Morality

Posts: 32
Posted by Hylozoist on 9/26/13 1:19 PM

I call them bad questions because they're malformed.

They are leading questions; implying that there has to be an 'absolute' standard which makes them wrong.

This is a circular argument; it's conclusion is listed among its premises.


I disagree with you. The argument for absolute morality is not circler. It is justified by the logic law of non-contradiction. The logic is as follows : If morality exists and is relative, then all statements concerning morality are relative. The idea that morality at its core is relative is a statement about the nature of morality, therefore since all morality statements are relative it to is also relative, which allows for absolute morality. This is a contradiction of the premise that all morality is relative.

The logic for the opposite premise (absolute morality) does not fail against the law of non-contradiction. If morality exists and is absolute, then all statements about morality are absolute. If all statements about morality are absolute, then all statements about morality are either wrong or right, true or false. Does the statement morality is absolute allow for relative morality when held to itself, no it does not. It does not contradict itself. Does this mean morality will not change if the context is different, no it does not. What it means is if the context is the same the answer to the question of if the context is moral or amoral will always be the same.

Note : The above logic does not prove if morality exists or not. What the logic does prove is that if morality does exist it must be absolute.

Posted by RedZaku on 1/24/13 10:11 PM

Okay then... why? Where does the standard that makes these things wrong come from, and what gives it the authority to make it completely universal?


Posted by Hylozoist on 9/26/13 1:19 PM

I call them bad questions because they're malformed.

They are leading questions; implying that there has to be an 'absolute' standard which makes them wrong.

This is a circular argument; it's conclusion is listed among its premises.

A question which is not malformed would be, "what is the basis for claiming a moral standard?"


Posted by Kevin 09/20/2013 09:22 PM

Why should anyone follow any one's standard of morality if they cannot justify why it is true?


Posted by Hylozoist on 9/26/13 1:19 PM

This is a malformed question.


Again I disagree. there is no difference between the questions you called malformed and the one you prefer. When broken down by definition they ask the same thing; what reason can you give to accept a moral standard. They are all synonyms of each other.

If You disagree please explain why.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
I disagree with you. The argument for absolute morality is not circler. It is justified by the logic law of non-contradiction. The logic is as follows : If morality exists and is relative, then all statements concerning morality are relative.


Equivocation. I'm talking about specific QUESTIONS, not 'the argument for absolute morality.'

12/19/2013 01:00 AMPosted by Kevin
The idea that morality at its core is relative is a statement about the nature of morality, therefore since all morality statements are relative it to is also relative, which allows for absolute morality. This is a contradiction of the premise that all morality is relative.


That's a serious logical fail. The assessment of morality is not a moral judgement, and therefore not bound by the constraints of morality. It's possible for morality to be relative while statements ABOUT it aren't.

12/19/2013 01:00 AMPosted by Kevin
Again I disagree. there is no difference between the questions you called malformed and the one you prefer


This is just wrong.

The questions I was responding to included in their premise an answer to the question; that's a circular argument.

An extreme example would be "who created the universe?" The question is implying that the creation of the universe is a "who," which is necessarily trying to answer the question inside the question.

My editing of the questions removed all traces of the question being leading.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
morality is subject to human opinion (unless you are within a religion) so really this entire debate is just null in the void.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
12/22/2013 09:40 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
morality is subject to human opinion (unless you are within a religion) so really this entire debate is just null in the void.


Way to not actually read the thread.

Morality is not wholly subject to human opinion: Slavery is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Rape is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Genocide is wrong at all times in all circumstances.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
12/22/2013 07:54 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Morality is not wholly subject to human opinion: Slavery is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Rape is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Genocide is wrong at all times in all circumstances

I think this is not a statement to be used as an assumed truth. Thinking outside of life on Earth, in order for this to be true, you'd have to define what slavery and Rape and genocide are, who they apply to, how you define "who", etc. Is the meat industry genocide? No? Well now we have to define what EXACTLY the difference between people and animals is. Is mandated community service slavery? When wild animals chase each other down during mating is that Rape? There's millions of questions out there, I'm just throwing a couple out for an example.
Edited by Engineer on 12/23/2013 12:54 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
12/22/2013 07:54 PMPosted by Hylozoist
morality is subject to human opinion (unless you are within a religion) so really this entire debate is just null in the void.


Way to not actually read the thread.

Morality is not wholly subject to human opinion: Slavery is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Rape is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Genocide is wrong at all times in all circumstances.


Technically debateable. Unless you are within an organisation that sets rules for you, morality is subject to human opinion.

Before the main religious characters arose from the religions what the hell do you think this world was made of? emperors. dictators. slaves. rapists. it was even accepted way back then in many places.

Way to not actually think.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
Yes, I believe all that is wrong to. but thats because of how you and I were risen. Some people still kill, some people still !!!#%#@#, but they dont think its wrong, therefore morality IS SUBJECT TO HUMAN OPINION.

I will stand ready to debate however long it may take to convince you that without rules morality is subject to human opinion.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350


Way to not actually read the thread.

Morality is not wholly subject to human opinion: Slavery is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Rape is wrong at all times in all circumstances. Genocide is wrong at all times in all circumstances.


Technically debateable. Unless you are within an organisation that sets rules for you, morality is subject to human opinion.

Before the main religious characters arose from the religions what the hell do you think this world was made of? emperors. dictators. slaves. rapists. it was even accepted way back then in many places.

Way to not actually think.


Before you accuse me of 'not actually thinking' you might want to check your assumptions.

Morality is not subject to human opinion. I can't decide murder is moral and then do it to anybody I please. My nature precludes any conclusion which puts murder as being moral - as such I have no control over said nature, and thus murder is immoral to me.

Other people may have a nature which allows them to justify murder, but that still doesn't make it moral - because murder destabilizes society. That's where morality arises from - our nature as profoundly social animals which rely absolutely on the society in which we live.

If you'd bothered to read the thread before chiming in I've said that at least once before.

As for your wild tangent on religion; religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Quite the opposite in fact; religions are profoundly amoral.

The fact that people in the past behaved in a manner which is immoral doesn't justify morality as being relative. In fact, rather it supports the idea that morality is something which has serious objective aspects to it - because what those people did, despite being acceptable under the ETHICS of their time, was immoral.

ETHICS are relative to the culture in which one lives. Morality is not.

12/23/2013 01:11 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I will stand ready to debate however long it may take to convince you that without rules morality is subject to human opinion.


You're going to have to offer a hell of a lot more than half-baked naked assertion. Just repeating "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG" isn't going to cut it.

And you're not 'debating.' You're offering unsubstantiated opinion, equivocation and bad reasoning.
Edited by Hylozoist on 12/26/2013 6:46 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737


Technically debateable. Unless you are within an organisation that sets rules for you, morality is subject to human opinion.

Before the main religious characters arose from the religions what the hell do you think this world was made of? emperors. dictators. slaves. rapists. it was even accepted way back then in many places.

Way to not actually think.


Before you accuse me of 'not actually thinking' you might want to check your assumptions.

Morality is not subject to human opinion. I can't decide murder is moral and then do it to anybody I please. My nature precludes any conclusion which puts murder as being moral - as such I have no control over said nature, and thus murder is immoral to me.

Other people may have a nature which allows them to justify murder, but that still doesn't make it moral - because murder destabilizes society. That's where morality arises from - our nature as profoundly social animals which rely absolutely on the society in which we live.

If you'd bothered to read the thread before chiming in I've said that at least once before.

As for your wild tangent on religion; religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Quite the opposite in fact; religions are profoundly amoral.

The fact that people in the past behaved in a manner which is immoral doesn't justify morality as being relative. In fact, rather it supports the idea that morality is something which has serious objective aspects to it - because what those people did, despite being acceptable under the ETHICS of their time, was immoral.

ETHICS are relative to the culture in which one lives. Morality is not.

12/23/2013 01:11 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I will stand ready to debate however long it may take to convince you that without rules morality is subject to human opinion.


You're going to have to offer a hell of a lot more than half-baked naked assertion. Just repeating "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG" isn't going to cut it.

And you're not 'debating.' You're offering unsubstantiated opinion, equivocation and bad reasoning.


So morality is based upon society according to you and you only. Society is still made up of humans who think and have their own opinions, hence why societies back then didnt think killing was wrong nor did they believe slavery was wrong, they justified it and to them it wasnt morally wrong to have slaves.

A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

^^^ Religion does actually set a moral code for people so if you are part of a religion yes your morals are solely subject to said religion.

Since a moral is apparently a practice within a set of codes if a society deems slavery is moral (because the people in the society believed so) then it IS moral, to them at least, not to us. But that simply shows that morals are in fact affected 100% by opinion because societies have deemed certain things moral that we deem immoral today.

And religion being amoral is just !@#$ out of your %^-,

Youre not debating, youre offering nothing but insults and bad reasoning as well.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
12/26/2013 03:47 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
So morality is based upon society according to you and you only.


You should try actually reading what I say instead of inventing what you wish I'd said.

You're repeatedly conflating morality and ethics, as I've already explained.

12/26/2013 03:47 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Youre not debating, youre offering nothing but insults and bad reasoning as well.


I have not insulted you once. Again, you should try responding to what someone actually says instead of making up what you wish they said.

Also; forgive me if I don't take critiques on my reasoning ability seriously from one who has demonstrated such a willingness to engage solely in building giant straw men to knock down.

12/26/2013 03:47 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
And religion being amoral is just !@#$ out of your %^-,


Again, you present nothing but naked assertion. And amusingly coincidental that here you engage in precisely the behaviour that you have tried to claim that I do.
Edited by Hylozoist on 12/28/2013 12:49 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
12/28/2013 12:47 PMPosted by Hylozoist
So morality is based upon society according to you and you only.


You should try actually reading what I say instead of inventing what you wish I'd said.

You're repeatedly conflating morality and ethics, as I've already explained.

Youre not debating, youre offering nothing but insults and bad reasoning as well.


I have not insulted you once. Again, you should try responding to what someone actually says instead of making up what you wish they said.

Also; forgive me if I don't take critiques on my reasoning ability seriously from one who has demonstrated such a willingness to engage solely in building giant straw men to knock down.

And religion being amoral is just !@#$ out of your %^-,


Again, you present nothing but naked assertion. And amusingly coincidental that here you engage in precisely the behaviour that you have tried to claim that I do.


Fine, then if religion is amoral then how come it provides a moral code for you?

Since you believe im combining the ideas of ethics and morals ive decided to search up the difference between the two to make you happy.

And here is my source for this definition if you wish to check how credible it is:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source. e.g. their profession. On the other hand, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

According to this website and many others ethics are the principle set of moral codes given by a society whereas morals refer to what the individual beliefs (principles). Therefore morals are still subject to human opinion, it would be better for you to argue that ethics isnt but im more than sure that morals are.

So you got the two absolutely mixed up, morals isnt defined by a society but by the individual (subject to his opinion) whereas ethics are defined by the entire organisation/society (still technically subject to human opinion just on a larger scale but ill concede that point before we argue on it).

Anyways, sorry, I did make a few rather giant straw men, stuffing words into your mouth But i believe i can still stand by morals being set by the individual's opinion of whats right and wrong.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
12/31/2013 09:57 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Fine, then if religion is amoral then how come it provides a moral code for you?


It doesn't.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source. e.g. their profession. On the other hand, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

According to this website and many others ethics are the principle set of moral codes given by a society whereas morals refer to what the individual beliefs (principles). Therefore morals are still subject to human opinion, it would be better for you to argue that ethics isnt but im more than sure that morals are.


12/31/2013 09:57 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Anyways, sorry, I did make a few rather giant straw men, stuffing words into your mouth But i believe i can still stand by morals being set by the individual's opinion of whats right and wrong.


Present a situation in which forced copulation (hooray automatic word filter) is moral. Until you do that, you cannot support the statement that "morals are subject to human opinion."
Edited by Hylozoist on 1/6/2014 7:24 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
01/06/2014 07:23 AMPosted by Hylozoist
Present a situation in which forced copulation (hooray automatic word filter) is moral. Until you do that, you cannot support the statement that "morals are subject to human opinion."

Again, I'll say that such situations are not so simple when you start talking outside the human realm. Imagine if I was part of a species in which, for whatever reason, the other gender NEVER consents to such actions.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/07/2014 12:02 PMPosted by Engineer
Present a situation in which forced copulation (hooray automatic word filter) is moral. Until you do that, you cannot support the statement that "morals are subject to human opinion."

Again, I'll say that such situations are not so simple when you start talking outside the human realm. Imagine if I was part of a species in which, for whatever reason, the other gender NEVER consents to such actions.


Such a hypothetical situation is both silly and irrelevant.

Might as well be asking "if you had a billion billion dollars what would you do?"

You're not part of that species. Such a species is not known to exist.

And even if it was - survival of the species is not a valid excuse for #!*!@%#*.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
01/08/2014 04:20 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Such a hypothetical situation is both silly and irrelevant.

Maybe, but
1) Silly situations can become reality. Imagine trying to form a sense of all realistic situations one would make a choice in for today, but doing it living 10,000 years ago.
2) The silly situation brings up holes that need to be filled. You need to define what a decision is, what thought is, what life is, what intelligence is, etc.
The immediate example to be brought up with this topic is what defines having the intelligence to consent. Also, you should define whether or not unintelligent things have morals, and if they do, if they're breaking them or not.
3) There are actually lots of species like that. There are species of animals where one mate attempts to escape during normal mating and feels pain during the intercourse.

Oh, and btw, it's Rape. I doubt many people are reading this to be offended, and I saw them repeatedly saying "VAGlNA" on a TV at McDonald's just today.
Edited by Engineer on 1/9/2014 8:19 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/09/2014 08:05 PMPosted by Engineer
3) There are actually lots of species like that. There are species of animals where one mate attempts to escape during normal mating and feels pain during the intercourse.


These species are not sentient and thus cannot give consent under any circumstances.

We're clearly talking about sentient animals when we're discussing morality - which is a characteristic of sentient animals.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
01/06/2014 07:23 AMPosted by Hylozoist
Fine, then if religion is amoral then how come it provides a moral code for you?


It doesn't.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source. e.g. their profession. On the other hand, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

According to this website and many others ethics are the principle set of moral codes given by a society whereas morals refer to what the individual beliefs (principles). Therefore morals are still subject to human opinion, it would be better for you to argue that ethics isnt but im more than sure that morals are.


12/31/2013 09:57 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Anyways, sorry, I did make a few rather giant straw men, stuffing words into your mouth But i believe i can still stand by morals being set by the individual's opinion of whats right and wrong.


Present a situation in which forced copulation (hooray automatic word filter) is moral. Until you do that, you cannot support the statement that "morals are subject to human opinion."


Religion provides a moral code for you. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE A SET OF MORAL CODES. How more idiotic can you get?!?!?

I shall present a situation in which %#@!*@*% is moral to someone.

The !@#$%^ for some reason believes %#@!*@*% is moral and therefor goes around @*@@!!#!#@ women and children. The women and children do not believe it is moral. therefore it is immoral to them according to their personal practices but to the -*!@#$ it is moral according to his practices (hes @*@@!!#!#@ them).
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
dat censoring.... basically all those marks are related to "r a p e"
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
01/11/2014 05:54 AMPosted by Hylozoist
These species are not sentient and thus cannot give consent under any circumstances.

I realize I could just google for a definition, but could you define sentient here on the forum?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
01/11/2014 05:54 AMPosted by Hylozoist
We're clearly talking about sentient animals when we're discussing morality - which is a characteristic of sentient animals.

Then you agree that you could say,"subject to human opinion," or you could say that morality only exists within sentience, and humans are the only known sentient species, and you don't like discussing weird circumstances such as finding sentient aliens, so you could say morals, "only exist in human thought" which is a very similar statement.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]