Originally posted by Bentley
Sorry, I meant "Saint Paul" instead of Pablo, sometimes typing quickly makes me distracted at some details.Which part is it that makes no sense to you? The physical expression of ethics?
"Killing people while poor is more moral than killing people while depressed."
The whole bourgeoisie section, really.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Killing people while poor is more moral than killing people while depressed."
The whole bourgeoisie section, really.
I assume he was referring to a poor person having no choice but to kill a person to live. It is an appeal to "carnality" or whatever. We are living creatures that have objective needs: the need to feed, eat, and live. Killing another creature for sustenance would be objectively "moral".
Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume he was referring to a poor person having no choice but to kill a person to live. It is an appeal to "carnality" or whatever. We are living creatures that have objective needs: the need to feed, eat, and live. Killing another creature for sustenance would be objectively "moral".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an extremely roundabout way to express that idea and given that he started the paragraph with talking about the bourgeoisie I find it hard to believe he wasn't talking simply about the state of poverty.
I dunno...that's what the eventual "result" is by an oppressed proletariat: they overthrow the bourgeoisie and do so violently to survive. They are not to be faulted for such actions, either...at least under that philosophy. "Nature" would agree with that notion, as well. This is how I came to my conclusion. I skipped this middle step (the one above) and skipped straight to the end: a poor person is more justified, morally, by killing to survive than a depressed person is by killing because they are depressed. At least partially, a depressed person has control over their depression and the ability to cope with it. Contrast that with a person born into a virtual caste system of poverty where they will remain unless they forcefully take their food/capital.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an extremely roundabout way to express that idea and given that he started the paragraph with talking about the bourgeoisie I find it hard to believe he wasn't talking simply about the state of poverty.
I just tried to express too many things at once, but what dadudemon explained is essentially what I meant to say. Sorry for the non-explicit statement, for some reason -I was probably distracted- it seemed evident to me when I posted it.
Rereading now I saw it was more convoluted than intended. Thanks for the save Dadu!
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not saying that a Christian can't be moral, Tac. Or that following what your parents teach you can't be moral. I'm saying that blindly following those codes without any independent consideration/invention isn't really all that moral.
I would agree with this. I don't think you should blindly follow rules.
But if the necessary requirement for an action to be moral is for you to consider it first, as opposed to blindly following rules, can't you still consider moral guides put in place by religions?
If there is a set moral code, isn't it still possible to consider an action and determine that you agree with the morality?
Originally posted by King Kandy
If the only reason they did so was because their parents told them to, then indeed I would have no respect for their moral values. I could respect their deeds, and their talent as firemen; but their ability to do what others tell them, gets no respect in my book. If they only are saving people from burning buildings because of their parents, I would be very scared of their lack of judgment; if their parents had taught them the opposite, they would be arsonists today instead of firemen.
But aren't all of our current morals dictated by our society and those around us? I assume you hold that morality is a human invention (correct me if I'm wrong). So when you view murder as wrong, aren't you only doing so because our society has been set up to view it that way? In that way, is it really that different from being told by your parents that murder is wrong? Aren't you still following a guide set in place by someone other than yourself? And if this is the case, how is following a religious moral code that different from following a societies moral code?
Originally posted by TacDavey
But aren't all of our current morals dictated by our society and those around us? I assume you hold that morality is a human invention (correct me if I'm wrong). So when you view murder as wrong, aren't you only doing so because our society has been set up to view it that way? In that way, is it really that different from being told by your parents that murder is wrong? Aren't you still following a guide set in place by someone other than yourself? And if this is the case, how is following a religious moral code that different from following a societies moral code?
If someone told me "murder is wrong", I would ask them "on what grounds?" The arguments I have seen have felt persuasive to me.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I would agree with this. I don't think you should blindly follow rules.But if the necessary requirement for an action to be moral is for you to consider it first, as opposed to blindly following rules, can't you still consider moral guides put in place by religions?
If there is a set moral code, isn't it still possible to consider an action and determine that you agree with the morality?
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think you should always challenge society's morals and try and find ways to improve them. If someone doesn't challenge their parents views with logic, then again, they are not making any sort of moral judgment. This is different from the bible, which you supposedly should follow, rather than try and challenge it.If someone told me "murder is wrong", I would ask them "on what grounds?" The arguments I have seen have felt persuasive to me.
Actually, the Bible does not say you are suppose to follow it blindly at all. In fact, it says you are suppose to be knowledgeable about subjects like this so that you can defend your stance if necessary. Though that's a little off topic.
Your stance seems to suggest that if there are preset moral codes, they cannot be questioned. Which isn't true. The only difference is that one can be right or wrong depending on what conclusion they come to. If your requirement for an action to truly be moral is to consider it first, then there is no reason this cannot be done even if there are preset moral codes present.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, but my argument is that the code itself isn't objectively valid and even if it was the act wouldn't be moral because of adherence to it but rather by virtue of its own merits.
I don't think anyone would claim that something is moral for no other reason than adherence to a rule. But the claim that objective moral codes being present somehow stops people from performing moral actions seems a whole different subject.
Even if preset moral codes where in place, this doesn't demand that you blindly follow them with no logical thought or consideration. Which seems to be your reasoning behind finding an action to be moral or not.
Originally posted by TacDaveyI don't think anyone would claim that something is moral for no other reason than adherence to a rule. But the claim that objective moral codes being present somehow stops people from performing moral actions seems a whole different subject.
Even if preset moral codes where in place, this doesn't demand that you blindly follow them with no logical thought or consideration. Which seems to be your reasoning behind finding an action to be moral or not.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, the Bible does not say you are suppose to follow it blindly at all. In fact, it says you are suppose to be knowledgeable about subjects like this so that you can defend your stance if necessary. Though that's a little off topic.Your stance seems to suggest that if there are preset moral codes, they cannot be questioned. Which isn't true. The only difference is that one can be right or wrong depending on what conclusion they come to. If your requirement for an action to truly be moral is to consider it first, then there is no reason this cannot be done even if there are preset moral codes present. .
You just refuted your own argument. If you are questioning the Bible, and you find a logical refutation of it, will you give up your belief? Or will you assume your conclusion was mistaken? If its the latter, then you aren't questioning at all, you are starting with the conclusion and then retroactively justifying it.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
My assertion is that people who would follow a moral code out of a sense of duty to it aren't being moral, just dutiful.
Deontology vs. Virtue Ethics.
Of course, the optimal "good" way to go about life would be being a "virtue" ethics person when everyone agrees on the same virtues. hmm
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, not being present, following them for their own sake and only their own sake. My assertion is that people who would follow a moral code out of a sense of duty to it aren't being moral, just dutiful.
But I thought you said that if there were such things as preset objective moral values then people can't really be moral.
Now it seems you are saying that people who follow guides for no other reason than to follow guides aren't really being moral. Which I don't think anyone would argue against.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You are supposed to be knowledgeable so you can defend it? Well that's not what I was talking about at all, then. If the reason you acquire knowledge is to defend your predetermined conclusion, then you aren't challenging it at all. If I read a book, the first thing I think of is how best to prove it wrong; only if it can withstand rigorous logical assault, will I accept it. When you read the Bible, do you attempt to prove it wrong with all the brainpower you can?
You aren't suppose to just look for ways to blindly defend the Bible. that isn't what I meant. You are suppose to be knowledgeable on subjects, with the benefit of this being that you can defend your stance if necessary. That doesn't mean that you are suppose to twist things or just look for ways to make yourself sound smart to make the Bible look good.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You just refuted your own argument. If you are questioning the Bible, and you find a logical refutation of it, will you give up your belief? Or will you assume your conclusion was mistaken? If its the latter, then you aren't questioning at all, you are starting with the conclusion and then retroactively justifying it.
I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?
Originally posted by TacDavey
But I thought you said that if there were such things as preset objective moral values then people can't really be moral.Now it seems you are saying that people who follow guides for no other reason than to follow guides aren't really being moral. Which I don't think anyone would argue against.
And if they did exist would it just be a matter of knowing them and then abiding by them once they were known?
Originally posted by TacDavey
You aren't suppose to just look for ways to blindly defend the Bible. that isn't what I meant. You are suppose to be knowledgeable on subjects, with the benefit of this being that you can defend your stance if necessary. That doesn't mean that you are suppose to twist things or just look for ways to make yourself sound smart to make the Bible look good.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?
They cannot be questioned. If you believe they are objective, obviously they are beyond human ability to disprove; any questioning would be a purely futile, rhetorical effort.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I should explain my position better: I think objective moral values are nonexistent, but if they did exist I can't understand why if they're something that people would necessarily follow that adherence to them would be moral.And if they did exist would it just be a matter of knowing them and then abiding by them once they were known?
Yes, but why do you think it wouldn't be moral to "adhere" to them? If it's because, like you said, people would just be following rules blindly, I can understand that. The thing is, even if there WERE set objective moral values, that doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't consider them first. Just as you would consider any of the moral values that are present in society today.
Originally posted by King Kandy
This coming from the guy who said he had never even read the Old Testament. That's exactly what you do all the time!
Sir! You wound me! cry
I resent the implication that I attempt to vainly present myself as intellectually superior.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Wrong. I mean first of all, how could a value be present outside of human creation? Do we speak of it as moral when a rock rolls down a hill? Is snow falling immoral? Is a frog eating a fly immoral? These things obviously have to apply to the human sphere.
I don't know what you mean here. I'm talking about moral values that are present apart from human creation. Not moral values that apply to rocks and snow.
Originally posted by King Kandy
They cannot be questioned. If you believe they are objective, obviously they are beyond human ability to disprove; any questioning would be a purely futile, rhetorical effort.
But people can still consider them. Even if they are in place, that doesn't mean people have to blindly follow them. Which means people can still perform moral actions.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, but why do you think it wouldn't be moral to "adhere" to them? If it's because, like you said, people would just be following rules blindly, I can understand that. The thing is, even if there WERE set objective moral values, that doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't consider them first. Just as you would consider any of the moral values that are present in society today.
This gets tricky, I'm not sure if I could even explain it to myself satisfactorily, but I suppose it comes from my notion that an objective moral code would be like mathematics in that it would be analytically apparent as true and (this is where it gets really dicey) analytically prescriptive.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
This gets tricky, I'm not sure if I could even explain it to myself satisfactorily, but I suppose it comes from my notion that an objective moral code would be like mathematics in that it would be analytically apparent as true and (this is where it gets really dicey) analytically prescriptive.
Why? Even if someone knows something is right, that knowledge doesn't demand that they do it. It's still up to the individual to consider doing what is right or what is wrong.