Is morality real?

@TK421,

TK421 wrote:

But where is the sense in talking about the reality of a thing we can never know. If the experience of a thing is not the thing itself, what is the thing? Meaning is intrinsic to experience; it acts as the structure of our reality. Sure, experience will differ, but the similarities in the nature of each of our realities make the differences almost negligible.

It seems doubtful that anyone could be completely devoid of a sense of morality, unless perhaps they were missing some basic functions, like language.

We can never know whether the number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach in Hawaii is an odd or an even number. But we know that it is either an odd or an even number. So there is at least one thing which is real that we cannot know about. And there are others too, I bet.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I doubt there is anything that can be proved without doubt. But why should that be the standard of proof? It isn't in science, and most of us believe that science gives us knowledge.

Kennethamy, Smile

There is a difference to be acknowledged and it is of two levels of reality,one our everyday reality said to be apparent reality,and that of ultimate reality,what reality is in and of itself,without its subject or without being processesed and thus conditioned by the mind.It is said we do not know what is out there,because apparent reality is in part a projection,a creation of the human mind.Ultimate reality is what reality would be without having been conditioned by human concsiousness,reality starkly alone,for all intensions would be nothing.Subject and object stand or fall together.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Kennethamy,

There is a difference to be acknowledged and it is of two levels of reality,one our everyday reality said to be apparent reality,and that of ultimate reality,what reality is in and of itself,without its subject or without being processesed and thus conditioned by the mind.It is said we do not know what is out there,because apparent reality is in part a projection,a creation of the human mind.Ultimate reality is what reality would be without having been conditioned by human concsiousness,reality starkly alone,for all intensions would be nothing.Subject and object stand or fall together.

But that is not the point. The question is why we should accept the standard of proof without the possibility of doubt in philosophy when we don't expect that in science.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But that is not the point. The question is why we should accept the standard of proof without the possibility of doubt in philosophy when we don't expect that in science.

kennethamy, Smile

I am afraid you have lost me,what standard of proof are you displeased with, and that you consider to be making unwarranted claim of truth.:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

I am afraid you have lost me,what standard of proof are you displeased with, and that you consider to be making unwarranted claim of truth.:eek:

"I do not think there is anyone who could prove without a doubt the existence of the world you live in."

That one. (I said nothing about making an unwarranted claim of truth).

@kennethamy,

"But that is not the point. The question is why we should accept the standard of proof without the possibility of doubt in philosophy when we don't expect that in science."

Science is the child of philosophy and I suppose the requirements are more stringent with this child.In stateting that there is no one whom could prove the existence of apparent reality,that is not necessarily an absolute,certainly it is not if you know someone whom can prove apparent reality.At anyrate it is not so problematic as to halt free speculation in philosophy.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

"But that is not the point. The question is why we should accept the standard of proof without the possibility of doubt in philosophy when we don't expect that in science."

Science is the child of philosophy and I suppose the requirements are more stringent with this child.In stateting that there is no one whom could prove the existence of apparent reality,that is not necessarily an absolute,certainly it is not if you know someone whom can prove apparent reality.At anyrate it is not so problematic as to halt free speculation in philosophy.

But I pointed out that science has less stringent requirements than those you seem to require from philosophy. Science allows that any scientific proposition might be mistaken, and that there is no absolute proof of any scientific proposition, whereas you demand absolute proof of reality (not apparent reality). So, once again, you missed the point. I repeat: science does not require what you call absolute proof. But you require absolute proof that there is a reality behind all appearance, and that is philosophy. So you require in philosophy what is not required in science.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

"But that is not the point. The question is why we should accept the standard of proof without the possibility of doubt in philosophy when we don't expect that in science."

Science is the child of philosophy and I suppose the requirements are more stringent with this child.In stateting that there is no one whom could prove the existence of apparent reality,that is not necessarily an absolute,certainly it is not if you know someone whom can prove apparent reality.At anyrate it is not so problematic as to halt free speculation in philosophy.

But I pointed out that science has less stringent requirements than those you seem to require from philosophy. Science allows that any scientific proposition might be mistaken, and that there is no absolute proof of any scientific proposition, whereas you demand absolute proof of reality (not apparent reality). So, once again, you missed the point. I repeat: science does not require what you call absolute proof. But you require "proof without a doubt the existence of the world around us". So you require in philosophy what is not required in science.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But I pointed out that science has less stringent requirements than those you seem to require from philosophy. Science allows that any scientific proposition might be mistaken, and that there is no absolute proof of any scientific proposition, whereas you demand absolute proof of reality (not apparent reality). So, once again, you missed the point. I repeat: science does not require what you call absolute proof. But you require "proof without a doubt the existence of the world around us". So you require in philosophy what is not required in science.

kennnethamy, Smile

Frankly I just made a statement,please if you would rephrase it into a context which is more pleaseing to you,I could learn from your example,and avoid such errors in the future,

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennnethamy,

Frankly I just made a statement,please if you would rephrase it into a context which is more pleaseing to you,I could learn from your example,and avoid such errors in the future,

You made a statement, but you did not just make a statement. You also implied by your statement ("I do not think there is anyone who could prove without a doubt the existence of the world you live in.") that in order to prove the existence of the world [we] live in, it has to be proved beyond all doubt. But is that true. Why should I have to prove anything in philosophy "beyond all doubt" when we do not have to prove anything in science, "beyond all doubt"? So I was wondering why it is that you think that the standard of proof in philosophy should be higher than the standard of proof in science?

The English philosopher, G.E. Moore held out one of his hands, and said, "Here is a hand"; and then he held out his other hand, and said, "Here is a hand", and concluded, there were two hands, and since hands were a part of what you call "the world we live in" he had proved that there are at least two things in "the world we live in". He presented this proof in a paper he delivered before the British Academy.

Isn't that a proof ?

@kennethamy,

kennnethamy, Smile

Do you ever stay with the topic at hand? It seems you are most interested in disrupting dialogue.I am not saying that what you rised as a problem is not credible,just that the feel of this distraction is familar to past dialogues.We do not seem to mix well,I suggest we avoid one another.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennnethamy,

Do you ever stay with the topic at hand? It seems you are most interested in disrupting dialogue.I am not saying that what you rised as a problem is not credible,just that the feel of this distraction is familar to past dialogues.We do not seem to mix well,I suggest we avoid one another.

I am sorry that you find philosophical discussion so difficult to maintain. I was under the impression that was what this forum was all about. Apparently (at least in your case) I was mistaken. Is it that you don't like criticism?

@kennethamy,

There is no point in turning this into a personality conflict.I find you inclined to go off on tangents/tangential bouts avoiding the topic at hand.You on the other hand seem less than pleased with my approach.If we cannot reconcile our differences, the logical thing to do would be to avoid mutual frustration and avoid one another.I get weary following tangents.I do not wish to follow you all over the logical countryside when it is of not really necessary to the topic.

@boagie,

Problems in philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Appearance and reality

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

@TK421,

TK421,

Reality is not real in the sense that other things we call real most often occupy space and time,how tangiable is an emotion,an idea, these cannot be said to be out there in the objective world as objective reality these are subjective qualities.These things you spoke of, the chair,the rules of baseball or morality these all cease to exist in the absence of a subject,they are NOT part of objective reality.So,that which is subjective ceases to be when the subject ceases to be.That thing inside you that is horrified at the torturous burning of a cat is your humanity,it is compassion and the only thing that removes you from the jungle,it too is a subjective quality.

"Morality is not objectively real."

We are agreed,morality is not objectively real.

"So we've distinguished two kinds of reality: objective (independent) and social (dependent). I'd like to suggest that we are as dependent on social reality as social reality is on us - that we could not be what we are independent of the social fabric - that social reality is essential to our ontology."

Actually there is the objective and there is the subjective and only a mix of the two gives us reality,apparent reality.We possiably at some time in our evolutionary history were not social creature,perhaps back to the time of the tidal pool,but you are of course right,we are dependent upon our social structure and our social structure is dependent upon us as content,to take its form.What is content without form,or form without content,hard to imagine,flows right through the fingers of my mind.

"Unfortunately, ugly yet very powerful remnants of an outdated conceptual framework condition us into thinking that objective reality is the only legitimate or real reality, dumping everything else into the abyss of mere illusion. But let's resist the dictates of The (academic) Man for a moment and critically reflect on the concept of "objective reality". "Objective reality" involves the notion that there lies a reality "out there", independent of our pesky selves, pregnant with truth. The eternal project of science and traditional philosophy, among other intellectual pursuits, has been to access this "other" reality through detached, reductive analysis and reasoning. Now, by it's very definition we can only ever know this reality through representation (as in the "laws" of physics) constructed using materials of our non-objective reality (such as language); thus the reality of objective reality will never be more than the pseudo-reality of a diagram in a textbook. Reality is the fabric of our existence. To talk about the primacy of a reality that can never be real to us, except in a secondhand kind of way, is senseless."

You have placed your finger on the pluse.Apparently reality is said to be an illusion for a very good reason,the first of which is the fact the our senses not only inable but also limit our perceptions,it is one perspective of an unknown quantity of perspectives,thus it is said that we cannot ever know,The Thing In Itself.The thing in itself would be the ultimate reality unconditioned by any cognitive process,so you see,by defination it is quite impossiable.

"So when philosophers ask the question in meta-ethics, "is morality real?", they're actually asking, "is morality objectively real?", meanwhile assuming that objective reality is the only legitimate kind of reality. But because "objective" and "subjective" reality coalesce, the very question that ignites the debate contians baggage which predetermines certain skewed conclusions."

For the above,always keep in mind that once you remove consciouness,in other words the subject,the screen goes blank,there is nothing.All you can know is that which is subjective,nothing absolutely nothing else is possiable to be known,as soon as you state known,you state, subjective.

@TK421,

Morality is, as Boagie has just stated, not objectively real.
Neither is time, space, or thought.
Love, hate, greed, and other emotions are also not real.
These things may be merely actions and reactions to what is objectively real.

But to ask whether or not the original philosophers were asking if Morality is objectively real, or not...that is something that has not been clarified enough for us.
If a philosopher were to ask me this question, I would have to answer that it is subjectively real, and as an interpretation of events, it is real, but objectively it is not.

Morality itself is an interpretation of the resounding emotional and theological reaction to an objectified event. I interpret the objectified act of one person ending another person's life as something that is subjectively negative, therefore it is immoral.
I interpret the objective act of saving a person's life as a positive act, therefore it is in my eyes, subjectively moral.

I believe that morality works retroactively, in the sense that we determine what is moral based on events that have occurred throughout history. Perceived events have a presumed moral implication, but the actions and reactions surrounding those events are contrived at best, since the events leading to the event may lead us to see the event as moral or immoral, depending on an infinite number of reasons.

But that's another tangent altogether.

Morality: Subjectively real, yes. Objectively real, no.

How does one weigh morality, when subjected to a lifetime of propaganda?
This is another subject I think would be interesting to see...

@Aristoddler,

"How does one weigh morality, when subjected to a lifetime of propaganda?
This is another subject I think would be interesting to see..."

Aristoddler,

Realizeing that morality is not objectively real,that it is a myth mean't to be incorporated by the public at large unquestioned,it should lighten the load on the human psyche should it not? Of course most of the population will still incorporate it as god sent and embrace it mindlessly.Actually it is not the only way to incorporate a morality,we have an abundance of examples of alternatives in the East.The more intellectual approach is not something Americans are inclined to it would seem,nor are most Canadians in the true north strong and free.At least with the intellectual form of morality,it is a morality that can be questioned without shaking the population to its core.:eek:

@TK421,

Good points on all counts, Boagie.
If people are told that something is immoral from the time they are young, and then later in life given the chance to decide for themselves...will they regress into their upbringing, or advance into a state where they can make their own decisions about what is or is not moral?
Obviously, the mid-east is setting a good standard for this specific topic, and it seems to be leading their entire society into decay. (depending whose story you listen to, that is)

But having the choices made for you would seem like it would ease the burden on the human psyche, but I think we all have certain decisions we have made on our own, outside of our surrounding influences, that can help us make our own decisions about what is or is not moral.
We also have our own personal morals that we use to help us determine what is or is not moral.
Unfortunately, some people think so polar opposite to the rest of the perceived majority, that we have wars surrounding some of these moral dilemmas.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Good points on all counts, Boagie.
If people are told that something is immoral from the time they are young, and then later in life given the chance to decide for themselves...will they regress into their upbringing, or advance into a state where they can make their own decisions about what is or is not moral?
Obviously, the mid-east is setting a good standard for this specific topic, and it seems to be leading their entire society into decay. (depending whose story you listen to, that is)

But having the choices made for you would seem like it would ease the burden on the human psyche, but I think we all have certain decisions we have made on our own, outside of our surrounding influences, that can help us make our own decisions about what is or is not moral.
We also have our own personal morals that we use to help us determine what is or is not moral.
Unfortunately, some people think so polar opposite to the rest of the perceived majority, that we have wars surrounding some of these moral dilemmas.

If morality is not real as some have been arguing, then just what are people supposed to be making decisions about? That confuses me a little.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If morality is not real as some have been arguing, then just what are people supposed to be making decisions about? That confuses me a little.

It's not real in a physical sense of the word.
It's the moment of realization that a person has, when deciding between what is right or wrong in their eyes, according to a lifetime of conditioning.
This moment is what we call morality.

What is moral, is supposed to be good or positive, or have a positive outcome at the very least.
What is immoral, is supposed to be bad or negative, or have a negative outcome, etc.

How we perceive it, is morality.

Who decides what is moral? The majority consensus?
Is morality real? It is a real subject, not a real object.
Is the result of morality subjective or objective? That depends on a number of things and perceptions, as well as the specific case.

Philosophy Forum

Is morality real?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know