Originally posted by LemonJelloIf that (the immoralization of slavery) is progress, this gives us a potential "morality's arrow" akin to time's arrow being entropy. The arrow is the extent of coverage of what can be called and treated as "kin" or "of our kind."
[b]Sort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking.
As far as I can tell, this argument of you ...[text shortened]... iling consensus makes right, or etc. You're confusing the descriptive and the normative.[/b]
Sometimes a group of beings is afforded coverage as kin, by their willingness to die for it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, what I'm saying is that the person trying to force you to agree with him or her has begun the process with limited success. Of course, the more power they attain the more success they will attain. As I said, if you were all powerful then reality is what you make it. The mere fact that you disagree is a testament to their lack of power over you or their willingness to let you obstain.
[b]
As far as I can tell, this argument of your is self-contradictory. On one hand you say that one can force everyone else to agree with him and yet still be mistaken on the topic at hand. On the other hand, you say that in getting everyone else to agree with him, one bends reality to align with his view (such that, presumably, it is not the case that ...[text shortened]... ight makes right; or it is not the case that might makes right. But it surely ain't both.
.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat is "truth"? Ask several different people and you get several different answers. We all see the same things but somehow process it all a little differently. This is because we are not all powerful. If we were all powerful it would also stand to reason that we would be all knowing. After all, knowledge is power. And because this is impossible for us as human beings to attain, there will always be variable answers and opinions as to what the "truth" is.
[bNo, not without some very, very significant and substantial ancillary assumptions that you have not bothered to justify or support in any way. For example, not if some version of realism is true; not if, for example, there are objective facts that are simply the facts of the matter regardless of what attitudes any observers have on the matter; not if, for ...[text shortened]... se at issue have objective truth values that are constitutively independent from observer attitudes.
Therefore, I would say that the only way to be "all powerful" would be to be "all knowing", which is an impossible state to attain. As a result, you will always be subject to a challenge of sorts. The only question is who is king of the hill.....that is until he is knocked of his perch?
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloProgress? How did you arrive at this judgement? Had you ever considered you are a mere product of the morality of the society in which you live and is why you say we are "progressing"?
[bThat's not troubling...that is called progress. It's disturbing, yes, that persons can be collectively so mistaken at times, but this is problem that presumably extends to many areas of discourse. You should take up this issue with your God: He could have simply made us better cognizers in such areas, such that we converge on the facts more quickly. But ...[text shortened]... revailing consensus makes right, or etc. You're confusing the descriptive and the normative.[/b]
You blame God for us not being able to make us better "congnizers"? Had you ever considered the fact that to attain the level needed would be to make us equal in ability with God? In fact, if such an all knowing being exists the only real possible outcome would be conceed that we are unable to "congnitize" certain data that he is able to do. At that point we can either place our faith in that being or reject what that God tells us concerning our "blind spots" that we are unable to cognitize.
Originally posted by whodeySo you have two, very different, definitions of morality. General consensus, and 'the golden rule'. Which are you going to pick? I think the problem you are having is you are trying to believe both, and because you see that they don't fit together, you need God to use his might, to massage one of them to fit the other.
However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking.
However, I believe humans were also born with a moral compass of sorts that we must contend with. I think the moral code is the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as yo ...[text shortened]... to you. If we break this rule, it makes our lives miserable, so counter measures must be made.
I on the other hand believe there are two moralities, that I do not need to reconcile.
1. We can describe what other people think is moral.
2. We can describe what is actually moral (which is what I think is moral).
But ultimately, morality is an evolved internal compass that helps us succeed in society. It encourages society living, whilst at the same time discourages personal loss, and cheats.
The rules are quite a bit more complicated than 'do unto others as you would have them do to you'. That rule would create an near perfect society, if everyone followed it. However it fails to take into account the fact that some people will cheat.
The reason morality appears to be changing over time, is we are developing different ways to deal with cheats. In a larger society with an effective legal system, it is possible to be more helpful to our fellow man whilst still not suffering from excessive cheats.
Here is my basic morality:
1. Do not do deliberate harm to others for benefit to oneself.
2. Assist others when the cost to oneself is low.
3. You may harm others to prevent loss to oneself, when that loss is caused by others (self defence).
4. All rules are given weightings based on how important the 'other' is to you.
Roughly like this
a) Loved ones first.
b) Family / friends / close colleagues.
c) Country / race / religion or other groupings.
d) Species.
However exceptions are often allowed. Certain things 'override' morality especially love.
Originally posted by twhitehead"But ultimately, morality is an evolved internal compass that helps us succeed in society"
So you have two, very different, definitions of morality. General consensus, and 'the golden rule'. Which are you going to pick? I think the problem you are having is you are trying to believe both, and because you see that they don't fit together, you need God to use his might, to massage one of them to fit the other.
I on the other hand believe there ...[text shortened]... wever exceptions are often allowed. Certain things 'override' morality especially love.
Okay, riddle me this...since morality is evolving that means it is ever changing
right? Since it is always in a state of flux, at any point in time it is different
than it was or will be than, right? If that is true in YOUR opinion and I'm sure in
a few others here too, than how can you claim anything is really moral if it
maybe accepted or rejected at some other point before or after now. What part
of this ever changing consensus within society gets to set that moral compass
for everyone else, and how do they spread the good word on this change so
everyone else knows what is or isn't important? How do we know those that
are telling us what is really moral actually are the right ones to do it? If you
are on the fringe of that part of society does that mean your morals that I'm
assuming are also ever changing but now you would be an immoral person
because you don't agree with the special moral setters for the rest of society?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaythere is one flaw in this line of reasoning. you see, there is an absolute authority on morality. that authority is you.
"But ultimately, morality is an evolved internal compass that helps us succeed in society"
Okay, riddle me this...since morality is evolving that means it is ever changing
right? Since it is always in a state of flux, at any point in time it is different
than it was or will be than, right? If that is true in YOUR opinion and I'm sure in
a few others h ...[text shortened]... on
because you don't agree with the special moral setters for the rest of society?
Kelly
in every single case, you decide what is moral or immoral. you may agree with some concept you've read about, but ultimately it is you who make that decision.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou also said morality is an evolved internal compass that helps us succeed in society. A compass is not the magnetic pole, it is an instrument that orients us with respect to the pole, and the pole may shift. KJ seems to be saying that a shifting moral pole would mean we couldn't know the "real" direction to go. But your point suggests to me that succeeding in society (I would say, getting along in your society) would be the indicator; no matter how the pole shifts. KJ would probably call success in society a poor indicator.
No, I said 'evolved', not 'evolving'. And more importantly, the morals didn't evolve, our compass to determine them did.
I could be all wet here, too.
I think I need to add here that our internal compass is not just a moral compass. We have a number of different 'drives'. For example 'love', and self preservation. Neither are moral issues, but are given allowance for in our moral evaluations.
Morality is about society. Our internal compass is about continuation of genes, of which society is just a part.
If a loved one is in distress, I will help them. I may even do extreme harm to myself to help them. This is not because I think it is morally right to do so. It may even be morally wrong to do so. This applies to someone I may wish to mate with, it applies to my immediate family, and it applies to my group, with larger and larger groups being involved to a lesser degree as listed in my point 4. on morality.
So I may consider it wrong to commit murder, yet still go to war for my country. People will fight to defend (or promote) members of their group be it religion, race, country, culture, class. Whether this is seen as action despite morality or as allowable exceptions to morality or simply morally wrong action that is 'understood', I cant say.
Originally posted by whodeyAs I said, if you were all powerful then reality is what you make it.
No, what I'm saying is that the person trying to force you to agree with him or her has begun the process with limited success. Of course, the more power they attain the more success they will attain. As I said, if you were all powerful then reality is what you make it. The mere fact that you disagree is a testament to their lack of power over you or their willingness to let you obstain.
And as I already said, this claim rests on very substantial ancillary assumptions that require some justifying, of which you have provided none. It touches on some pretty significant topics. Besides, I thought you started this thread to usher in debate about whether or not it is the case that might makes right. If you simply want to state, without any argument, that reality bends to meet the views of the most powerful (which sure sounds to me like just another way of saying that being right follows being mighty), then that is question-begging.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is "truth"? Ask several different people and you get several different answers.
What is "truth"? Ask several different people and you get several different answers. We all see the same things but somehow process it all a little differently. This is because we are not all powerful. If we were all powerful it would also stand to reason that we would be all knowing. After all, knowledge is power. And because this is impossible for us ...[text shortened]... e only question is who is king of the hill.....that is until he is knocked of his perch?
So what? Persons can disagree about all manner of things, but there may still be independent facts of that matter at hand. Maybe some persons are right and others wrong; maybe no one is right. If you want me to take seriously the claim that in such instances it is the person with the most might, ipso facto, who is right, then I think you need to present some actual argument for that.
there will always be variable answers and opinions as to what the "truth" is.
Even if true, so what? What is your point? What does the fact that there is and will be disagreement on various matters have to do with showing that in such cases it is the mightiest person who is right? I would have thought one should think it would be the person with the best evidential support for his view, or something like that, who is most probably correct. Please explain what I am missing.
Originally posted by whodeyI call it progress because that is what I think it represents. I call it like I see it.
Progress? How did you arrive at this judgement? Had you ever considered you are a mere product of the morality of the society in which you live and is why you say we are "progressing"?
You blame God for us not being able to make us better "congnizers"? Had you ever considered the fact that to attain the level needed would be to make us equal in ability ...[text shortened]... ect what that God tells us concerning our "blind spots" that we are unable to cognitize.
You blame God for us not being able to make us better "congnizers"?
No, I do not blame God for anything, since I do not think He exists. Remember? You're the one who thinks He exists, so you should take issue with Him. He is supposed to be this great, all-powerful creator, and He cannot even create moral agents who do not require countless years to converge on the fact that it is not okay to enslave each other? How lame.
Had you ever considered the fact that to attain the level needed would be to make us equal in ability with God?
No, and that is clearly not a fact. God could have made our ancestors, for example, better cognizers without having to make them equal in ability with Himself. One does not need to attain omniscience and omnipotence just to realize that it is not okay to enslave others. Obviously, one can know lots of things without having to attain omniscience.