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
04-06-2012, 09:21 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(27-05-2012 11:26 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  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.

Where's the Golden Rule? Only rule I can bring myself to even give a shit about.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2012, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2012 12:37 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(04-06-2012 07:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But maybe you are a big strong society and can easily overpower them.

Problem is, when you enslave a person, you invariably bring them into your society, they become a member of your society. That person is a person after all. Original members of the society get to know the slaves, become friends and even lovers. Now you have original members supporting the slaves and wanting them not to be slaves. Overtime, you have wars and conflict due to this. So slavery certainly causes much risk and danger within a society.

If you properly followed my hypothetical you would have noticed the parts that said...

"while keeping in mind that the Whites are very prosperous and happy"
and
"only had a preference to be concerned with only other Whites"

You would be begging the question to assume that over any amount of time that would change?

We've been domesticating, slaughtering and eating animals since some of our first successful civilizations. We have yet to make laws protect the rights of ALL animals from being slaughtered and killed for food and/or used for other things such as milk, wool, labor, etc, to make them equal to humans. Slaves in this society could have been viewed as animals. Nothing says they are viewed as equals; that wouldn't say anything anyway. People wouldn't have equal rights, or consider others to have equal rights, unless you make an assumption, or invoke morality.

Or were you basing your rationalization off of something outside of the confines of the hypothetical? You personally viewpoint maybe? Just some advice, when you make an argument you must follow logic. You break logic when you assume something to be true e.g. "Original members of the society get to know the slaves, become friends and even lovers. Now you have original members supporting the slaves and wanting them not to be slaves."; that's called an assumption and it breaks logic. You are begging the question unless you can prove that it would in fact happen that way, which would be impossible.

Also, my original question asked "that your survival, as a Black, should be in the interest of the Whites, and that they should not kill you by law."

The only thing you proved in your response, is that you can assume that their preferences would change. You can't base an argument on an assumption.

The hypothetical started out as them having a preference to keep you, and your oppressed group/race, as slaves, and that they were very prosperous and happy.

Your job was to make an argument that they should, without invoking morality, in that current situation, give you the equal rights of law in their society.

If I were White and part of the society, I would have laughed at you and killed you if you came up to me and said that I should give you equal rights because we will be friends one day; I have a preference only to protect and be concerned with other Whites.

Slavery in just America lasted well over 200 years, and blacks were denied equal rights of law for roughly 100 years after that. Keep in mind that this is with people believing in morality, strong opposition from blacks and whites, and for a good amount of the time a Declaration of Independence that offered "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and stated that "all men are created equal".

So if it could last that long in a society of people who believed that people had inherent worth and value and that all people were created equal, and there was strong opposition. What makes you think your assumption based scenario would even be close to viable in a situation with no initial opposition from any of those in power, no believe in right and wrong, no belief in inherent worth value, and rights to human beings, and that posed a complete opposite where all of the people in power had the preference only to see themselves as concern?

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
05-06-2012, 09:59 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(04-06-2012 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-06-2012 06:37 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I had to respond to that. Get that fucking bullshit out of here.

That strawman junk is straight shit. You couldn't come up with an argument to save your life if we based it off this thread and this discussion.
I will ignore this post.

I am interested in discussing morality beliefs or non beliefs with you.
I have no interest in trading personal insults.

Well after repeated accusations of making strawman arguments, when I wasn't even arguing against, or at least not trying to defeat, the core claim (wasn't even an argument) you were making i.e. that morality did not exist, you have to kind of expect frustration.

I did respect your point of view, I just didn't respect the fact that you called me out on something I wasn't even doing.

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
05-06-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 09:59 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Well after repeated accusations of making strawman arguments, when I wasn't even arguing against, or at least not trying to defeat, the core claim (wasn't even an argument) you were making i.e. that morality did not exist, you have to kind of expect frustration.

I did respect your point of view, I just didn't respect the fact that you called me out on something I wasn't even doing.
I still feel you were being arrogant and arguing against a strawman. But lets leave it at that, our fighting is tiresome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 09:32 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  "while keeping in mind that the Whites are very prosperous and happy"
and
"only had a preference to be concerned with only other Whites"

You would be begging the question to assume that over any amount of time that would change?
Taking a look at history, it tells me that this is the case.


Without the history, yes it would a great hypothetical debate. Especially between the "white" people. One might argue about the dangers of having slaves, others might laugh feeling safe in their current position.
There is nothing right or wrong with having slaves. There are no universal absolute rights and wrongs.
If you feel there is only an acceptable level of danger then you may desire to have slaves, and this is what some societies did in the past. It wasn't that people were more evil or more immoral in the past, it was simply that they did not fully understand the long term implications.

Even today we enslave animals, dogs, horses etc. We force ourselves onto horses, but first we break their spirit so they won't fight us and instead let us have our way with them. I'm certain the horses don't like us shoving a bit in their mouth, jumping on top of their back and kicking them in the stomach while pulling on the bit to steer them. But horse owners generally will tell you that they love their property, love to ride them, just love them as animals.

Is it immoral to do this to a horse? Does the horse enjoy it? Is the horse capable of choosing between being enslaved and being free? How does this compare to enslaving a human?

There is no cosmic rule system that says you can enslave other animals but not your own species. Where is it written? If you follow reason and logic alone that still has no answer. Reason and logic requires a purpose to make sense.
If the purpose is to get more work done then maybe slavery is the right answer. Not an absolute right, but maybe the right answer in the short term, given the goal.
If the purpose is to survive then maybe it is the wrong answer, maybe the slave turns on you and kills you, maybe others in society start to accept the slave as a member of society and then they turn on you. Maybe your daughter has sex with a slave and then your grandchild is now half slave half your own blood. How confusing is that?

If the purpose is to be virtuous and moral then what is your moral standard? Did you just make it up, or was it written somewhere? If morality is absolute then how come no two people have made up exactly the same set of morals?

When you die you will not be rewarded for not enslaving a horse or a person. You will not be punished if you did enslave a horse or person. It seems that you have invented a set of constraints on yourself for no purpose. Well a purpose of feeling virtuous and moral, but only you think that of yourself. Other people have different morals and in some aspects will likely see you as immoral some of the time.

If we are to try and make morality tangible, then it must be measurable. We can measure people's lifespans. Maybe on average people whom don't own slaves live longer, possibly because some owners get killed by their slaves. Maybe a person that eats healthily and excercises lives longer. Does this seem to be a moral standard? Is it moral to eat a stick of celery but immoral to eat some greasy deep fried chips?

It seems to me that a goal stops something being able to be classified as a moral.
Morality implies absolute right and absolute wrong. A person acting morally is doing so because it is the "right" thing to do. Not because of the outcome or consequences. In this way morality has no goal.
If a person is following the law they are classified as law abiding, rather than moral.

Morality is imaginary, it just can't exist. Religious morality is god's law, a law enforce by imagined coercion. So it fails the morality test. Subjective morality is not absolute, each person has come up with some kind of goal, some premise, and since it has a goal it is not morality, there is no "absolute" about it, it is merely working towards a chosen goal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2012, 03:38 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 09:32 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Just some advice, when you make an argument you must follow logic. You break logic when you assume something to be true e.g. "Original members of the society get to know the slaves, become friends and even lovers. Now you have original members supporting the slaves and wanting them not to be slaves."; that's called an assumption and it breaks logic.
I disagree.
Assumptions are merely assumptions they do not break logic. They highlight the unknown and posture a premise rather than know a premise.

1. all grass is green (assumption, incorrect assumption I know, but still an assumption
2. kikuyu is a grass
therefore kikuyu is green

This is a perfectly valid logic statement. Yes it has an incorrect assumption, which means the answer might be wrong, but not because of logic.

You will find that theology is logically sound. Their premisis are made on assumptions asserted to be truth. Atheists take their conclusions to be invalid due to the assumptions, not due to faulty logic. Unless of course you consider the logical issues of the omni- qualities they claim of their deity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2012, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2012 05:04 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 03:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-06-2012 09:32 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Just some advice, when you make an argument you must follow logic. You break logic when you assume something to be true e.g. "Original members of the society get to know the slaves, become friends and even lovers. Now you have original members supporting the slaves and wanting them not to be slaves."; that's called an assumption and it breaks logic.
I disagree.
Assumptions are merely assumptions they do not break logic. They highlight the unknown and posture a premise rather than know a premise.

1. all grass is green (assumption, incorrect assumption I know, but still an assumption
2. kikuyu is a grass
therefore kikuyu is green

This is a perfectly valid logic statement. Yes it has an incorrect assumption, which means the answer might be wrong, but not because of logic.
You will find that theology is logically sound. Their premisis are made on assumptions asserted to be truth. Atheists take their conclusions to be invalid due to the assumptions, not due to faulty logic. Unless of course you consider the logical issues of the omni- qualities they claim of their deity.

I know you disagree, because you don't know what you are talking about.

I'll I have to do is deny the premise, and the argument is false unless you can prove it. It's the same as arguments that God exist. If you deny God exists, they can't make an argument on the assumption that God exists.

You can't prove something that is not self-evident by means of itself. That is called begging the question and it's a logical fallacy.

Also, all grass is green is an empirical statement.

Even if all grass was green up until the last time you checked, that's even assuming it was possible to check all grass, you still couldn't logically say that all grass was green. Next time you check grass could be blue.

Also, again, you can't just assume something to be true to make an argument sound. For an argument to be sound it has to be valid an the premises have to be true. If the truth of a claim isn't known or is unknowable, it's far from sound.

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
05-06-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 04:42 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I know you disagree, because you don't know what you are talking about.
We are done talking.
I am bored with your arrogance. I have better things to do than talk to people I don't like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(05-06-2012 05:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We are done talking.

Finally we agree on something. Also, I'm far from arrogant. If that's the way I came off, I really don't know what to say. If you really knew me I'd probably be the nicest person you ever met. I can't really see how you could come to the conclusion that you don't like me.

I'm also done with the argument, however. After reading that last long post, as well as some others, it seems quite obvious that not only are you stuck on your views pretty dogmatically, but it also seems as if, despite my effort in having explained it thoroughly in this thread, you haven't examined not even a bit of the arguments of moral, ethical, and meta-ethical philosophy or philosophy in general.

I really can't offer much more.

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
05-06-2012, 07:56 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2012 04:00 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: