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
08-06-2012, 06:11 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(08-06-2012 04:09 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So I guess you are implying that in a perfect government/justice system we ought to charge people whom act immorally (for lying, for having homosexual sex...). But because of practicalities it is too difficult to do this, too expensive so unfortunately we just have to let them get away with their immoralities.

My question before with regards to motivation, lets say homosexuality is immoral. Lets say my neighbors are homosexuals and have homosexual sex on occasions, in the privacy of their bedroom.
What ought to be my motivation to stop them or to support a law to make this activity illegal? Why should I care what my neighbors do?

I should have been more careful when I said large societies and what should and shouldn't be allowed in society. What I meant was as far as enforceable law and governments went, not morally.

Also, I never quite knew why anyone would think being gay is wrong.

How could you come to that conclusion rationally?

I think a lot of people's anger toward homosexuality comes from a lack of understanding. I think people think that it's a choice and doesn't happen naturally i.e. people just wake up one day and decide they are exclusively attracted to the same sex and/or want to have sexual relations with the same sex. That would still be hard to call immoral.

A lot of it comes from religion too. A lot of religious people have absolutely no problem with homosexuality besides what comes from their religious teachings. Basically they can't find a problem with it personally they just make reference to how God doesn't like it.



I've answered the question about law already, in so many words. Basically, it's a different question from morality, but it's based off moral philosophy and ethics. Laws in a society have to be practical toward the end goal of a society. Most societies want to be fair, prosperous, happy, promote equal rights, etc., and the laws have to reflect those values. Some things that are immoral might have to be allowed in small amounts, and somethings that are not immoral might have to be restricted.

You personally don't have to give a shit, but the reasons why you should are some of the things I listed in my previous post. Also think social contract theory and the implications of immoral actions as it relates to the first categorical imperative.

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
08-06-2012, 06:28 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2012 06:35 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(08-06-2012 04:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You make assertions, but lets see what others think as one person's moral belief is no more right nor wrong than another's.
Poll: In your opinion, is abortion murder?
POLL : Is abortion murder or not ?
POLL: is abortion murder?
Public Opinion About Abortion -- An In-Depth Review
Is euthanasia a form of murder?

It seems there is much debate, some think it is murder some don't, if only there were an absolute answer, we could thus end this debate once and for all.

Separate words tend to indicate separate things. A =/= B, or at least doesn't tend to, in language.

Also, saying two different words have different meanings isn't a HUGE assertion. It should NOT be viewed on the same level as "God doesn't exist you religious prick".

Quote:For the sake of trying to have a civil conversation I will ignore this comment.

I was just trying to be funny. Tongue

Quote:You think people not liking or wanting murder proves morality exists, I think people collectively have just an opinion in common (however with lots of caveats)

Well, for one, quit saying that "morality doesn't exit"; or quit inferring it.

If morality didn't exist, I wouldn't have been able to open a thread about morality, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Morality is a metaphysical idea, it has to exist. Saying it didn't exist would be like saying that the idea of God didn't exist. It'd be a drastic form of skepticism like those people who think we're in a Matrix.

Quote: So we are at a stalemate.

No, you have yet to form or adhere to a moral theory. You denied Emotivism, which is my favorite.

Once you pick a moral theory, then we will be at a stalemate; at least logically.

I'd take the stalemate and just call you irrational and impractical. You'd probably then call me arrogant, and I'd have to explain, like I already have in this thread, that logically all moral theories come to stalemates with each other and they all beg the question, and how we have to debate on practically and rationality, but how I don't feel like having that debate because I'm tired.

Also... Amoralism and Moral Nihilism are NOT moral theories.

Moral nihilism is morality doesn't inherently exist.

Amoralism is having an idea of what is moral and/or knowing right and wrong pretty well, but not caring to adhere to it.

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
08-06-2012, 10:17 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(08-06-2012 06:11 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Also, I never quite knew why anyone would think being gay is wrong.

How could you come to that conclusion rationally?
Using Kant’s rules, his first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if your action were a universal law"
It seems would result in homosexuality as being immoral. Because if everyone were homosexual then there would be no new humans and hence nobody would be around in order to continue being homosexual.

I have seen a post on the internet where someone says " In his "Lectures on Ethics," Kant clearly states that
sex ought only be for the purposes of procreation”. I don't know the validity of this though.
Quote:Some things that are immoral might have to be allowed in small
amounts, and somethings that are not immoral might have to be
restricted.

This would suggest to me that the observations don’t match the theory, they are inconsistent. Using the scientific method we would need to come up with another theory, one that is consistent with the observations.
Quote:You personally don't have to give a shit, but the
reasons why you should are some of the things I listed in my previous
post. Also think social contract theory and the implications of immoral
actions as it relates to the first categorical imperative.
It is not that I don't give a shit. My own actions require motivation. I am certainly motivated to survive. But if something is deemed immoral, by someone else's definition of morality, be it belief in a god or belief in some rules created by Kant or whatever. How does this affect me personally? If it doesn't address my desire/requirement to survive, then why should I be motivated to react? I don't agree with Kant's first categorical imperative by the way, I think that there is much diversity in the world of humans, it seems impractical to suppose that they would all behave the same way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2012, 10:33 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(08-06-2012 06:28 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Also, saying two different words have different meanings isn't a HUGE assertion.
I was referring to stating that abortion isn't murder, this is an assertion.
Quote:Well, for one, quit saying that "morality doesn't exit"; or quit inferring it.

If morality didn't exist, I wouldn't have been able to open a thread about morality, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Morality is a metaphysical idea, it has to exist. Saying it didn't exist would be like saying that the idea of God didn't exist. It'd be a drastic form of skepticism like those people who think we're in a Matrix.
I'm not sure that I agree with this definition of morality. I've always thought it to be "knowledge of right and wrong"
I don't think anyone has knowledge of right and wrong, just beliefs.
Quote:No, you have yet to form or adhere to a moral theory. You denied Emotivism, which is my favorite.

Once you pick a moral theory, then we will be at a stalemate; at least logically.
We are at a stalemate, you believe in a form of morality but can't prove it. I don't believe in morality but can't prove that morality doesn't exist.
Quote:I'd
take the stalemate and just call you irrational and impractical.

Moral nihilism is morality doesn't inherently exist.

Amoralism is having an idea of what is moral and/or knowing right and wrong pretty well, but not caring to adhere to it.
If you feel that my rationalising decisions
based on my own survival is irrational and impractical then so be it. Most of
us have the ability to form opinions

I disagree with your definitions, Moral nihilism and amorality are the same thing. An a-theist is a person that lacks a belief in deities, an a-moralist is a person that lacks a belief in absolute right an wrong.
What this means is that I can’t internalise decisions I make with regards to “right” or “wrong”. I can’t say that killing people is the
wrong thing to do, or that stealing is the wrong thing to do. I am forced to justify my actions without using these “right” and “wrong” terms. I am forced to go down the selfish path, to justify my actions in terms of myself. Philosophically I then need to explain why I behave in a way that others would call “moral”, I need to explain why I don’t murder or steal or lie excessively. Why I desire a stable and safe society. Which I feel I have successfully done. I don’t feel I have been philosophically inconsistent at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 06:17 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Quote:Because if everyone were homosexual then there would be no new humans
and hence nobody would be around in order to continue being homosexual.

I have seen a post on the internet where someone says " In his "Lectures on Ethics," Kant clearly states that

sex ought only be for the purposes of procreation”. I don't know the validity of this though.

Kant was a Christian, so that explains his views pretty quickly. Also, back then they didn't have an understanding of homosexuality like we do now. Like most forms of hate it came from ignorance.

Also, under Kantianism, that would only be the case if they refused to have sex for procreation (which if it was up to the existence of a species, I doubt that would happen). Even then it would still be okay, everyone could continue living in society and enjoying themselves, they just wouldn't be able to reproduce. It wouldn't make a difference if new generations weren't being created as that would have no effect on current society.

You can probably see a small contradiction between the 1st and 2nd formula though, if you viewed it as if reproduction purposes, or lack there of, (in the 1st) make it immoral. If the opposite sex only wanted to use the other as a "means only" for reproduction, that could be viewed as immoral.

In current society we know it doesn't affect us. Gays are born like that, or born predisposed because of their genes, and to say gay is immoral would be like saying to be short is immoral, to be tall is immoral, or to be a certain race is immoral, or to have a certain hair color.

Not allowing people to be who they are, in itself (as you can think of examples such as psychopathy in which actions from being amoral could case problems), isn't immoral.

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
09-06-2012, 06:36 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Quote:"knowledge of right and wrong" I don't think anyone has knowledge of right and wrong, just beliefs.

No that's incorrect. As I've pointed out many times, you don't have to have knowledge of it. I don't have knowledge of God's existence, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exists. He either exists or doesn't exist. That definitely doesn't mean the idea of God doesn't exist.

In terms of morality you can only debate the quality of it, and whether or not there is any truth at all.

You, right now, are on the side of no truth, yet you still have no theory, as far as I know.

Quote:We are at a stalemate, you believe in a form of morality but can't prove it. I don't believe in morality but can't prove that morality doesn't exist.

I think the same would apply to this.

You're not arguing that moral philosophy/ethics doesn't exist, because like I said, we wouldn't be having the discussion otherwise.

People would be unable to come to conclusions like "murder is wrong" otherwise.

Quote:If you feel that my rationalizing decisions based on my own survival is irrational and impractical then so be it.

No, I already said many times that's a form of "social contract".

Quote:I disagree with your definitions

You shouldn't.

Amoral is someone like a psychopath. It's a person who has the capacity to understand, maybe even to great lengths, what is right and wrong morally, or viewed as such by a culture or society that they live in, but doesn't have any inclinations to actually follow it or give a shit about it.

You shouldn't even be using the word "amoral" anyway regardless of defineiton. You should be using "moral nihilism".

Quote:Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality...

....Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction.

The latter half, is what I've been in agreement with all along.

It's almost stating the obvious. Obviously morality comes from human beings, it had to come from rationality; it comes from metaphysics/philosophy.

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
09-06-2012, 06:48 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Quote: This would suggest to me that the observations don’t match the theory, they are inconsistent. Using the scientific method we would need to come up with another theory, one that is consistent with the observations.

I was referring to laws. I already established law being different from morality. Law applies to a government and society/state of people.

Quote:I don't agree with Kant's first categorical imperative by the way, I think that there is much diversity in the world of humans, it seems impractical to suppose that they would all behave the same way.

It subtle, but I think you are missing the point of it.

It wasn't meant to say that they should behave the same way, it was meant to show the implications of immoral behavior and how immorality could become irrational, illogical, and contradictory to itself even.

It's not meant even to be applied to a lot of situations, it's just meant to be used to get the idea.

I've already pointed out why you, or any one else, would be inclined to follow proper ethics.

If you are only stuck on you own survival, that's okay, I've pointed out that you don't have to give a shit.

It's more grown up bidness. It's for people who want an idea of how to better society and civilization overall, and are not primitive enough to only care about their own survival egotistically, exclusively, and all the time.

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
09-06-2012, 02:14 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(09-06-2012 06:48 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  It's more grown up bidness. It's for people who want an idea of how to better society and civilization overall, and are not primitive enough to only care about their own survival egotistically, exclusively, and all the time.
This is the main problem, I think.

I think you and many others have issues rationalising your own actions or personal values (call them morality) with regards to survival.
I feel many people simply want to be Good, whatever that means, and hence want to do the "right" thing, whatever that means. Thus the idea of morality becomes all important to you and others (not me). Thus a person may choose to be vegetarian because they believe it is immoral to eat animals or a gay Christian may choose to be single because they believe it is immoral to have a gay relationship. Or some governments create laws against gay sex because (although it doesn't affect them personally) they think it is immoral and feel it is their duty to stop other people from behaving immorally.

I guess my biggest motive for separating out morality from law is because it is impossible to convince a religious person that their morality is wrong. They believe it comes from their god and they believe their god is infallible. If they are under the impression that law is to be based on morality then they will want to eradicate immorality with use of the law. My feeling is that if their god is all powerful, all knowing and perfect, and there is an afterlife in which this god judges people then this god's judgement will be perfect thus the believers do not need to enforce god's law, god will do it himself. If we could all agree that law is for the purpose of people cohabiting together rather than being moral then we can forget about the rubbish of making homosexuality illegal or even making prostitution illegal or polygamy...
If it doesn't make society unsafe then let people choose their own path. Of course the churches can continue to preach that these things are immoral and hence try to convince their people not to partake, but in this way it will be their choice, not merely enforced upon them by law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 04:38 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
.
(09-06-2012 02:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is the main problem, I think.

I think you and many others have issues rationalizing your own actions or personal values (call them morality) with regards to survival.

I feel many people simply want to be Good, whatever that means, and hence want to do the "right" thing, whatever that means. Thus the idea of morality becomes all important to you and others (not me). Thus a person may choose to be vegetarian because they believe it is immoral to eat animals or a gay Christian may choose to be single because they believe it is immoral to have a gay relationship. Or some governments create laws against gay sex because (although it doesn't affect them personally) they think it is immoral and feel it is their duty to stop other people from behaving immorally.

I guess my biggest motive for separating out morality from law is because it is impossible to convince a religious person that their morality is wrong. They believe it comes from their god and they believe their god is infallible. If they are under the impression that law is to be based on morality then they will want to eradicate immorality with use of the law. My feeling is that if their god is all powerful, all knowing and perfect, and there is an afterlife in which this god judges people then this god's judgement will be perfect thus the believers do not need to enforce god's law, god will do it himself. If we could all agree that law is for the purpose of people cohabiting together rather than being moral then we can forget about the rubbish of making homosexuality illegal or even making prostitution illegal or polygamy...

If it doesn't make society unsafe then let people choose their own path. Of course the churches can continue to preach that these things are immoral and hence try to convince their people not to partake, but in this way it will be their choice, not merely enforced upon them by law.

I don't know where you are from, but it sounds like shit.

There isn't much, if anything, that is considered immoral that would infringe on you. Actually morality is used to show what actions are wrong because they do infringe on you e.g. “ Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. ”

You really have to look at dishonesty, murder, rape, torture, assault, abuse, slavery, etc. You're looking at things that are controversial because people who don't have a great understanding (religious people specifically) of the acts, or moral philosophy in general, view them negatively, and as immoral, when they really aren't immoral at all.

The mainstream public, especially religious people, are sheep. They wait for society to tell them something is right or wrong and then they react. They aren't free-thinkers, and they don't know what the hell they are talking about most of the time.

Quote:I guess my biggest motive for separating out morality from law is because it is impossible to convince a religious person that their morality is wrong.

Again, I don't know where you're from, but that's not the case for me. Besides the fact that they'll lose an argument in a couple of seconds with someone who actually knows moral philosophy, we have a separation clause in the US that specifically states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Like I pointed out earlier, religious people are confused about what morality even is.

Most of the mainstream, normal, non-fundamentalist Christians I know are liberal, and don't stick to half of what is in the Bible. They don't think for themselves much either. As soon as society accepts something they will.

We've seen it again and again where religion changed their minds e.g. slavery, abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, woman's rights, civil rights, Evolution, divine rights to rule, human sacrifice (if we can go back that long), etc.

The biggest is probably slavery. People thought at one time they had a right from God to own other human beings. Moral philosophers starting coming out saying, "hold up, no you don't", now it is viewed as an atrocity to mankind that anyone ever thought that way.

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
10-06-2012, 04:01 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(09-06-2012 03:14 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I don't know where you are from, but it sounds like shit.
I am from NZ, we are more liberal than the US on many points except for guns.
1/3rd of us are Atheists, most of the rest aren't particularly religious.
Prostitution is legal, but has only been so for a few years, homosexuality is legal, but unfortunately homosexual marriage is not, euthanasia is not legal and neither is polygamy. We were the first country in the world to give women the right to vote.
Quote:Besides the fact that they'll lose an
argument in a couple of seconds with someone who actually knows moral
philosophy,
Everyone always wins their arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: