personality, and consider addressing the topic at hand? Seriously, half this thread is a restatement of the debunked moral argument "I know you are, but what am I?".


Yep it just goes on and on and on with both parties getting nowhere fast other than satiating their gross egos while largely ignoring the original post and adding nothing of substantive value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 06:08 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(07-06-2012 05:41 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(07-06-2012 05:30 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Would you guys take a break from arguing about personality, and consider addressing the topic at hand? Seriously, half this thread is a restatement of the debunked moral argument "I know you are, but what am I?".


Yep it just goes on and on and on with both parties getting nowhere fast other than satiating their gross egos while largely ignoring the original post and adding nothing of substantive value.


(07-06-2012 03:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I said that I had no beliefs in morality.

I'll just end this conversation here then.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(07-06-2012 06:08 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(07-06-2012 05:41 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Yep it just goes on and on and on with both parties getting nowhere fast other than satiating their gross egos while largely ignoring the original post and adding nothing of substantive value.



(07-06-2012 03:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I said that I had no beliefs in morality.


I'll just end this conversation here then.

Well a dossier of arguments do not seem to have established this.......................perhaps you are more moral than you think and trying to give 'morality' connatations beyond the more acceptable pale................. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: