Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (34737)	10/22/2001 4:26:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think I understand some of the confusion. What you are calling values. I was calling opinions about right and wrong. I was thinking of the term "values" to be almost the same as "moral principles" which could be subjective or objective, but in your usage "values" amounts to opinions about moral principles. If morality is completely subjective then opinions about moral principles, and the principles themselves could be considered the same thing. If there is any objective moral principles, then the opinions would be separate from the objective principles themselves. These values or opinions are indeed limited in the sense that they are 100% certain because as you say, human reason is limited. When I say I am an absolutist I do not mean that I am 100% certain but rather that I think right and wrong exist independently of these opinions and that I think we can be as certain about them as we can be about any other thing where our understanding is limited by imperfect human reason. It to be an absolutist means that one is 100% certain of a moral principle then I am not an absolutist but if you imagine total absolutism and total relativism drawn out on a line I would be on the side of the line towards absolutism. In your opinion this lack of certainty makes the values relative. I could see calling them that if you also accept that science and logic are relative in this sense because our limited knowledge and reason cannot perfectly understand the science or metaphysics of the universe, just as it can not perfectly understand ethical truths. To restate the above: all objective human values are relative. This is the default, de facto, and evidentiary understanding. I wouldn't regard it as default and it is based on your argument rather then evidence (although your argument uses evidence). You show that human understanding of moral ideas is limited by the fact that humans do not have perfect knowledge or reason. After your argument I would agree that human understanding of moral principles (whether you call this understanding "opinion" or "human values"), I just wasn't accepting it as default without the argument. I also don't think that the fact that human understanding is limited means that nothing is objectively right or wrong. The question I ask when I call my self a believe in moral absolutist is "Are moral values just a matter of opinion", or is there any objective truth involved in ethical or moral principles. My answer to that question is that there is objective truth. You are asking a question beyond that; If there is objective moral truth how can we understand it with our limited human reason? Even if we can't fully understand it, the objective truth wouldn't go away, but I think we can come to a pretty good understanding of it through reason and sensitivity, and if God exists there is always the possibility of divine revelation. If the nature of or source of the absolute moral values has nothing to do with a supreme being then divine revelation will not come in to play, and obviously if there is no objective moral values then there is only opinion, whether you accept all opinions as equal or consider some opinions to be better or more valid then others. But if you do consider some opinions to be better or more valid then others then what standard would you apply to determine this. Reason would be a tool but not the standard itself. If you, or anyone else, believes that there is no objective moral truths, also believes that not all moral opinions are of equal validity, what standard do you use? For instance, the behaviour of killing, in and of itself, is morally neutral. There are "good" killings: there are "evil" killings. The moral character of the behaviour waits upon the evaluation and interpretation of the observer. This came up before when I talked about murder being evil, and either you said something along the lines that murder is a relative or subjective term. Obviously the circumstance of an act can determine the morality of it. If I pull a trigger of a gun aiming at and hitting an inanimate target and nothing else it is not even a killing. If I pull the same trigger on the same gun, aiming at and killing innocent people then it is murder. I would say that whether or not a killing is a murder does depend on the circumstances but I would apply inflexible criteria to determine if it was a murder. Once it is determined that the act is a murder then it is wrong whatever the other circumstances are. Again because of our limited human knowledge and reasoning ability this determination is relative, in the sense that you have been using the word. That doesn't mean that there is no objective truth or even that we can not have a pretty good understanding of it, but rather that since we are limited we have to accept that we can not be 100% certain. The supernatural world cannot merely be assumed I would go as far as saying it cannot be assumed as a decided issue when debating someone does not believe in it. If A attempts such an argument with B, B can simply point out that he does not accept the existence of the supernatural so any arguments based on it, without evidence or at least further argument for the existence of the supernatural, would be unconvincing. Therefore, even if there were a supreme being, it would not follow that unqualified moral principles would exist. Rather, such a being would likely have made "good" relative ( as it appears to be ), and would have created reason and sensitivity as the tools for determining which conduct is helpful or hurtful to the individual, and to humanity as a whole. THis also relates to the concept of responsibility as moral agents...but that is another story. I can agree that it would not necessarily follow. One can certain imagine a hypothetical situation where a supreme being exists but where no objective moral principles exist, or where they do exist but the supreme being does not reveal them for some reason or even acts against them (which would then mean that the world was created by and evil God, not something I believe but it is certainly conceivable). I notice that in this section of your post you may have answered a question that I asked previously. I asked what standard would you use to say that one opinion about morality is better then another. Your answer seems to be that whatever is helpful to the people involved or to humanity as a whole is good, and that whatever is hurtful is evil or wrong. Am I correct in this assessment? But that still leaves the question of what is helpful or hurtful. In your opinion does this question have objective answers or is it itself merely a matter of varying opinions none of which can be said in a meaningful way to be better or truer then any other? Also what standards would you yourself use whether or not you consider these standards to be objective? I don't object to labels such as good or evil--provided they are divorced from the ugly and evil concepts of absolutism. Is it ugly and evil if I say that the actions of the terrorists on 9/11/01 where ugly and evil and insist that this is so objectively? I could see how absolute moral opinions, if they cover many things besides concepts like "raining down death and destruction on innocent people is evil", and if they are normally imposed by force could lead to ugliness and evil. But this wouldn't in my opinion be because the people who create the ugliness and evil have absolute opinions but rather because of the specific opinions they have. If people think that maximizing human welfare and freedom, and having empathy for the feelings of others are objectively good things it is relatively unlikely that they will be the authors of a tremendous amount of ugliness and evil. Tim