The Existence of Morality?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:07 am
@johannw,
johannw;154474 wrote:
You're asking why opinions on food aren't condemned but certain acts are condemned?

I'm not sure, actually... I feel like they can't be connected that way because your opinion about whether or not a cookie is good doesn't negatively effect the life(lives) of other people the way killing someone might... but again, I'm not totally sure... but I'd love to hear your answer.


A murder half-way around the world doesn't really affect my life positively or negatively. It affects my life about as much as your opinion on ice cream. Although it doesn't affect my life, I still think it's wrong because it affects me emotionally.
 
johannw
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:18 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154484 wrote:
A murder half-way around the world doesn't really affect my life positively or negatively. It affects my life about as much as your opinion on ice cream. Although it doesn't affect my life, I still think it's wrong because it affects me emotionally.


An opinion about a food's taste and an action's moral value is still hard to connect besides the fact that they are both opinions, though. A murder affects you emotionally, but someone's opinion on ice cream doesn't (or at least it shouldn't). So the only comparison you can make between the two is that they are both nothing but relative opinions, right? Or am I misunderstanding you, Night Ripper?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:21 am
@johannw,
johannw;154482 wrote:
The thing is that the evil society is evil according to you. But in their perspective, they are not evil. We are talking about how relative morality can be. You may think that good is good and evil is evil, but that is totally dependent on your definition of good and evil and that definition differs from culture to culture.

Ancient cultures saw human sacrifice and cannibalism as a normal if not holy thing to do, while other cultures that existed at the same time saw those practices as horrifying and diabolical. Who was right? According to each, they considered themselves right, but each other wrong: making the morality of those practices completely relative.


But it does not follow that because the people in a society do not believe that their society is evil, that their society is not evil. Why should it? A person may not believe that lots of sugar is not good for him, but it does not follow that lot's of sugar is (in fact) not good for him. Nothing about whether something is true follow from whether it is believed true. I suppose that many people in Nazi Germany did not believe that their society was evil. But, so what?

Whether morality is, in fact relative is an issue that is independent of whether there are, in fact, different beliefs in different societies. We should distinguish between cultural relativity and moral relativity. Cultural relativity is just an anthropological fact. It is a fact that in different societies moral beliefs differ. But moral relativity is the view that what a particular society believes is right is, in fact, right in that society. But moral relativity is a moral view, not an anthropological view. And moral relativity does not follow from cultural relativity. Do you see the difference?

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 11:26 AM ----------

johannw;154490 wrote:
but someone's opinion on ice cream doesn't (or at least it shouldn't).


Is that a moral judgment? That it shouldn't. In Jonathan Swift's, Gulliver's Travels, two countries are constantly at war with each other because one of the countries believes that soft-boiled eggs ought to be opened on the small end of the egg. The other country believed they should be opened on the large side of the egg.
 
johannw
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:31 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154492 wrote:
But it does not follow that because the people in a society do not believe that their society is evil, that their society is not evil. Why should it? A person may not believe that lots of sugar is not good for him, but it does not follow that lot's of sugar is (in fact) not good for him. Nothing about whether something is true follow from whether it is believed true. I suppose that many people in Nazi Germany did not believe that their society was evil. But, so what?

Whether morality is, in fact relative is an issue that is independent of whether there are, in fact, different beliefs in different societies. We should distinguish between cultural relativity and moral relativity. Cultural relativity is just an anthropological fact. It is a fact that in different societies moral beliefs differ. But moral relativity is the view that what a particular society believes is right is, in fact, right in that society. But moral relativity is a moral view, not an anthropological view. And moral relativity does not follow from cultural relativity. Do you see the difference?

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 11:26 AM ----------



Is that a moral judgment? That it shouldn't. In Jonathan Swift's, Gulliver's Travels, two countries are constantly at war with each other because one of the countries believes that soft-boiled eggs ought to be opened on the small end of the egg. The other country believed they should be opened on the large side of the egg.


Again, you're right! haha even when I think I'm agreeing with you, you still find ways to call me out and make me think more about what I am saying. I appreciate that, really.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:34 am
@johannw,
johannw;154499 wrote:
Again, you're right! haha even when I think I'm agreeing with you, you still find ways to call me out and make me think more about what I am saying. I appreciate that, really.


Isn't that the idea of this forum?
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:36 am
@johannw,
johannw;154482 wrote:
The thing is that the evil society is evil according to you. But in their perspective, they are not evil. We are talking about how relative morality can be. You may think that good is good and evil is evil, but that is totally dependent on your definition of good and evil and that definition differs from culture to culture.

Ancient cultures saw human sacrifice and cannibalism as a normal if not holy thing to do, while other cultures that existed at the same time saw those practices as horrifying and diabolical. Who was right? According to each, they considered themselves right, but each other wrong: making the morality of those practices completely relative.


that was in ancient time where their morality is based on their religion.
that is not human morality it is more likely a religious morality

we don't need religious morality, we are not religion, we are humans, all we need to know is the morality of humans, we don't need to know what is good and bad for religion but for ourselves.
 
johannw
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 10:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154502 wrote:
Isn't that the idea of this forum?


It is! and seeing as I'm totally new to this forum, I'm amazed at how much more it's made me think in two days than anything else has in my entire life. I see myself growing a lot thanks to this website =)

Quote:
that was in ancient time where their morality is based on their religion.
that is not human morality it is more likely a religious morality

we don't need religious morality, we are not religion, we are humans, all we need to know is the morality of humans, we don't need to know what is good and bad for religion but for ourselves.


My question to you is: where else do we get our original foundation of morality, if it's not religion? I, myself, am not religious now, but I was raised that way and so my ideas of what is right and what is wrong were taught to me through religion. That's just me personally, though.

Where do you get your perspective on what is right and what is wrong? I'd like to know so that I could try and see it from your point of view.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:18 pm
@johannw,
johannw;154526 wrote:

My question to you is: where else do we get our original foundation of morality, if it's not religion? I, myself, am not religious now, but I was raised that way and so my ideas of what is right and what is wrong were taught to me through religion. That's just me personally, though.


it begins with understanding and by understanding it we believe it, as we believe it we follow it and it became a religion, but something is mistaken, that religion wrongfully understand and was corrected in which became the modern morality.

johannw;154526 wrote:

Where do you get your perspective on what is right and what is wrong? I'd like to know so that I could try and see it from your point of view.


Humanism
 
johannw
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:39 pm
@johannw,
Quote:
it begins with understanding and by understanding it we believe it, as we believe it we follow it and it became a religion, but something is mistaken, that religion wrongfully understand and was corrected in which became the modern morality.


I'm not sure I understand this completely... Can you explain it again, maybe a little differently?

Quote:
Humanism


I need to read more about Humanism. It sounds interesting. Any recommended books or articles? Thanks!
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:52 pm
@johannw,
johannw;154566 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this completely... Can you explain it again, maybe a little differently?


during the stone age, humans begin to explore things instead of becoming a food hunter forever, as they explore it they learn to understand it, as they understand things they explore, they believe in it , as they believe on what they understand, they follow it and later it became a religion, but as time passes by, some human sees they made a mistakes on understanding things and they corrected it, in which became our present morality.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 01:54 PM ----------

johannw;154566 wrote:
I need to read more about Humanism. It sounds interesting. Any recommended books or articles? Thanks!


i don't read books to much maybe wikipedia can help.
 
johannw
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 01:04 pm
@johannw,
Quote:
during the stone age, humans begin to explore things instead of becoming a food hunter forever, as they explore it they learn to understand it, as they understand things they explore, they believe in it , as they believe on what they understand, they follow it and later it became a religion, but as time passes by, some human sees they made a mistakes on understanding things and they corrected it, in which became our present morality.


That makes sense. Morality started, became religion, and then was revised into modern morality, so it didn't originate with religion (did I get that right?) I understand that now!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 05:53:49