Quake3World

tnf wrote:
However, I still think you are missing one of my main points - how do we rationalize our behaviors? If we are telling Hitler to fuck a goat for the reasons you mention (not requiring any moral absolutism), what is it about our actions that make them inherently right and Hitler's inherently wrong (if there is no infallible yardstick.) I think the infallible yardstick exists.

I don't think we have really gone anywhere in this discussion - except to maybe explain each other's position a bit better.

From my viewpoint, clarifying positions constitutes progress. :icon31:

I don't think I'm missing anything, just making a choice about what to cover. Your comments suggest that you believe in some version of 'moral realism' (the use of 'inherently'). This view is one I find a bit difficult to get my head around since (one version of it) seems to require the existence of observer-independent 'moral' facts as a component of human (social) action. I just haven't seen any good arguments for it, though I'm happy to be educated if you have a particular thinker, theory, or book in mind. I'll be back later...gotta go.

Hannibal wrote:

tnf wrote:
However, I still think you are missing one of my main points - how do we rationalize our behaviors? If we are telling Hitler to fuck a goat for the reasons you mention (not requiring any moral absolutism), what is it about our actions that make them inherently right and Hitler's inherently wrong (if there is no infallible yardstick.) I think the infallible yardstick exists.

I don't think we have really gone anywhere in this discussion - except to maybe explain each other's position a bit better.

From my viewpoint, clarifying positions constitutes progress. :icon31:

I don't think I'm missing anything, just making a choice about what to cover. Your comments suggest that you believe in some version of 'moral realism' (the use of 'inherently'). This view is one I find a bit difficult to get my head around since (one version of it) seems to require the existence of observer-independent 'moral' facts as a component of human (social) action. I just haven't seen any good arguments for it, though I'm happy to be educated if you have a particular thinker, theory, or book in mind. I'll be back later...gotta go.

I know I've mentioned the book before, but I'll that I've really done here is echo a bit of the argument made by C.S. Lewis in the beginnig of "Mere Christianity" - the first section of the book is not about Christianity at all - it simply makes a case for moral law, or a law of nature. My goal is not to turn this into a debate on Christianity and its merits or shortcomings, so please don't take my suggestion of reading that book as some sort of overt gesture to shove Christianity towards you. I think we can all agree that Lewis was a fairly bright individual. He makes the case for a Moral Law much better than I can - and you don't even have to read the part about Christianity...he begins the book with the Moral Law part. Also, read his book "The Problem of Pain" for a similar bit. Both are quick reads. I'm simply interested in the philosphical idea of an absolute moral law, and find both books touch on it well.

I didn't mean to suggest you missed the point of the discussion, but I don't see a real answer to my question yet (or at least one that satisfied me - or maybe one that is in simple enough terms for an idiot like myself to understand...)
It is an extremely simple question, really - doesn't the instinct (or intuition as you mention) for people to act, and judge the actions of others, according to a certain set of behaviors imply the existance of the 'moral realism' that I have been getting at here (whatever its beginnigs may be - an emergent property that applies to populations and is the result of evolution, etc..)
If I walk out on to the street, beat up a kid and take his bike, we would all agree that is wrong. Why? Judging by what I've read thus far, I think I can say that people here would say "because you know by intuition, instinct, whatever, that it just IS wrong." Or, as Rook mentioned, because it is not something you'd want to have done to you. Why do we have that intuition or instinct? What about that intuition or instinct makes it inherently right? Why is it not just as 'right' to do adhere to a set of morals that says it is just fine to beat the kid up and take his bike? If there isn't an infallible yardstick, can't every decision be rationalized as being 'good'?
I think every one of us knows that we just 'know' what the right thing to do in many cases is. We also know that what is right and what is preferential to us often may be in conflict. Would you agree with that?

Haven't forgotten about this tnf, so let me bump this because I can. I'll get back to you later today.

The 'just knowing it' part of morality, to me, has a symbiotic darwinian basis (thanks to Dr. Geebs for the word 'symbiotic'... which gives my argument more merit since I get to use a fancy word). This all goes back to that darwinian thread a few weeks ago.

In nature, stable societies survive, unstable ones do not. Stable societies are dependent on rules being followed by the members within it. In fact, it is not possible for society to exist without its internal rules being successfully followed. These rules are based on conduct where individuals mutual aid each other or at least respect each other's existence, just like the cells that make up one's body mutually aid one another for the greater good of the body (although the use of the phrase 'mutually aid' does not apply to cells, since they do not have intentions, the effect of cells working together has a result that mimicks the human idea of 'mutual aid'). Societies follow the trend of natural selection, where societies with internal strife die and new one's based on a matually agreed upon set up rules grow. The fact that strong societies exist today and we are not in a state of total anarchy of individuals engaging in horrific immoral acts is based on the fact that internally-immoral societies are weak societies and do not surive; only strong societies survive. 'Moral realism' is as necessary a property for the existence of culture and society in the world as symbiotic evolution is to the emergence of complex organisms.

The societies whose members natually follow the rules (empathetic members) are the societies most likely to succeed. People who have an internal feeling of 'just knowing what is right' and desire to follow this internal feeling are people who flourish in strong societies . If a person does not have this internal feeling, they will less likely follow the implicit and explicit rules of societies and will degrade the effectiveness of the society. If there are enough of these 'bad apples', society cannot exist since not enough people will follow the internal rules that make it up.

i think *that* was your longest post ever

youre a regular kracus you

MKJ wrote:i think *that* was your longest post ever

youre a regular kracus you

So does that mean my ideas are as wacko as Kracus's?

mjrpes wrote:

MKJ wrote:i think *that* was your longest post ever

youre a regular kracus you

So does that mean my ideas are as wacko as Kracus's?

not quite. maybe next time.

cool... I'll bring multiuniverses and supernovas into my argument next time :icon14:

and subparticles. you gotta have subparticles

Tnf's original point was a meta-ethical one, and rereading all this, I'm sorry I helped steer us away from it. The meta-ethical question is roughly as follows: What serves as the ground or ultimate justification for any moral theory whatever? Tnf believes that there is a set of moral standards, objective and maybe timeless, that should underwrite our moral decision-making. The question can then be asked: upon what do those standards themselves depend? And this is really the heart of the issue. Here are a few candidates (I'm not trying to suggest that they are mutually exclusive):

1. human reason
2. God
3. a physical theory, including 'facts' about our physiology or social dependence (i.e. Darwin, neo-Darwinian, etc.)

I'm trying to keep it simple...the number of ethical theories (including variations) is quite large, so talking about what we intuit, judge, or feel about some moral issue is a bit premature until we at least try to get a little more clear about what we think the ultimate 'moral source' might be.

For myself, I don't disown the possibility that there are facts about our biological (including the social) makeup that might serve as constraints/enablers for constructing an adequate moral theory. But let's get the preliminaries out of the way before we talk about that shit.

An important question, certainly for Christians who care for both God and reason, was first idenitified in one of Plato's dialogues (I forget which one). I'm rephrasing for context's sake, but here it is:

Is something moral because God commands it....or does God command it because it is moral? Despite appearances, this is not a trick question, and answering it goes a long way toward determining whether 1 or 2 does more work in your belief system.

I'm just trying to clear out some brush here.

Hannibal wrote:Tnf's original point was a meta-ethical one, and rereading all this, I'm sorry I helped steer us away from it. The meta-ethical question is roughly as follows: What serves as the ground or ultimate justification for any moral theory whatever? Tnf believes that there is a set of moral standards, objective and maybe timeless, that should underwrite our moral decision-making. The question can then be asked: upon what do those standards themselves depend? And this is really the heart of the issue. Here are a few candidates (I'm not trying to suggest that they are mutually exclusive):

1. human reason
2. God
3. a physical theory, including 'facts' about our physiology or social dependence (i.e. Darwin, neo-Darwinian, etc.)

I'm trying to keep it simple...the number of ethical theories (including variations) is quite large, so talking about what we intuit, judge, or feel about some moral issue is a bit premature until we at least try to get a little more clear about what we think the ultimate 'moral source' might be.

For myself, I don't disown the possibility that there are facts about our biological (including the social) makeup that might serve as constraints/enablers for constructing an adequate moral theory. But let's get the preliminaries out of the way before we talk about that shit.

An important question, certainly for Christians who care for both God and reason, was first idenitified in one of Plato's dialogues (I forget which one). I'm rephrasing for context's sake, but here it is:

Is something moral because God commands it....or does God command it because it is moral? Despite appearances, this is not a trick question, and answering it goes a long way toward determining whether 1 or 2 does more work in your belief system.

I'm just trying to clear out some brush here.

There..perfect. I wish I had remembered Plato's comment...

Very succinct summation and clarification of what I am getting at there Hannibal.

Hannibal wrote:
Is something moral because God commands it....or does God command it because it is moral? Despite appearances, this is not a trick question, and answering it goes a long way toward determining whether 1 or 2 does more work in your belief system.

I'm just trying to clear out some brush here.

I've never understood how a timeless substance can 'command'.

mjrpes wrote:
I've never understood how a timeless substance can 'command'.

A Christian would probably say that any worries on that front are due to the limits of our language for representing the total yumminess of the Deity as he abides in the eternal present....or something.

Tnf, I actually found the relevant excerpt from "Mere Christianity" in a philosophy of religion collection I have on my shelf. If I have the time in the next few days, I'll present a summary of the argument along with some commentary.