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: one_less who wrote (70764)	7/17/2003 12:45:18 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I will bookmark the post and decide later whether to jump in........

To: one_less who wrote (70764)	7/17/2003 1:05:51 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

If you believe in God and you believe we are created in His image you must also believe that all the tendencies we have to good and evil also come from God. Explain that please.

To: one_less who wrote (70764)	7/17/2003 8:12:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Hey, I tried to gracefully deflect your earlier overture. If you were a gentleman, you would have let me. Surely being a gentleman is one of your principles... <g> Seriously, I haven't been following the discussion. If I get some time, I'll try to catch up. One thing that occurred to me while reading the post to which you pointed to me was that not everyone is governed by principles. You and I are two who are, but we are in a minority. I remember when taking the Myers-Briggs temperament test, one of the factors they were looking for is to what extent people operate from principle. It's one of those I'm OK, you're OK kind of things. People just deal with the world differently. For some people, the concept of a principle barely registered yet you and I are governed by them. Seems to me that the concepts of things like kindness and charity aren't even universal, let alone any principles, like "it's better to give than to receive" that are derived from them. Seems to me that, if there were such a thing as an absolute principle, there would be more consistency across cultures.

To: one_less who wrote (70764)	7/18/2003 5:30:07 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I have asserted that we can observe ideals (absolute moral principle). We have not agreed on this." No. The disagreement was on whether ideals are HUMAN in origin or EXTRAHUMAN--whether subjective or Absolute. You have agreed that they are subjective, but you have an extraordinary belief that they exist independently of human life as opinions or ideas embedded or enmeshed in some part of the universe. "Even though we may have differing opinions about where morals come from, that does not advance the argument of whether or not they exist, or to what extent they exist" I was not aware of any such argument. I thought I had made it clear that the vast majority of humanity believe that morals exist. "our argument simply asks, “do these absolute ideas (absolute moral principles) exist or not?” " That is correct. Are moral principles from the universe or a Deity...or are they opinions and constructions of people. "I want to point out here that your examples have been regarding the application of principles, which is not an argument about whether or not the principle exists" You miss the point. It is agreed by all sensible people that these "principles" exist. The point is that different people and groups of people held (and hold) diametrically opposed moral principles which they claim to be Ultimate. In every case where two such claims conflict, at least one of them is NOT Absolute. Many moral principles are based on the belief that whatever (insert the God of your choice) commands is "good". Thus one religious sect might hold the belief that it is "good" to marry more than one wife. Another might believe that it is "good" to have ONLY one wife. Both consider these as Absolute Moral Principles. But these are simply naked beliefs; they do not derive from universal reason, but from bias and caprice. Nobody is arguing whether principles exist, or whether societies have always enjoyed a variety of moral principles and laws to control and guide conduct between citizens. The question is only whether these opinions of right conduct were invented by humans in response to their personalized points of view, were invented by a supernatural being, or were opinions of the universe which somehow got enmeshed therein to be discovered by humans. "Charity is good, justice is good, injustice is bad, etc. are absolutes" Now you are trifling, I fear. These definitional descriptors have nothing to do with the origin of moral opinions. They are simple definitional tautologies. Saying that cauliflower is a vegetable does not prove that such an opinion is not a human invention and definition. "Yes. Except that the belief is supported by observable and confirmable things, known as ideas and experiences" No. My experiences and observations do not support the belief that moral opinions are anything other than human opinions. "This sentence represents an absolute moral statement: “Be just in your dealings with human beings.” " Again, you are simply giving a definitional tautology. A moral principle needs to reflect a moral truism. It must express the rightness or wrongness of some behaviour or conduct. In this case the "principle" would be: it is "right" or "good" to be just in your dealings with others. Or in other words it is just to be just. Defining a concept or inventing the meaning of a word does not equate with a principle. We accept in the definition of just that justice is just. Defining a word does not qualify as a moral imperative. The commandment to "be just" could be considered a moral principle if there are premises such as, God exists, What God commands is good, God commanded in ABC chronicles to "be just"...therefore it is good to be just. But I am afraid that simply defining malfeasance as bad, charity as good, and fish as slippery does not constitute a principle. Now you and I could sit down for an hour and come up with several hundred examples of moral principles that ARE more than definitional tautologies. Furthermore, it is likely that we could come up with principles that were highly sensible, reasonable, practical, and logical. They might even represent our own personalized moral ideals. I dare say they would. But this is the point, Jewels: No matter how sensible or idealistic the principles we came up with by brainstorming...they would be subjective and relative principles from fallible and limited creatures. Just as the true author of a book does not copy a book...they create it; so do you and I not simply mindlessly stumble on opinions. I think it is fair to say that we are capable of using thought and feeling to assess and evaluate our world in order to posit certain standards of conduct and decency. Even society acknowledges the human ownership of human ideas. "I don’t think we disagree that much on the ideals of absolute moral principles" We may not diasagree that much on the DEFINITION of moral terms such as justice, charity, respect, duty, etc., but we certainly disagree all over the world as to what conduct ought to correspond to such terms. There is one popular moral principle believed in by many as Absolute which is something like this: Do good to those that hate you. Not only is this not universally nor generally accepted, but it has no internal consistency as understood by subjective practitioners. There is no way to prove that any moral principle originated in an Absolute and unqualified realm. Certain philosophers/theologians attempt to establish the plausibility of such by showing that such an inference can be made by circumstantial reference to universality of belief/acceptance/practice and so forth. Unfortunately, arguments from reason have proven rather futile and feckless. The idea of an Absolute Morality is best argued from a perspective of blind faith; because as C.H. tried to tell you: Baby...you can't get there from here...--<gg>

To: one_less who wrote (70764)	7/18/2003 9:26:54 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I take it that valuation is a universal human trait, and that, at a certain level of civilization, there is an attempt to subject valuation to rational scrutiny. In trying to refine and render morality more coherent, it seems to me that we abstract from moral experience. On one level, we remain tethered to moral empiricism, insofar as it aids us in contemplating actual cases. On another level, our abstraction provides principles underlying our moral judgments, more or less accurately, and allows us some latitude in moral deduction, to contemplate ideal cases, stripped of messy particulars. Now, the ability to abstract and engage in moral deduction presupposes certain axioms without which it is impossible to proceed, underlying principles that are self- evident, because essential to the sort of reasoning engaged in. For example, in ordinary logic, the principle of non- contradiction is axiomatic. In mathematical reasoning, it is axiomatic that two things being equal to a third are equal to one another. In moral reasoning, it is axiomatic that the rules apply to all persons who are similarly situated, without favoritism, in order to be just. Ipso facto, no morality claiming to be a matter of personal values can be legitimate, since there is nothing to distinguish it from whim, or to clarify one's obligations. How does this comport with my emphasis on the moral empiricist argument that our starting point is what we learn from our parents and other authority figures? Because that is the raw data, and it takes centuries to progress adequately to a sort of science of morals.