Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 07:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 01:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think that's pompous arrogance to your claims of knowing what the average persons views are. We shouldn't ever significantly judge our experiences truly mash up to the most of what is out there, there is so much we miss on a regular basis.

I never knew it was arrogant to define yourself as average, as an average joe. Not just me of course, my wife, my poor immigrant mother, are just average people. I know what they mean by wrong, just as I know what I mean by it. It's no mystery here. Nor does it require a rocket scientist to recognize that when black man declares the evil of the lynching tree, or a jew the evil of the holocaust. That thing they refer to as evil is something they mean objectively, as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong.

This doesn't require any deep reflection, no genius on my part, it's just stating the obvious. And if you think this is not the case, it doesn't speak of my arrogance, but rather as to how out of touch you are. And when I say average here, I'm pointing out that the average person has a religious sensibility, believes in a God, and some sort of teleological view of the world, that there is a distinction between what is right and wrong. The religious worldview is one that subscribes to that pictures already for them.

Atheists are outliers, it's not hard to find a self-identifying atheists, who might believe in some sense of objective morality, only to find himself unable to reconcile it with his godless worldview, therefore abandoning that belief, and perhaps unable to truly ever reconcile their moral perspectives and their non-religious worldview. Hence why Moral nihilism becomes the attractive option for such men when painted into corners. So you sample a population of atheists, who might say slavery and holocaust were evil, or wrong, it may not be all that clear what they mean by that, whether they mean it objectively or subjectively, and that might not be all that clear to them as well. The long shadow of God lingers over their perspective, leaving it a bit confused, than the average person. That's probably where your own confusions arises, you think of the responses of atheists, and if atheists were representative of the beliefs of the average person, you might have a point with your criticisms.

But they don't. The average person is someone like me, with religious sensibilities, a belief in morality, of good and evil, of moral obligations and duties. These beliefs are given for us, ones we take for granted, believe to be common sense. A man claiming there is no such thing as right and wrong, would be seen as a fish declaring that there is no such thing as water.

Quote:Plus frequent studying of peoples thoughts and beliefs show how what a person says in a loose simple discussion isn't deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions.

Who said we're always having loose discussions? But a man whose deepy reflective of his own thoughts and actions, can understand the thoughts and actions of those like himself, and can recognize that he is a product of factors just like everyone else, typical to a great degree. I can understand religious sensibilities, by having those same sensibilities.

Now folks such as yourself, and stevil, and other atheists here, are entirely alien to me, who sets of experiences and life, are puzzle pieces that I can never faithfully piece together. You'd likely be able to understand stevil better than I could. I can never truly understand why people don't believe in God, I can never truly put my finger on it, but you'd know more about that than I would, since you don't believe yourself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 07:54 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think that's pompous arrogance to your claims of knowing what the average persons views are. We shouldn't ever significantly judge our experiences truly mash up to the most of what is out there, there is so much we miss on a regular basis.

I never knew it was arrogant to define yourself as average, as an average joe. Not just me of course, my wife, my poor immigrant mother, are just average people. I know what they mean by wrong, just as I know what I mean by it. It's no mystery here. Nor does it require a rocket scientist to recognize that when black man declares the evil of the lynching tree, or a jew the evil of the holocaust. That thing they refer to as evil is something they mean objectively, as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong.

This doesn't require any deep reflection, no genius on my part, it's just stating the obvious. And if you think this is not the case, it doesn't speak of my arrogance, but rather as to how out of touch you are. And when I say average here, I'm pointing out that the average person has a religious sensibility, believes in a God, and some sort of teleological view of the world, that there is a distinction between what is right and wrong. The religious worldview is one that subscribes to that pictures already for them.

Atheists are outliers, it's not hard to find a self-identifying atheists, who might believe in some sense of objective morality, only to find himself unable to reconcile it with his godless worldview, therefore abandoning that belief, and perhaps unable to truly ever reconcile their moral perspectives and their non-religious worldview. Hence why Moral nihilism becomes the attractive option for such men when painted into corners. So you sample a population of atheists, who might say slavery and holocaust were evil, or wrong, it may not be all that clear what they mean by that, whether they mean it objectively or subjectively, and that might not be all that clear to them as well. The long shadow of God lingers over their perspective, leaving it a bit confused, than the average person. That's probably where your own confusions arises, you think of the responses of atheists, and if atheists were representative of the beliefs of the average person, you might have a point with your criticisms.

But they don't. The average person is someone like me, with religious sensibilities, a belief in morality, of good and evil, of moral obligations and duties. These beliefs are given for us, ones we take for granted, believe to be common sense. A man claiming there is no such thing as right and wrong, would be seen as a fish declaring that there is no such thing as water.

Quote:Plus frequent studying of peoples thoughts and beliefs show how what a person says in a loose simple discussion isn't deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions.

Who said we're always having loose discussions? But a man whose deepy reflective of his own thoughts and actions, can understand the thoughts and actions of those like himself, and can recognize that he is a product of factors just like everyone else, typical to a great degree. I can understand religious sensibilities, by having those same sensibilities.

Now folks such as yourself, and stevil, and other atheists here, are entirely alien to me, who sets of experiences and life, are puzzle pieces that I can never faithfully piece together. You'd likely be able to understand stevil better than I could. I can never truly understand why people don't believe in God, I can never truly put my finger on it, but you'd know more about that than I would, since you don't believe yourself.

It's a matter of your saying you think you are in touch and experience the so called average case which makes you in touch with the average idea. The average person being like you in these categories doesn't mean you actually understand the average person.

These ideas of personal experiences and understanding people from them is a simple factor. It shouldn't be presumed to be profound or extrapolate great detail. That is notably a faulty method of concluding something.

There is reasons for collecting information and data without such human experienced variables. What you experience in similarities and connections to people doesn't translate honestly to having correct presumptions about them. It's not you "stating the obvious" it's you making an assumption based on what you perceive to be the case so obviously. It's a heavily faulty system of judgement.

When religious people of this average normal background, frequently don't confirm to an objective view of morality when questioned philosophically, sociological, and psychological do you deem them to be flawed studies/outliers/difficult questions or do you deny these researches? For instance the famous Trolley problem and it's various angles. do people view that saving more lives is objectively good vs letting just 1 life die... well on it's basic response around 90% of people agree to that, but when you add 1 variable like human agency, personal relationship, or person of great honor to the problem people don't hold anymore that the majority life is the objectively correct thing to do. They think it is a subjective situations to the situation and people making the choices and based on factors that alter the human experiences involved.

There is even research done with neuroscience studies showing how when you alter particular parts of a persons brain, their view of morality can change.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:45 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 07:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 06:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, that's not what they're doing. Sure they're sharing the news, but by claiming the actions were immoral, they are expressing a disproval, distaste at the actions ISIS is committing...
Well, yes and no. They are really just bringing up the topic.
They could have said "Did you hear about Isis chopping of such and such's head?"

But of course they aren't a corner street newspaper sales person. so they don't do a "Read all about it!" broadcast. So they cover up this broadcast in the guise of offering their own opinion, "it is immoral, it is terrible" yadda yadda.

They aren't going to say it is great, right? So their opinion is pretty much redundant. All they are doing is broadcasting the news, because they find it interesting and want to know that others know about it.

They certainly aren't bringing up the news as a seque to discuss the morality or immorality of chopping people's heads off.

Of course when the news is great, they say it's great, lol. If their hometown team won the championship, and they tell you they have great news for you. They're not just sharing the news, their expressing the fact that they find the news great, something to be excited about. Just like if I were to tell you about an encounter that I had with a woman the other day, and mention that she was ugly. I'm not just telling you about the encounter, but letting you know that I found her unattractive.

If some ISIS member shares the news of some islamic bombing in paris with his buddy, telling him he has great news for him, praise allah. He's not just sharing the news with his friend, but the fact that he'd delighted, approving of the outcome. Just as when your friend tells you the news about the latest ISIS beheading, referring to the group as evil, as savages, and monsters. They're not just sharing with you the headlines, but sharing their moral outrage as well, that they're disgusted and offended by their actions, etc...

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 07:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's a matter of your saying you think you are in touch and experience the so called average case which makes you in touch with the average idea. The average person being like you in these categories doesn't mean you actually understand the average person.

If I truly am representative of the average person, if my wife and friends, and communities are representative of the average persons moral perceptions and beliefs. And if I understand my own beliefs, as well as theirs. It goes without saying that I understand the average persons beliefs.

I'm not an outlier, nor is my wife, my mother, friends, etc...

You're the outlier not me.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's a matter of your saying you think you are in touch and experience the so called average case which makes you in touch with the average idea. The average person being like you in these categories doesn't mean you actually understand the average person.

If I truly am representative of the average person, if my wife and friends, and communities are representative of the average persons moral perceptions and beliefs. And if I understand my own beliefs, as well as theirs. It goes without saying that I understand the average persons beliefs.

I'm not an outlier, nor is my wife, my mother, friends, etc...

You're the outlier not me.

I know I am. That doesn't matter. Why do you think that actually has an impact? It's human error and selective data.. Along with presuming your connection and reading on these people is correct. That's why it's arrogant.

That's at what most 500 people? Generally people don't have relations with more Than 200-400 people.... There is 7 billion people. 318 Million US people if that's all you're relating the point too. That's not a simple way to extrapolate data based on a persons judgement of himself and his community.

I'm not making any claim based on my experience in human interaction based on my thoughts.. I don't know why you think that is something worth pointing out multiple times after I'm stated that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 07:58 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's at what most 500 people? Generally people don't have relations with more Than 200-400 people.... There is 7 billion people. 318 Million US people if that's all you're relating the point too. That's not a simple way to extrapolate data based on a persons judgement of himself and his community.


There's no mystery when hearing my wife refer to the holocaust as evil, and some random woman in Mexico declaring the same thing, in recognizing that they mean the same thing.

There's variety of things the leave me quite confident in my perspective, beyond my community and friends. One is that even though there are 7 billion people in the world over half belong to the abrahamic faiths, and the vast majority are religious. And belief in a moral law, in moral obligations and duties, are a near universal in religious traditions.

As a Buddhist Monk and Scholar, Bhikkhu Bodhi put it: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

Most people are already a product of this religious background already. Now I don't think religion is the source of the beliefs in objective morality, but religions create the background in which those beliefs are left presupposed.

Another factor that solidifies my positions, is that I can read the numerous observation of the same features of my community and circle in the observation of others. To recognize that my community and myself are representative. It requires no Einstein to recognize that most people believe in some form of objective morality, that when the claim an action is immoral, or wrong, that they mean it an objective sense, like 2+2=5 is wrong. In fact this is even acknowledged by atheists, like Michael Ruse, and Dennet, who see these beliefs as so prevalent that can't be merely be sourced to religion, but must have evolutionary explanations, an "illusion" of objective morality.

And in fact it seems that the only people that go out of their way to deny this, are not anthropologist, or scientist, or researchers, or philosophers, but these very sort of confused run of the mill unbelievers such as yourself, who have trouble believing anything. Who are so out of touch, that they can't understand humanity, without surveys and polls.

Quote:I'm not making any claim based on my experience in human interaction based on my thoughts..

Then your theory of mind is likely terrible.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 08:52 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:58 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's at what most 500 people? Generally people don't have relations with more Than 200-400 people.... There is 7 billion people. 318 Million US people if that's all you're relating the point too. That's not a simple way to extrapolate data based on a persons judgement of himself and his community.


There's no mystery when hearing my wife refer to the holocaust as evil, and some random woman in Mexico declaring the same thing, in recognizing that they mean the same thing.

There's variety of things the leave me quite confident in my perspective, beyond my community and friends. One is that even though there are 7 billion people in the world over half belong to the abrahamic faiths, and the vast majority are religious. And belief in a moral law, in moral obligations and duties, are a near universal in religious traditions.

As a Buddhist Monk and Scholar, Bhikkhu Bodhi put it: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

Most people are already a product of this religious background already. Now I don't think religion is the source of the beliefs in objective morality, but religions create the background in which those beliefs are left presupposed.

Another factor that solidifies my positions, is that I can read the numerous observation of the same features of my community and circle in the observation of others. To recognize that my community and myself are representative. It requires no Einstein to recognize that most people believe in some form of objective morality, that when the claim an action is immoral, or wrong, that they mean it an objective sense, like 2+2=5 is wrong. In fact this is even acknowledged by atheists, like Michael Ruse, and Dennet, who see these beliefs as so prevalent that can't be merely be sourced to religion, but must have evolutionary explanations, an "illusion" of objective morality.

And in fact it seems that the only people that go out of their way to deny this, are not anthropologist, or scientist, or researchers, or philosophers, but these very sort of confused run of the mill unbelievers such as yourself, who have trouble believing anything. Who are so out of touch, that they can't understand humanity, without surveys and polls.

Quote:I'm not making any claim based on my experience in human interaction based on my thoughts..

Then your theory of mind is likely terrible.

To think that hearing someone say something means anything about what they think. Is just a concept that seems so base level and meaningless to me. You seem to not want to touch on the point of complexity that comes out when you actually study people. What a person actually thinks and actually believes within their brain is not reflective and exposed by their conversational level points. It's based upon studying their mind, actions, and deeply questioning them.

It's not a case of trying to actively deny it. It's a manner that shows up from actual research. I would respect the ideas that formulate from studying psychological responses to moral questioning. To examining how morals values differ and why they differ among lines.

I think anyone should trust it more than what they note as their experience and understanding of themselves is. Personal experience is faulty testimony for such ideas and claims. Not that testing isn't possible to be flawed or be viewed in ways due to false values and ways as well.

You scene of what understanding a person is comes far too idealistically and formed off a based level of what they think from common language. Breaking down pretenses and barriers of tight-nit felt ideas is a better way at determining actual valued truth.

Perhaps if you would respond to a point about it, you would actually show a difference in the value. How would you take a response to being within the Trolley Problem? Actions and the mental makeup of the brain are what people truly are.. not what they say on a base level.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 08:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  To think that hearing someone say something means anything about what they think. Is just a concept that seems so base level and meaningless to me. You seem to not want to touch on the point of complexity that comes out when you actually study people.

It's not a case of trying to actively deny it. It's a manner that shows up from actual research. I would respect the ideas that formulate from studying psychological responses to moral questioning. To examining how morals values differ and why they differ among lines.

That's an entirely different question. The question is not about what different people believe is wrong, or a situation in which they have a hard deciding one way or the other.

The only question I'm highlighting, is whether most people when they say something like the holocaust is evil, that slavery was morally wrong, if they mean "wrong" in a subjective sense, or in objective sense, like they would when referring to 2+2=5 is wrong.

So whats you're argument here? That they likely mean it in a way that's neither a subjective or objective sense of wrong?

You do recognize that when i say it, that I mean it objectively right? Is so, do you imagine that most people don't mean it like I do?

Or do you just feel uncomfortable answering one way or the other without a survey to fall back on?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 09:09 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  To think that hearing someone say something means anything about what they think. Is just a concept that seems so base level and meaningless to me. You seem to not want to touch on the point of complexity that comes out when you actually study people.

It's not a case of trying to actively deny it. It's a manner that shows up from actual research. I would respect the ideas that formulate from studying psychological responses to moral questioning. To examining how morals values differ and why they differ among lines.

That's an entirely different question. The question is not about what different people believe is wrong, or a situation in which they have a hard deciding one way or the other.

The only question I'm highlighting, is whether most people when they say something like the holocaust is evil, that slavery was morally wrong, if they mean "wrong" in a subjective sense, or in objective sense, like they would when referring to 2+2=5 is wrong.

So whats you're argument here? That they likely mean it in a way that's neither a subjective or objective sense of wrong?

You do recognize that when i say it, that I mean it objectively right? Is so, do you imagine that most people don't mean it like I do?

Or do you just feel uncomfortable answering one way or the other without a survey to support you?

When has this changed to your point? Did I miss something? Your point was that they are only JUST objectively viewing it. And not subjectively viewing it. I have been for the last several points trying to say through study they are plenty of subjective people out there as well not making objective the majority. You posts about what your friends or these monks/scientists/philosophers had said was about objective still not objective or subjective.

(09-09-2015 01:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, normal people mean it's objectively wrong. Normal people don't believe in subjective morality

I thought that was your still point. I guess you did add objective/subjective in one of the posts in the middle of this back and forth just with me. Though I don't know why you thought I was not making subjective apart of my point. The conversation changed.

My whole point halfway through this discussion since the whole change back to it after you getting I don't view your silly absurd question either way via Nihilism. Is still there is a smattering of people that isn't insignificant that do view it subjectively. Enough people like that respond that way in mentally testing them and examining them.

I'm saying they view it relative or subjective to situations and stances. They don't believe moral actions are have an actual right/wrong situation or that you can boil it down to this was the right/wrong thing. Or whether it is always wrong to try to kill a person... I forget the name of that study but there are ones judging whether people think failed attempted murder is wrong or not wrong and it shifts based on variables added to the situation. It isn't the case that the actual certain majority/average person only views these things like, attempted murder objectively is wrong. It's situation ally & relatively shifted.

The whole point was combined with the amount of people when studied that do reflect subjective attitudes and combined to the smaller tiny margin of nihilists, it's not accurate to declare the average person is JUST a person who in their action and internal thought view morality objectively. That's what started this.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I’m saying they view it relative or subjective to situations and stances. They don't believe moral actions are have an actual right/wrong situation or that you can boil it down to this was the right/wrong thing. Or whether it is always wrong to try to kill a person... I forget the name of that study but there are ones judging whether people think failed attempted murder is wrong or not wrong and it shifts based on variables added to the situation. It isn't the case that the actual certain majority/average person only views these things like, attempted murder objectively is wrong. It's situationally & relatively shifted.

We’ve already went over this. Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t require than actions be wrong regardless of circumstances or situations, only Moral Absolutism requires this.

I think it’s wrong to lie, but it might be right to lie to save someone’s life. But I still mean right and wrong objectively, in the same way that i’d say 2+2=5, is wrong. And not “wrong” in the subjective way, like those shoes are so “wrong” for that outfit.

The point being that most people mean “wrong” in the same way that I do. Even for me situations and circumstances matter.

Quote:. And not subjectively viewing it. I have been for the last several points trying to say through study they are plenty of subjective people out there as well not making objective the majority…..

Is still there is a smattering of people that isn't insignificant that do view it subjectively. Enough people like that respond that way in mentally testing them and examining them.

There might be plenty of folks who subscribe to subjective morality, but they’re not the majority. In fact you’d be hard pressed to find folks outside of secular circles, that believe morality is subjective.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: