Is there a such thing, as the way things ought to be? The way I have seen it is people tend to lay claim to a specific 'form' or way things ought to be. One perfect example is coming in on a forum and talking about how someone is so negative and should go do something else. Well the statement doesn't seem like that big of a deal pretty straight forward, well not so much. The problem is the idea there is even a way things ought to be and the bigger problem is you assume to know it. Before I go to much into this let us first assume there is a way things ought to be, well from that you could go around comparing analogous moral behaviors to your hearts content. Maybe, just maybe, well here we run into the projection error.... Lets say you are trying to tell me that by me stating there is no god to a theist, that it is offensive and because it is offensive should not be done, based on a moral truth. Well that may seem true if you are able to evaluate it correctly but lets face it we rarely judge morality with a fair evaluation. Now in this statement the person saying the verbiage/concepts are offensive and shouldn't be spoken is making, first an assumption that there is a way things ought to be, and a projection of the morality of my action... You say it is offensive and shouldn't be done because you are projecting onto it or better put idea based off of a quote from John W. Cook in his book Morality and Cultural Differences (awesome book along with Steven Lukes Moral Relativism) believing "the conduct that is being condemned here is the same that is condoned in by someone else". Essentially I am saying that you are projecting your own assumption derived from your 'culture' (experience, upbringing, etc.) not necessarily the truth of the matter. You may think I am picking on and harassing the person with this statement another (such as myself) might see it as someone helping another to understand the universe correctly....the actions here are two different ones, just one seems nicer then the other and we should try and judge like this (at least in petty debates) So from that you start to run into stickier problems, even if you can judge an action in it's correct context (which usually require an analogous comparison, at least from my experience) and the analogy is correct (I hate forming incorrect analogies, just as bad as the projection error), essentially you have negated the projection error and have moved passed it. Now you run into the problem of there having to exist 'a way things ought to be'...well there isn't Error Theory 1.There are no moral features in this world, nothing is right or wrong. (try and find a natural moral feature in this world, a moral ruler if you will) 2.No moral judgements are true. (why, because of the first rule) 3.Our sincere moral judgements try, and always fail, to describe the moral features of things 4.There is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are make believe. So what happens to the morality of the original statement is it good, or bad...neither would be the correct answer from this nihilistic/moral relativist stance and I have to say I personally see some validity in this perspective (I am not a 100% moral nihilist or moral relativist but close I would say) but am curious what others have to say. Morality is a convenient term for socially approved habits
on a logical basis i agree with you that morality is immeasurable and completely relative but following my own morality i'd also tend to disagree because i think that certain moral values can be easily found in one's self through the "golden rule" of course, some people are self-destructive and want pain and suffering for themselves in some way and so once again morality becomes relative through the golden rule but, then add society's desire to make its moral values known to those living in it and suddenly a certain society becomes a moral guide as well.. and depending on the culture you never know what morals would develop socially
Societies desire to make it's moral values known is definitely true but what happens when this society starts running out of food? Is the golden rule followed? I know I would not treat people the way I wanted to be treated in this scenario (mainly cause I have kids so if you ask me for food it would be a great big fuck you ) What about the Eskimo's morality in killing babies and sealing up there elderly in igloos and the rolling out in there dog sleds? Or the one I found really immoral (funny, huh) is Eskimos making orphaned children fight with the dogs over scraps....they do this to toughen them up, the orphans are the best hunters in their tribe and I guess fighting with dogs for food would toughen you up. Just looking through some anthropology journals a few years back shut down any notion or moral truth, at least for myself..... seeing cultures where the 'golden rule' is not followed like the Itka (I think thats the turkish tribe I will look it up) who ended up after getting their land taken away ended up starting to starve and after two or three generations ended up losing all notions of love or joy, their society literally had no room for those emotions, from what I have read the greatest joy's these tribal members got out of life was watching the suffering of others worse of then them.
i agree.. the golden rule sorta goes out the window when you revert society back to a state in which our basic survival instincts have to be utilized again and if a culture develops with a different set of a moral values than those i hold my own, as much as i might feel inclined to call it immoral i'd have to stop myself and agree with you although if an individual is raised in modern society like we live in, and they develop morals that go against the morals of the society they were raised in, is it a different story? serial kills, for instance. lol
If you are a moral nihilist then either way a serial killer is neither moral or immoral. Now I would have to agree that if someone is raised in a society and develops a non-normative morality then they will be judged immoral (not necessarily the truth though), smoking herb is a great example are we immoral because of our difference of opinion when it comes to this specific plant, or is society immoral?
I think that their are moral ways for societies. the way things should be. but there are many because people are different. but the basic idea is to be moral. the base of the moral society should be the path that leads to the most happiness, and contentedness, and also causes the least harm to the individual and collectively. where there are always exceptions, there is a general basis of what people like and dislike. most dislike being punched in the face, but most like when people are kind. so that society should not hit and people should be kind. and there are different highs and lows depending on the people who make up the group in question, but the basic want is happiness, so they should devise a system that encompasses that. you know what I mean? Things like gouging out eyes, though condemned in most societies, could be accepted by some. however, the owner of the gouged eyes has been hurt by it so we can understand that it is not good, and inhibits happiness to people, so people should try to avoid it.
@the second bolded part, exactly. it may be general but there are plenty of exceptions. and the definition of moral is: mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. which means that my right may be your wrong. there's no moral equation that would allow a "correct" answer to be reached.
^perfect, thanks What if you hit my kid can I gouge your eyes out morally? Hells yeah I can, I would probably feel good about it to.
right, I see that people differ. Right and wrong can differ. I ask if you like to be hit in the face? Do you like when people take your things? to you think babies should be drowned? do you believe that clubbing baby seals is kind? . alright. now if I say, do you think burning books is good? people can disagree. do you think people should be allowed to not let colored people into their shops? people differ. understood. this is why I believe there are more than one pathways to a moral society, and the one that is most positive for most people and least negative for most people, should be used. there is not a single moral law that everyone agrees upon. but people should find the one that suits most. and other societies can have different rules. I'm saying like multiple societies here, not one across earth
It doesn't really matter if I like it, I mean what if I liked to rape people would that become magically moral? The one thing I feel really strongly about is you can't judge morality by what you like. I do see what you are saying, I just don't agree with the 'do you like it' notion.
raping people generally is see as bad, and it is negative to most people, so I think it stays immoral and you would be an exception. by "do you like it" I was pointing out the sometimes general con census that certain things are right and wrong. and those societal agreements should be the morals of those people.
That's a very shaky road to go down for judging moral imo Slavery was a moral thing to do based on societal outlook Right now it's morally right to send someone to prison for selling flowers off a specific plant do you see where I am going with this?
totally see this. I disagree on slavery though. I'd say although it was called moral, the slaves weren't given a voice to say yeah I don't think this is moral, it hurts people. and so it was falsely advertised as moral. It's also pseudo-moral to arrest pot smokers because the prosecutors are brainwashed with falsities, and therefor cannot make a moral decision. everyone needs to be heard, and only facts presented. otherwise things like you mentioned become thought of as moral. very good point. but if everyone is heard and facts are known, then something can be moral or immoral, I think
Thats the problem I have a hard time finding absolutes when it comes to morality it is such a problem for me 2 of the 4 threads I have made (not counting news articles I have posted) has dealt with morality, one was where/what do morals come from and this one on the thought that morals are almost a false abstraction on reality I love the quote I put at the bottom it is from a female anthropologist I can't remember her name but it is how I feel about morals Morality is a convenient term for socially approved habits Now if someone could give me a solid, good reason to believe there are moral truths or morality is even real I would greatly appreciate it, this has been something I have struggled with for about 6-7 years now (the number one problem for me after why logic breaks down on the quantum level).
There are no absolutes morality is not an exception. It's a refined set of beliefs that we've been inclined to think aids in our development and from inspection, it does. It's almost no different than religion is probably passed on by the same methods, memetics.
If I where to lie to a Nazi in order to save my life, is that wrong If you have to steal to eat is that wrong If I have to kill in order to not be killed or save many peoples lives, is that wrong Reasoning will show you that there are no absolutes, at least that is what it is telling me The one absolute for morality is there are no absolutes, but once again that is how I see it