The Existence Of Morality

[vbnautilus 48]

Checky's last comment also brings this thought to mind: one of the reasons it matters where we base our morality... if it's based on a fixed moral authority, we don't have the freedom to adjust to new conditions. And often living together in a changing world requires us to reinterpret our morals, to dig deeper and find out what is really good for us. A classic example is the Pope telling Africans they shouldn't use condoms even though their livelihood basically depends upon it due to AIDS. Since there is no freedom within Catholicism to reinterpret what is actually the best thing for these people in this situation, the Pope has to go by the "rule", which in this case leads to a very harmful position by the church.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well that's a funny way of putting it, and I think I have to clarify because that borders on misunderstanding. Searching for the truth is in a way the process of "matching up" your thought with the way things actually are -- but that's not something that "exists outside of our lives", since the truth of the matter in this case is quite within our lives.

If something exists as "the way things actually are", then that has an existance outside of us doesn't it?When you die, will these things change? Therefore they are outside of us.

[vbnautilus 48]

If something exists as "the way things actually are", then that has an existance outside of us doesn't it?When you die, will these things change? Therefore they are outside of us.

Ok, if that's what you mean by outside of us I can agree with this. It's just that we are talking about a fact about ourselves - what is right for us, so I guess I took your phrase in a different way.

[antistuff 0]

I never thought you would feel different, but would you agree that by holding to a nihilist worldview, you are unable to judge someone that does this?

excelent question.my first thought was well i can see the world from a nihilistic view and still think that some actions are not desirable if we want to live together in a society. but then i read it again and the word judge jumped out of the screen at me. can i judge them because they have acted in such a way that threatens my peaceful coexistence with those around me? can i say that on a philosophical level there are no moral absolutes but on a pragmatic level i'm willing to violate this principle? i think i can. but like you said it is sort of like "I am all for a full dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator." i guess i either need to find jesus or be a bit of a hypocrite

[checkymcfold 0]

Sam Harris doesn't thinks so:He is argueing the reverse of your opinion.

i could read that paragraph a couple of ways--first, that our transcendence of rape-as-procreation is a good thing, and possibly even the foundation of what we call morality in the first place; and second, that he's trying to illustrate a weird version of the nietzschean point that morality is a self-imposed societal force that is meant to alter our "natural" or "proper" instincts.i'm honestly not clear on which he means there.that said, i generally find the authors of the contemporary atheist movement to be pretty intellectually wanting, at best, and some combination of dishonest and vindictive at worst, as i'm sure you know, so i don't know that i'd choose sam harris as a worthy opponent in this kind of debate. (though, granted, i know less about harris than i do of hitchens or dawkins, who i'm mostly referring to here)

[Balloon guy 158]

Checky's last comment also brings this thought to mind: one of the reasons it matters where we base our morality... if it's based on a fixed moral authority, we don't have the freedom to adjust to new conditions. And often living together in a changing world requires us to reinterpret our morals, to dig deeper and find out what is really good for us. A classic example is the Pope telling Africans they shouldn't use condoms even though their livelihood basically depends upon it due to AIDS. Since there is no freedom within Catholicism to reinterpret what is actually the best thing for these people in this situation, the Pope has to go by the "rule", which in this case leads to a very harmful position by the church.

This is absolutely true.But I would argue that the Pope is wrong about his interpretation of the Bible, so his decision is only an example of man imposing his ideals on others, not one of man following God's rules.Also the Pope is only 'wrong' because of the amount of promiscuity in Africa, their 'sinful' actions are the root of the problem, not whether they should use condoms. The whole morality is required, choosing which morals you want to adhere to isn't a viable alternative.If there were issues of morality that changed, then there would be a good argument that God wasn't correct about what He decreed. He wouldn't be a very god-like God if His rules were subject to a changing societies wants...

[vbnautilus 48]

i could read that paragraph a couple of ways--first, that our transcendence of rape-as-procreation is a good thing, and possibly even the foundation of what we call morality in the first place; and second, that he's trying to illustrate a weird version of the nietzschean point that morality is a self-imposed societal force that is meant to alter our "natural" or "proper" instincts.i'm honestly not clear on which he means there.that said, i generally find the authors of the contemporary atheist movement to be pretty intellectually wanting, at best, and some combination of dishonest and vindictive at worst, as i'm sure you know, so i don't know that i'd choose sam harris as a worthy opponent in this kind of debate. (though, granted, i know less about harris than i do of hitchens or dawkins, who i'm mostly referring to here)

I'm not sure what that paragraph is getting at out of context either, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the second thing.

[Balloon guy 158]

i could read that paragraph a couple of ways--first, that our transcendence of rape-as-procreation is a good thing, and possibly even the foundation of what we call morality in the first place; and second, that he's trying to illustrate a weird version of the nietzschean point that morality is a self-imposed societal force that is meant to alter our "natural" or "proper" instincts.i'm honestly not clear on which he means there.that said, i generally find the authors of the contemporary atheist movement to be pretty intellectually wanting, at best, and some combination of dishonest and vindictive at worst, as i'm sure you know, so i don't know that i'd choose sam harris as a worthy opponent in this kind of debate. (though, granted, i know less about harris than i do of hitchens or dawkins, who i'm mostly referring to here)

Yea, it's a common debating technique to force you to defend someone on your side that is an idiot. I get it with Catholic priests.I read an interesting report that basically said a male atheist is 30% more likely to be unmarried. I guess being told that religion is bad all day isn't appealing to many women.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not sure what that paragraph is getting at out of context either, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the second thing.

Like the first isn't damning enough...

[checkymcfold 0]

Checky's last comment also brings this thought to mind: one of the reasons it matters where we base our morality... if it's based on a fixed moral authority, we don't have the freedom to adjust to new conditions. And often living together in a changing world requires us to reinterpret our morals, to dig deeper and find out what is really good for us. A classic example is the Pope telling Africans they shouldn't use condoms even though their livelihood basically depends upon it due to AIDS. Since there is no freedom within Catholicism to reinterpret what is actually the best thing for these people in this situation, the Pope has to go by the "rule", which in this case leads to a very harmful position by the church.

i agree with that to some extent, but i think that it still begs BG's original question--that if we abandon all a priori ground for morality, morality itself ceases to have meaning and our moral appeals to one another really can't hold any weight due to their relativistic nature.fwiw, my personal opinion on this is that it is in fact the "easy" moral issues that lead to the development of more general moral frameworks that are then used to negotiate more difficult moral terrain. for instance, the hot button abortion issue is cast on the left as an issue of free will and on the right as an issue of life/murder. i'd suggest that this is because we DO have the sort of absolute-truthy moral feelings with regard to free will and murder, but we're still in the middle of the historical process of expanding that into some sort of wider moral framework with regard to more complex issues.

[Balloon guy 158]

excelent question.my first thought was well i can see the world from a nihilistic view and still think that some actions are not desirable if we want to live together in a society. but then i read it again and the word judge jumped out of the screen at me. can i judge them because they have acted in such a way that threatens my peaceful coexistence with those around me? can i say that on a philosophical level there are no moral absolutes but on a pragmatic level i'm willing to violate this principle? i think i can. but like you said it is sort of like "I am all for a full dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator." i guess i either need to find jesus or be a bit of a hypocrite

I think 'goodness' has a certain value to it that we can all appreciate.I always felt I was a good person before Christ...I like to think I'm a better one after.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is absolutely true.But I would argue that the Pope is wrong about his interpretation of the Bible, so his decision is only an example of man imposing his ideals on others, not one of man following God's rules.Also the Pope is only 'wrong' because of the amount of promiscuity in Africa, their 'sinful' actions are the root of the problem, not whether they should use condoms. The whole morality is required, choosing which morals you want to adhere to isn't a viable alternative.

Yeah, except he's not just a man imposing his ideals, he's the authority.

If there were issues of morality that changed, then there would be a good argument that God wasn't correct about what He decreed. He wouldn't be a very god-like God if His rules were subject to a changing societies wants...

Not to societies wants, but to societies needs. There are basically two people recently that have influenced my thinking on these issues... one is Sam, who I don't entirely agree with (yet) but has successfully shot down some of my arguments against his version of utilitarianism to draw me closer.... and the other is Jon Haidt, who is more of a describer of morality than anything else.Haidt's research shows a couple of interesting things, one is that he has broken down morality into several categories of things that all cultures consider in their versions of morality: harm/carefairness/justicepurity/sanctityingroup loyaltyauthority/respectVarious cultures give more or less importance to each of these... for example to go back to the Indian thing, purity/sanctity is pretty big over there. For example, feet are considered "dirty" and you don't put your feet above something you respect or show your feet to someone you respect. This makes a lot of sense if you've ever been to India, the ground is pretty pretty dirty.

[checkymcfold 0]

I read an interesting report that basically said a male atheist is 30% more likely to be unmarried. I guess being told that religion is bad all day isn't appealing to many women.

tell that to your daughter. she wants me, just so we're clear.

[vbnautilus 48]

i agree with that to some extent, but i think that it still begs BG's original question--that if we abandon all a priori ground for morality, morality itself ceases to have meaning and our moral appeals to one another really can't hold any weight due to their relativistic nature.

I agree with BG on that, but propose that we can have an objective grounds for morality that doesn't require appeal to religious authority.

fwiw, my personal opinion on this is that it is in fact the "easy" moral issues that lead to the development of more general moral frameworks that are then used to negotiate more difficult moral terrain. for instance, the hot button abortion issue is cast on the left as an issue of free will and on the right as an issue of life/murder. i'd suggest that this is because we DO have the sort of absolute-truthy moral feelings with regard to free will and murder, but we're still in the middle of the historical process of expanding that into some sort of wider moral framework with regard to more complex issues.

this brings me to the other thing Haidt has shown really well: most people base their moral judgements on "gut feelings". He has these very revealing taped interviews with people where they are grilled on certain issues and forced to keep answering questions in defense of their positions. For example, why is it wrong for a brother and sister to marry? Eventually it comes down to a feeling of disgust that people just trust.

[Balloon guy 158]

i agree with that to some extent, but i think that it still begs BG's original question--that if we abandon all a priori ground for morality, morality itself ceases to have meaning and our moral appeals to one another really can't hold any weight due to their relativistic nature.fwiw, my personal opinion on this is that it is in fact the "easy" moral issues that lead to the development of more general moral frameworks that are then used to negotiate more difficult moral terrain. for instance, the hot button abortion issue is cast on the left as an issue of free will and on the right as an issue of life/murder. i'd suggest that this is because we DO have the sort of absolute-truthy moral feelings with regard to free will and murder, but we're still in the middle of the historical process of expanding that into some sort of wider moral framework with regard to more complex issues.

30 years ago, homosexuality was considerd a mental disorder. We're in the middle of that process as well.

[Balloon guy 158]

this brings me to the other thing Haidt has shown really well: most people base their moral judgements on "gut feelings". He has these very revealing taped interviews with people where they are grilled on certain issues and forced to keep answering questions in defense of their positions. For example, why is it wrong for a brother and sister to marry? Eventually it comes down to a feeling of disgust that people just trust.

I guess you know where I think this gut feeling comes from.

[Balloon guy 158]

tell that to your daughter. she wants me, just so we're clear.

It was never your beliefs....it was your height

[checkymcfold 0]

I agree with BG on that, but propose that we can have an objective grounds for morality that doesn't require appeal to religious authority.

sure, i'll buy that. i just don't think that those sorts of extra-religious grounds can really lay claim to any sort of superior standing over their religious counterparts.

this brings me to the other thing Haidt has shown really well: most people base their moral judgements on "gut feelings". He has these very revealing taped interviews with people where they are grilled on certain issues and forced to keep answering questions in defense of their positions. For example, why is it wrong for a brother and sister to marry? Eventually it comes down to a feeling of disgust that people just trust.

i'm not really sure that i like the term "gut feelings," but i think that morality does function this way in most people that i've encountered and had the opportunity to push philosophically. so sure, this haidt fellow sounds ok by me. :)i mean, if you ask anyone "why?" forever about anything, they eventually have to say "just because," right? i mean, unless you're a nietzschean.

[vbnautilus 48]

I guess you know where I think this gut feeling comes from.

Natural selection against organisms that had hot brother on sister sex but gave birth to monsters?

[vbnautilus 48]

i'm not really sure that i like the term "gut feelings,"

It's actually a really accurate term! Much of the brain's emotional landscape comes from processing of (and remembering) sensations originating in the gut.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, except he's not just a man imposing his ideals, he's the authority.

Protestant...He's just an authority.

Not to societies wants, but to societies needs. There are basically two people recently that have influenced my thinking on these issues... one is Sam, who I don't entirely agree with (yet) but has successfully shot down some of my arguments against his version of utilitarianism to draw me closer.... and the other is Jon Haidt, who is more of a describer of morality than anything else.Haidt's research shows a couple of interesting things, one is that he has broken down morality into several categories of things that all cultures consider in their versions of morality: harm/carefairness/justicepurity/sanctityingroup loyaltyauthority/respectVarious cultures give more or less importance to each of these... for example to go back to the Indian thing, purity/sanctity is pretty big over there. For example, feet are considered "dirty" and you don't put your feet above something you respect or show your feet to someone you respect. This makes a lot of sense if you've ever been to India, the ground is pretty pretty dirty.

They got some thing about their left hand also...Haidt sounds interesting...Harris was just confrontational without being very intellectualy honest...imo

[Balloon guy 158]

Natural selection against organisms that had hot brother on sister sex but gave birth to flying spaghetti monsters?

fyp

[Balloon guy 158]

sure, i'll buy that. i just don't think that those sorts of extra-religious grounds can really lay claim to any sort of superior standing over their religious counterparts.i'm not really sure that i like the term "gut feelings," but i think that morality does function this way in most people that i've encountered and had the opportunity to push philosophically. so sure, this haidt fellow sounds ok by me. :)i mean, if you ask anyone "why?" forever about anything, they eventually have to say "just because," right? i mean, unless you're a nietzscheanAyn Rand follower.

[checkymcfold 0]

It's actually a really accurate term! Much of the brain's emotional landscape comes from processing of (and remembering) sensations originating in the gut.

bah, it sounds so not rigorous. :)ok, bedtime for me. was fun, kids. thanks.

[vbnautilus 48]

Protestant...He's just an authority.

I know, I just meant he's the authority for those people. My implication is that whenever you go by an authority it can be wrong but you have to accept it.

Haidt sounds interesting...Harris was just confrontational without being very intellectualy honest...imo

Sam is so direct and unrelenting that its distasteful to some people, I do get that. But I don't think he's intellectually dishonest.