I think RD is right but because of the way you have framed your question. While there may be no "ultimate standard of morality", morality is very much a social construction which does have ultimate local authority and I think it can be viewed on pragmatic terms as successful or unsuccessful behavior.
It's not that big of an issue, actually. People tend to needlessly complicated this issue of whether there is objective morality. Just start with your definition for morality. What is it? If you define it something along the lines of getting along well with others, then there are better and worse ways of doing that, which makes morality objective, and even subject to science. Now, if you define morality to be something else, like, whatever a God says it is, then I think you are actually referring to something that has no significance and cannot be established as true in any way.
I'm probably closer to moral anti-realism (they're not real in the sense that atoms and molecules are real) though I don't think that encapsulates my view. I just don't see how it provides a problem for objectivity.
I think of moral norms in a similar manner as chess rules or surgery procedures, we don't "discover" them as if they are "out there" in the world, yet they are constrained by physical circumstances, and we can discuss them in a way that doesn't defer to arbitrary human tastes.
Morality is largely hardwired into our brains due to evolution. Even when it comes to our political views and how we divide into left and right-wing parties across the globe, we are basically divided as a result of evolution, which gave rise to political personality traits. Sometimes evolution favored xenophilia, as breeding outside one's group could promote beneficial genetic diversity, while at other times, evolution favored xenophobia, breeding within one's group and avoiding outsiders, like in cases where pathogens could be a real problem being introduced by outsiders. Because evolution sometimes favored liking outsiders and at other times disliking them, people divide into left and right wing parties over such things as immigration policies, and this is a discussion we are having due to our biological evolution. The same can be said for people's attitudes regarding inequality and human nature, these differences are also mainly due to our evolutionary history sometimes favoring an egalitarian society and other times a hierarchical one, and sometimes favoring mutual support and at other times, not so much.
Most of our political arguments are just cover stories we use to endorse our biological predispositions.
Is there an ultimate standard of morality, something outside physical reality?
First of all, what does the intensifier "ultimate" mean to a standard of morality? A system defines what is right and wrong. What is it that would be more right and wrong?
Where, outside of physical reality, would this ultimate standard be lurking? God? If you think God provides the ultimate standard of right and wrong, say so. (Lots of people think it's God's doing.) If not god, then who? What? Where? Why?
Mr Phil: Changing political views? There have been studies done that accurately predicted adult's political orientations based on personality tests given to them as little kids. The facts are that some people do change their political views, but largely we don't do so.
Mr Phil: You are ignoring what evolution tells us about why you love your mother. It is essentially based on biological evolution. Now, how does evolution affect behavior? Through proximate and distal causes. You are simply ignoring the proximate cause --- your mother loves you, which is why she took care of you. This was evolution's way of making her more successful in passing on her genes. It's the love, by looking at a "cute" baby, that is the proximate cause for the more distal cause of successfully passing on her genes. Evolution also explains parent-child conflicts, sibling-rivalry, kin selection, etc. If you want to take a very non-scientific view of evolution, then I guess you would come to the conclusion you did. But you seriously think generations of scientists would have overlooked such questions?
Why is it that most people accept the idea that parents treat their children better than strangers? Evolution provides the perfect explanation. No moral philosophy does.
Rene: The mods deleted my comment, which was basically stating that you don't know what you are writing about, that studies have shown toddlers have a moral sense, which they most definitely did not learn from society. You are basically the equivalent of a young earth creationist, a complete science denier, and that I am sick and tired of science deniers on here, so I am done. Science forums really are far superior to philosophy forums, where basically people write nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.
LD Saunders:Why is it that most people accept the idea that parents treat their children better than strangers? Evolution provides the perfect explanation. No moral philosophy does.
Yet moral philosophy might question whether we should treat our children better than the children of strangers. And some of us might actually try to treat all children equally.
If evolution was the driver for our morality, then surely we humans ought not to be capable of even thinking such contrary ideas, let alone putting them into practice.
Or, if we can adjust the theory that evolution is responsible for morality so that it 'explains' both putting our own children first - but also not putting our own children first - then as a theory it will be unfalsifiable and therefore no longer scientific.
Society is a moral construct. Before society can even begin to form there has to be a decision that leads to a better living situation for all involved (or at least some involved). This decision has to be grounded in a morality, whether it is a formal system or not is not important. The reasons for the change in behaviour may be selfish, or subjective, but they can be altered over time.
This first decision is a moral one, and from it stems all social functions. Morality is real, but moral systems that codify certain behaviours is learned.
The 'objective' moral system does not exist, but objective morality does exist, it is simply the actions of any living being that can be considered to either benefit or disadvantage any other living being.
Mr Phil: You are ignoring what evolution tells us about why you love your mother.
Evolution cannot tell you anything. Evolutionary theory can suggest how certain traits persist. But cannot suggest 'reasons' why.
Millions of creatures (including humans) have been born, persist and live to make viable progeny that DO NOT love their mothers.
I could name a few humans who hate their mothers and yet still have loving relationships with their children; others still that have children in whom they have no interest.
Where is your evolutionary psychology now?
Yes, but it is not absolute or existing outside of physical reality and it is a social construct. I never suggested that there was no such thing as morality.
It's okay. We're not looking for absolute, just real.
exactly my point as well. Regardless of how you want to consider the origins, if you admit morality is a real thing, and that it determines what is right and wrong, an absolute claim on morality is an absolute moral claim. Its like drinking milk, talking about what you think of it, and denying its existence simultaneously, while admitting what you have in your hand and enjoy to drink and talk about is called milk.
:smile: Good god!
Yes, once you admit it is 'real', it exists.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 09, 2018 at 09:02#1603780 likes
The only man whom i can recall, who i would label a total and utter relatavist is ted bundy. The problem is unless we are pyschopathic serial killers we act as if there exists a 'good' or morality which transcends man.
There is no unitary or precise answer to that question. You'd have to ask a mother crocodile who cares for her young. Or any other number of animals throughout evolution from which such emotions derive.
Man can't survive alone in nature. Nature compels man to become a social creature, a citizen. Nature's negative compulsion resulted in man conquering nature thereby freeing man from nature, and enabling him to create new ends which foster socialization...morality.
I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction.
I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction.
That's just rubbish. We all assess the goodness or badness of what we do, and that not only is measured against what is taken to be the norm, but the very act of assessing our own actions is perfectly subjective. Subjectivity is the relationship we have the the moral laws we learn. The very learning process results in a subjective interpretation. So we have to relate subjectively with something subjectively modified by our opinion.
But even if you were completely correct none of that would indicate anything other then pure social construction.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 10, 2018 at 20:39#1608750 likes
What do you mean by that? You can act as though there is morality whether it is relative or not. This statement means nothing at all. Actually, it's the opposite. Everyone acts as though morality is relative. I think that one should not allow for capital punishment while someone else may think otherwise if they live in the US or in the Middle East. They act as though their morality is that it is right to execute someone, i act in an opposite manner. We are told all these morals and we live by them through our lives and they change, everyone acts as though morality is relative. Morality may or may not be relative, that is another question, but everyone acts differently in their moral standards. So the acting part I am not very convinced about.
Psychopaths are an example, but another example is an average human being, and another example would be you.
You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 10, 2018 at 20:49#1608780 likes
I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.
I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.
The closest you can get to objective morality is the law. Most people generally comply with the law. However, as you will agree, there is such a thing as a bad law.
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god. Morality is written by humans, mostly men. And as society changes so does the law and morality - usually it changes well behind human practice.
Human opinion; their very subjectivity is constantly forcing society to reassess and change morality.
You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points.
How does it exist? It does not exist without the humans that generate it. It is not objective, but the constantly changing results of how we act with the world and each other. Relative to each other relative to the changing social milieu.
You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths).
— The Devils Disciple
no one acts as if morality is relative.
— The Devils Disciple
Had you made any effort to understand what i was saying you would understand these are not contradictory claims. Why? Because morality that is relative is not morality
if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes
Of course morality exists -Rene Descartes
not if its relative.
Of course morality exists I never doubted that or said anything against it, but morality is relative and a social construct. - Rene Descartes
Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. Ive allready said that relative morality is not morality at all. Im afraid that we might have so fundamental a disagreement on this matter that we can progress no futher.
Answer me this
one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.
Basically im not willing to cede you the belief that relative morality is still morality. If it is true that morality is relative then right and wrong dont exist thefore morality cannot exist.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 11, 2018 at 00:05#1609390 likes
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god.
Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed. Nor has do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Am i going to say that these come from God, Certainly not. Now i will admit i dont have a good answer as to where these moral truths come from, but at the least you must ask yourself; are these 'truths' unchangeable and are they true. You may answer no but forgive me for not sharing your opinion.
The best answer i can posit as to where Morality comes from is that somewhere deep within the human Pysche there exists that which transcends the individual, and from this schematism he learns moral truth.
It [morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.
True, but as far as im concered the universe doesnt exist without consious beings existing to observe it.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 11, 2018 at 02:14#1609600 likes
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god
Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal.
Additionaly i think it is still Moral to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. This has not changed. I am not going to claim that it comes form God. But at the very least, you must ask yourself, is it universaly true that murder, rape, and theft are wrong; is there ever a time when you should not do unto others as you would do unto yourself. If your answer is "No these are not universaly true", Forgive me for disagreeing with you.
It [Morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.
Good point, i agree. Just as i do not think that the universe exists without conscious beings to percieve it. My best guess at where morality comes from is that somewhere deep in the human pysche there exists an inate schematism that transcends the indivdual and via the means of this schematism an individual can comprehend Moral truth. Kinda like the lingustic schematism Chomsky talks about. And no i dont have an evidence for this. And No this is not a spiritual thing.
Cabbage FarmerMarch 11, 2018 at 04:48#1609870 likes
Is there an ultimate standard of morality, something outside physical reality?
Do you mean to imply that in order for something to count as "an ultimate standard", a standard must be "something outside physical reality"?
What does it mean to say a thing is "outside physical reality"? What kind of things are there outside physical reality? How do we know what's there?
I'll say the agent's own sense of right action is the ultimate standard of right action. For an "external" standard obligates him only while he affirms it.
The Devils DiscipleMarch 11, 2018 at 07:10#1609970 likes
People seem to be arguing across each other because of a failure to distinguish between morality (maxims, or duties), ethics (how we work out what maxims we should follow or what duty we have in any given situation), and meta-ethics (how we know what 'right' and 'wrong' actually are).
It is vacuously true that morals are subjective and require a brain to work out. Also, to say that morals vary across cultures tells us nothing useful because we have already established that morals are an attempt to proscribe what is 'right' in a given circumstance So obviously they will change over time and space as circumstances change.
What serious discussions on ethical Realism are about is whether ethics are universal (ie do we all use the same method for deriving morals), or whether meta-ethics positions are innate (ie do we all have the same concept of 'right' and 'wrong'). The notion that some cultures practice cannibalism, or that some cultures consider homosexuality a sin, or whatever, is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about ethical Realism, which is trying to get at the forces which motivate people to come up with any kind of moral at all.
In such a discussion, it is the fact that all cultures across all times have had some concept of right an wrong that is used as an argument in favour of ethical Realism.
Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal.
And it's still acceptable to own slaves and murder is still right as long as you do it while invading another country in the name of your religion and being a part of any sexual minority is still morally wrong. Yes, no changes at all.
And now that I think about it, even rape isn't universally wrong even today, not to even mention historically.
When have i ever said war is moral? It is one of the most Immoral things i can think of.
-War is Immoral
-Slavery is Immoral
-persecuting sexual minoritys is Immoral
-Rape is still Immoral
Do I really need to spell this out.
I dont think i understand your point here. Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral? And before you say it im not religious so i will not defend the Immoral acts that religon has preformed throughout history.
Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half.
— The Devils Disciple
It doesn't.
-Blue Banana
If you are going to make claims like that please back them up with an explanation.
Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral?
— The Devils Disciple
Because you claimed that. You said that everyone acts as if morality exists.
This is absurd reasoning. I will maintain that people act as if Morality exists, that is not claiming that everyone is moral all the time.
I would never claim that everyone is Moral all the time. Merely they believe or subconscious believe that morality exists.
Why do i believe something is wrong yet still do it anyway? There is a difference between what you believe and how you act.
Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed
That is such a naive statement.
Of course they have changed!!!
Take a look at the Gortyn Law Code, which is a shopping list. Rape a slave and pay the owner $1, rape his wife and pay the husband $10. This code is seen as an improvement in a society where rape was otherwise acceptable.
Definitions as to what constitutes murder has also vastly changed. It was seen as impossible to murder a slave for example. Killing a slave was involved compensating the owner. Stealing is okay for the Lord to do to the serf, or crossing the border to raid the barbarians.
The historical examples are just too numerous to mention.
Even in the modern day some regard euthanasia and abortion as murder, others do not.
Where's your objectivity now?
Yes, very true. And in some cultures even today those are still true.
I can't imagine what sort of mind The DD has. To think that whatever he thinks is true must be universally, objectively and absolutely true, is what I might expect from someone like Trump, but not a person who has any interest in philosophy.
Also what makes you think that the west thinks war is immoral? lol we seem to be involved in so many wars all the time.
I do.
Millions of others do too. That's because morals are personally relative.
60 years ago it was legal to rape your wife.
Morals are temporally, culturally, personally, and nationally relative.
There is no objective morality and no arguments have been offered to substantiate that claim.
60 years ago it was legal to rape your wife.
— charleton
It still is in some countries.
Indeed it is. Which simply enough begs the question what would an objectively correct moral law look like?
I keep asking this question but no one has had the courage to begin to address the question.
Is truth physical. What about complex maths. They may exhibit themselves in nature, but are they really just part of human imagination?
I wouldn't say truth is physical, and I wouldn't say truth is something "beyond" or "outside" the physical world.
I'm inclined to characterize numbers as concepts, and to say that numerical concepts, like all other concepts, are products of minds like ours.
To say that a concept is a product of minds like ours is not to say that it is a mere figment of imagination. For instance, an empirical concept of "dog" is a product of mind, but no mere figment of imagination. Such a concept emerges in response to and is refined principally on the objective basis of perceptual encounters with real dogs. Ordinarily we use such concepts to make true or false empirical judgments about objective matters of fact. We also use such concepts to engage in exercises of fantasy, for instance when we dream of dogs, or when we tell lies or weave fictions about real or imaginary dogs.
I like to say our capacity to acquire numerical concepts depends on a more basic capacity to identify, primarily on the basis of perception, a single individual as the same on multiple occasions, and distinct individuals as of the same kind. Here is my dog, here he is again, and again. Here is another dog, and another, and another....
To all appearances, the enumerating, the enumerator, and the enumerated all belong to "nature".
Comments (72)
Hi and welcome to TPF.
I think RD is right but because of the way you have framed your question. While there may be no "ultimate standard of morality", morality is very much a social construction which does have ultimate local authority and I think it can be viewed on pragmatic terms as successful or unsuccessful behavior.
How could this even be possible? There is no morality without moral beings. Moral beings are real.
Something existing outside reality is a contradiction in terms.
I think of moral norms in a similar manner as chess rules or surgery procedures, we don't "discover" them as if they are "out there" in the world, yet they are constrained by physical circumstances, and we can discuss them in a way that doesn't defer to arbitrary human tastes.
Most of our political arguments are just cover stories we use to endorse our biological predispositions.
Quoting Issac Scoggins
First of all, what does the intensifier "ultimate" mean to a standard of morality? A system defines what is right and wrong. What is it that would be more right and wrong?
Where, outside of physical reality, would this ultimate standard be lurking? God? If you think God provides the ultimate standard of right and wrong, say so. (Lots of people think it's God's doing.) If not god, then who? What? Where? Why?
Why is it that most people accept the idea that parents treat their children better than strangers? Evolution provides the perfect explanation. No moral philosophy does.
Good.
Quoting Cavacava
Then, are you agreeing that morality is real? Hint: the answer is yes.
Yet moral philosophy might question whether we should treat our children better than the children of strangers. And some of us might actually try to treat all children equally.
If evolution was the driver for our morality, then surely we humans ought not to be capable of even thinking such contrary ideas, let alone putting them into practice.
Or, if we can adjust the theory that evolution is responsible for morality so that it 'explains' both putting our own children first - but also not putting our own children first - then as a theory it will be unfalsifiable and therefore no longer scientific.
Society is a moral construct. Before society can even begin to form there has to be a decision that leads to a better living situation for all involved (or at least some involved). This decision has to be grounded in a morality, whether it is a formal system or not is not important. The reasons for the change in behaviour may be selfish, or subjective, but they can be altered over time.
This first decision is a moral one, and from it stems all social functions. Morality is real, but moral systems that codify certain behaviours is learned.
The 'objective' moral system does not exist, but objective morality does exist, it is simply the actions of any living being that can be considered to either benefit or disadvantage any other living being.
Evolution cannot tell you anything. Evolutionary theory can suggest how certain traits persist. But cannot suggest 'reasons' why.
Millions of creatures (including humans) have been born, persist and live to make viable progeny that DO NOT love their mothers.
I could name a few humans who hate their mothers and yet still have loving relationships with their children; others still that have children in whom they have no interest.
Where is your evolutionary psychology now?
It's okay. We're not looking for absolute, just real.
:smile: Good god!
Yes, once you admit it is 'real', it exists.
No he's not.
There is no unitary or precise answer to that question. You'd have to ask a mother crocodile who cares for her young. Or any other number of animals throughout evolution from which such emotions derive.
Man can't survive alone in nature. Nature compels man to become a social creature, a citizen. Nature's negative compulsion resulted in man conquering nature thereby freeing man from nature, and enabling him to create new ends which foster socialization...morality.
I do not understand the nature of the question. Why are you asking it?
`The details are constructed in the social. But the fact that humans are moral beings is natural enough.
I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction.
That's just rubbish. We all assess the goodness or badness of what we do, and that not only is measured against what is taken to be the norm, but the very act of assessing our own actions is perfectly subjective. Subjectivity is the relationship we have the the moral laws we learn. The very learning process results in a subjective interpretation. So we have to relate subjectively with something subjectively modified by our opinion.
But even if you were completely correct none of that would indicate anything other then pure social construction.
You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points.
@René Descartes
I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.
The closest you can get to objective morality is the law. Most people generally comply with the law. However, as you will agree, there is such a thing as a bad law.
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god. Morality is written by humans, mostly men. And as society changes so does the law and morality - usually it changes well behind human practice.
Human opinion; their very subjectivity is constantly forcing society to reassess and change morality.
I am really puzzled by your problem here.
How does it exist? It does not exist without the humans that generate it. It is not objective, but the constantly changing results of how we act with the world and each other. Relative to each other relative to the changing social milieu.
Had you made any effort to understand what i was saying you would understand these are not contradictory claims. Why? Because morality that is relative is not morality
not if its relative.
Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. Ive allready said that relative morality is not morality at all. Im afraid that we might have so fundamental a disagreement on this matter that we can progress no futher.
Answer me this
Basically im not willing to cede you the belief that relative morality is still morality. If it is true that morality is relative then right and wrong dont exist thefore morality cannot exist.
good question i have no idea.
Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed. Nor has do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Am i going to say that these come from God, Certainly not. Now i will admit i dont have a good answer as to where these moral truths come from, but at the least you must ask yourself; are these 'truths' unchangeable and are they true. You may answer no but forgive me for not sharing your opinion.
The best answer i can posit as to where Morality comes from is that somewhere deep within the human Pysche there exists that which transcends the individual, and from this schematism he learns moral truth.
True, but as far as im concered the universe doesnt exist without consious beings existing to observe it.
Good question, I dont know.
Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal.
Additionaly i think it is still Moral to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. This has not changed. I am not going to claim that it comes form God. But at the very least, you must ask yourself, is it universaly true that murder, rape, and theft are wrong; is there ever a time when you should not do unto others as you would do unto yourself. If your answer is "No these are not universaly true", Forgive me for disagreeing with you.
Good point, i agree. Just as i do not think that the universe exists without conscious beings to percieve it. My best guess at where morality comes from is that somewhere deep in the human pysche there exists an inate schematism that transcends the indivdual and via the means of this schematism an individual can comprehend Moral truth. Kinda like the lingustic schematism Chomsky talks about. And no i dont have an evidence for this. And No this is not a spiritual thing.
Do you mean to imply that in order for something to count as "an ultimate standard", a standard must be "something outside physical reality"?
What does it mean to say a thing is "outside physical reality"? What kind of things are there outside physical reality? How do we know what's there?
I'll say the agent's own sense of right action is the ultimate standard of right action. For an "external" standard obligates him only while he affirms it.
Is truth physical. What about complex maths. They may exhibit themselves in nature, but are they really just part of human imagination?
It is vacuously true that morals are subjective and require a brain to work out. Also, to say that morals vary across cultures tells us nothing useful because we have already established that morals are an attempt to proscribe what is 'right' in a given circumstance So obviously they will change over time and space as circumstances change.
What serious discussions on ethical Realism are about is whether ethics are universal (ie do we all use the same method for deriving morals), or whether meta-ethics positions are innate (ie do we all have the same concept of 'right' and 'wrong'). The notion that some cultures practice cannibalism, or that some cultures consider homosexuality a sin, or whatever, is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about ethical Realism, which is trying to get at the forces which motivate people to come up with any kind of moral at all.
In such a discussion, it is the fact that all cultures across all times have had some concept of right an wrong that is used as an argument in favour of ethical Realism.
And it's still acceptable to own slaves and murder is still right as long as you do it while invading another country in the name of your religion and being a part of any sexual minority is still morally wrong. Yes, no changes at all.
And now that I think about it, even rape isn't universally wrong even today, not to even mention historically.
Quoting The Devils Disciple
It doesn't.
When have i ever said war is moral? It is one of the most Immoral things i can think of.
-War is Immoral
-Slavery is Immoral
-persecuting sexual minoritys is Immoral
-Rape is still Immoral
Do I really need to spell this out.
I dont think i understand your point here. Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral? And before you say it im not religious so i will not defend the Immoral acts that religon has preformed throughout history.
— The Devils Disciple
-Blue Banana
If you are going to make claims like that please back them up with an explanation.
Do i have to condescend so low...
Quoting René Descartes
This is absurd reasoning. I will maintain that people act as if Morality exists, that is not claiming that everyone is moral all the time.
I would never claim that everyone is Moral all the time. Merely they believe or subconscious believe that morality exists.
Why do i believe something is wrong yet still do it anyway? There is a difference between what you believe and how you act.
So how do you define morality? What does it mean if not the way it is generally understood?
That is such a naive statement.
Of course they have changed!!!
Take a look at the Gortyn Law Code, which is a shopping list. Rape a slave and pay the owner $1, rape his wife and pay the husband $10. This code is seen as an improvement in a society where rape was otherwise acceptable.
Definitions as to what constitutes murder has also vastly changed. It was seen as impossible to murder a slave for example. Killing a slave was involved compensating the owner. Stealing is okay for the Lord to do to the serf, or crossing the border to raid the barbarians.
The historical examples are just too numerous to mention.
Even in the modern day some regard euthanasia and abortion as murder, others do not.
Where's your objectivity now?
These are all culturally relative, and very modern and Western oriented.
Go back just 2400 years to Aristotle and none of those are true.
I can't imagine what sort of mind The DD has. To think that whatever he thinks is true must be universally, objectively and absolutely true, is what I might expect from someone like Trump, but not a person who has any interest in philosophy.
I do.
Millions of others do too. That's because morals are personally relative.
60 years ago it was legal to rape your wife.
Morals are temporally, culturally, personally, and nationally relative.
There is no objective morality and no arguments have been offered to substantiate that claim.
I'm puzzled why you find this all so confusing.
Indeed it is. Which simply enough begs the question what would an objectively correct moral law look like?
I keep asking this question but no one has had the courage to begin to address the question.
Law is the practical outcome of the moral case. A thing legal is taken to be moral.
I wouldn't say truth is physical, and I wouldn't say truth is something "beyond" or "outside" the physical world.
I'm inclined to characterize numbers as concepts, and to say that numerical concepts, like all other concepts, are products of minds like ours.
To say that a concept is a product of minds like ours is not to say that it is a mere figment of imagination. For instance, an empirical concept of "dog" is a product of mind, but no mere figment of imagination. Such a concept emerges in response to and is refined principally on the objective basis of perceptual encounters with real dogs. Ordinarily we use such concepts to make true or false empirical judgments about objective matters of fact. We also use such concepts to engage in exercises of fantasy, for instance when we dream of dogs, or when we tell lies or weave fictions about real or imaginary dogs.
I like to say our capacity to acquire numerical concepts depends on a more basic capacity to identify, primarily on the basis of perception, a single individual as the same on multiple occasions, and distinct individuals as of the same kind. Here is my dog, here he is again, and again. Here is another dog, and another, and another....
To all appearances, the enumerating, the enumerator, and the enumerated all belong to "nature".