Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[hector13]

The point is that "everyone" doesn't agree on those. Some people really do believe that "might makes right" and self above all others, and when two "selfs" conflict, the stronger one makes right.  There's no "right" there's just "who imposed their will more effectively."

That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...

Do you mean to argue that some believe rape is good and not bad?  And furthermore, that such a view could be valid?

Corrective rape (or rather, the idea that it works) is a thing. I imagine if you believe that you’re saving someone’s soul as a consequence, it’s “right”.

I don’t think that was what McT was arguing though.

[McTraveller]

I'm not arguing for any particular moral system, no.

I'm just arguing that the evidence is strong that moral systems are subjective, because people really do have different views of what is and isn't immoral.

I mean take even something less controversial:  polygamy.  Immoral or not?  Marrying your third cousin - immoral or not? Second cousin?  Fourth?

Seems like, without religion in the mix it must be subjective. And even with religion in the mix, it is still at least often subjective.

[Schmaven]

I'm not arguing for any particular moral system, no.

I'm just arguing that the evidence is strong that moral systems are subjective, because people really do have different views of what is and isn't immoral.

I mean take even something less controversial:  polygamy.  Immoral or not?  Marrying your third cousin - immoral or not? Second cousin?  Fourth?

Seems like, without religion in the mix it must be subjective. And even with religion in the mix, it is still at least often subjective.

The middle area does get very subjective, but at least at the extremes, it seems everyone can agree that rape is immoral for example.

There's definitely not 100% agreement across the whole spectrum if actions, but there is some agreement at the ends, and it's not clear why that partial alignment exists.  Maybe some aspects of morality have to do with basic empathy / an idea of the golden rule?

[MaxTheFox]

Just because some tiny percentage of people think rape is permissible in some circumstances doesn't mean they aren't simply wrong. Yes, their beliefs are simply invalid, simple as. That's where the objective part of my values system kicks in.

[Strongpoint]

The point is that "everyone" doesn't agree on those. Some people really do believe that "might makes right" and self above all others, and when two "selfs" conflict, the stronger one makes right.  There's no "right" there's just "who imposed their will more effectively."

That's why we have millennia of philosophy trying to discuss it, because at some point even enforcing moral codes involves exerting might/will over others...

Do you mean to argue that some believe rape is good and not bad?  And furthermore, that such a view could be valid?

Ehm... There is a category of people like that... I think they are called... Rapists?
Or do you think all of them are like - "Oh my! I did a horrible thing"?

[Grim Portent]

Ehm... There is a category of people like that... I think they are called... Rapists?
Or do you think all of them are like - "Oh my! I did a horrible thing"?

I would posit that most rapists don't think of rape as good, just not necessarily as bad. Though some feel it's bad and do it anyway, then feel some guilt or shame.

The only contexts in which I would think someone thinks rape is 'good' is when they believe in corrective or punitive rape, otherwise they likely view rape as not-evil at best, and that sort of person probably doesn't view anything much as evil, at least by any rational sensibilities.



Personally I don't feel the concept of Objective Morality makes much sense, and it's kind of irrelevant unless you have some sort of infallible way to detect it anyway. It's not like gravity, momentum or heat where you can definitively demonstrate, measure and/or calculate it. Morals flow from core ethical concepts, but those vary by individual, culture and faith. It's far more practical to discuss the merits of group vs individual morality, what is and is not a fundamental right, under what circumstances those can be abrogated, so on and so forth, with the view that these things can change rather than trying to discern some kind of fundamental inviolate truth. Law is not made of immutable crystal, and neither are morals.

[Schmaven]

I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people.  Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?

[Strongpoint]

I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people.  Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?

Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.

[Schmaven]

I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people.  Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?

Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.

So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?

[MaxTheFox]

This kind of thing is why I consider pure moral relativism to be untenable.

What's wrong with simply considering some people to be... just straight up wrong in their values? This does not mean embracing fully objective morality either. One can consider some things objective while considering others subjective.

I suppose part of why I believe in what I believe is that I consider the slippery slope argument to be, in most cases, a straight-up fallacy. "If you consider X to be subjective, why don't you consider Y to be subjective too?" simply doesn't make much sense to me as a question. What do you mean why? I feel that way, that's why. I would likely feel this way, also, if I was not a Christian but an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Satanist. I am not a robot, I'm not required to base my opinion on objective facts (though, given how actual AIs are these days, I think that analogy breaks down...)

Spoiler: kinda self-deprecating (click to show/hide)

Max 'The Fox' of the Stardustverse gains the trait 'Arbitrary'

[Strongpoint]

I didn't expect rape to be so much mixed up in the gray area for people.  Going further to the extreme, surely killing innocent people and genocide are both immoral by all standards?

Well, all you need to do is to declare people non-human (savages, heathens, heretics, racially inferior, the list goes on) and genocide becomes quite moral in a given society.

So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?

I wouldn't look at Nazis for that, it is a mutation of morality that was (partly) eliminated by (relatively) healthy all-humanity morality.

I would look way back, to human early history. Their morality was simpler, - what is good for my tribe is good, what is bad for my tribe is bad. Therefore, killing a competing tribe and taking their resources is good. And it comes directly from biological evolution, from the rudimentary morality of non-human social animals.

Then it became more complex in cultural evolution. Cooperation between tribes is also advantageous and moral systems that were more prone to cooperation with other tribes got reproductive advantage tied not to genes but to bits of cultural\moral ideas.

[Schmaven]

It's quite a conundrum then that I know with 100% certainty that the holocaust, killing innocent people, and rape are all always immoral, but am completely unable to prove my stance to a moral relativist. 

I suppose the absolutists and the relativists will just have to agree to disagree here.

[Grim Portent]

So the holocaust was the morally right thing to do for the Nazis?

If you accept that they genuinely believed in their racial purity bullshit, then yes, according to their moral values it was ethical to perform the Holocaust. It violates my moral values, but so do a lot of things. Just shrugging my shoulders and saying it was some kind of immutable evil is not productive compared to discussing why killing people is bad and the root values the Nazis were working from were bullshit. The former is a non-argument, the latter can be used to develop more practical or nuanced moral philosophies, and also makes it easier to remember that the Nazis were humans, working from an ethical system that wasn't all that unusual for their time. Most people who I would consider evil from my perspective are probably closer to the average human than I am, especially if you involve people from the distant past.

[Schmaven]

The root of all things I would consider evil seems to be based on selfishness.  Being more concerned with their own desires than the welfare of others.  Looking at how things affect themselves and their beliefs rather than how others are impacted.

And keeping with that theme, all the things I would consider good seem to be traced back to selflessness as a big factor in their motivation.  Consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others.  But since as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", some wisdom is necessarily also a factor.

If everybody were extremely selfish, the world would be a hellish place.  And if everyone sincerely cared about others, with the wisdom to avoid silly extremes, there would be no wars.

[EuchreJack]

The root of all things I would consider evil seems to be based on selfishness.  Being more concerned with their own desires than the welfare of others.  Looking at how things affect themselves and their beliefs rather than how others are impacted.

And keeping with that theme, all the things I would consider good seem to be traced back to selflessness as a big factor in their motivation.  Consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others.  But since as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", some wisdom is necessarily also a factor.

If everybody were extremely selfish, the world would be a hellish place.  And if everyone sincerely cared about others, with the wisdom to avoid silly extremes, there would be no wars.

I think you are on to something there.

The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" mostly refers to folks that kinda, sorta, maybe would like to do something decent, but never follow through. Or worse, completely abandon their good course of action for a bad course of action due to it being easier for them.