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 (70803)	7/19/2003 7:20:06 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It appears now that I can completely agree with you now" We agree on the obvious: that people have subjective moral principles. We disagree on the proposition that moral opinions are not invented by humans but were pre-existing in some unknown fashion. "Opinions from all sensible people would find agreement" They don't. Being "sensible" generally includes a sense of rational self interest which lends bias to all opinions. "Opinions about right and wrong conduct are definitely not expressions of an absolute morality" Now I haven't any idea what you are talking about. Morality is strictly about right and wrong behaviour. A moral agent is an agent who can ACT freely on the basis of free choice. Morality is only about conduct or actions. A moral principle is a principle of conduct--how one ought to act. If "your" Absolute moral principles do not refer to the rightfulness or wrongfulness of behaviour...then I have no idea why you refer to them as moral principles. "It appears we have no argument except in how I have labeled them." It appears so. However, when your definitions of words or descriptions of abstract terms reasonably suggest a moral principle then I am willing to examine your evidence for universality of same--keeping in mind that general agreement among people still bears not at all on whether or not the principle was invented apart from people, but merely lends possibility to the idea of an unconditioned ground. For instance, your "charity is good" is perhaps intending to state that acting charitable is Always good and thus that the principle is an Absolute principle of moral conduct. Of course, the statement meets massive disagreement in any group of people so this fact lends a dubious character to the asertion. Now I know you said that you don't argue for a moral principle as meaning "conduct", so one wonders what you mean by asserting that acting charitable is good? You don't mean it is AlWAYS good. You don't mean merely that it is SOMETIMES good? So what do you mean? Do you mean that charity "means" a form of good in a language sense? One finds nothing unconditioned nor even remarkable in that assertion. Clearly humans defined the word "charity" and humans decided what connotations to give the word. Hmans can also write a post to counter yours saying that charity is harmful. This would be another human opinion, and one capable of decent argument. In any event, you are not talking about the act of charity or of charitable conduct so I suppose you mean merely that the WORD is good, or the spelling...or the sound. Who knows? I would recognise no relationship whatsoever to our topic if you are not speaking about charitable CONDUCT. And if you have changed your mind we could hear your evidence for universal agreement in your principle (not that such agreement would entail that your principle of conduct was anything other than your opinion--albeit shared by many). “Moral Truism”? Is that the same as saying it exists in the realm of absolute ideals? If so, why quibble. We are done." Please stop. How do you equate an undoubted truth or certainty, as it exists in the minds of contingent beings...with infallible Truths of an Ultimate nature? When I speak of facts, truths, certainties, etc. it is with the understanding that my facts are subjective and skewed by fallibility. Science itself considers truth as certainties (small "c") only till the next revision is made. A "truism" to human minds (you, myself, and others) is understood to be relative to time, place, and culture. The Mormons accept all sorts of certainties which are different than those believed by atheists, Jews, Muslims, or members of the Flat Earth Society. Returning to truisms of a moral nature: much moral opinion derives from religious thought over the centuries. It is thus unremarkable (considering the nature of religion) to find that much certainty is expressed in that thought--albeit, often contradictory. So, no, I am not quibbling with you; because (as before) I am in utter disagreement with you as to your assertion that there exist moral principles that are not contingent. "So we agree that there are ideals existing as truisms that are not subject to opinion by sensible people, they exist in the ether." Something seems to exist in the ether! People hold a variety of truisms, Jewels. Unless they believe in an Absolute ground they accept that these truisms are imperfect expressions of imperfect creatures, and subject to exception or revision. Sensible people often disagree with the facts and the truth of things. Because sensible people are no different than all mortal creatures in that they are subjective, biased, and seeing from a perspective unavailable and inaccessible to any other living creature. "And any individual from any culture at any time in human history has access to this truth" What they have access to is their own subjective opinion of what is (small "t") truth. There IS NO (large T) Truth, or if there is we can neither know it nor establish it. "“Fish is slippery” has nothing to do with good or bad, so does not qualify as a moral statement at all. Even if you said “fish is good” (a moral sounding statement), it does not qualify" I had not intended my "fish are slippery" comment to be taken as an attempt to identify a moral principle in salmon! As you correctly state, it has nothing to do with right or wrong. And that was of course my point. Noting that a fish has the characteristic of slipperiness does not entail the conclusion that the definition and the comprehension originated elsewhere than through human effort. I used the fish example because it was concrete rather than abstract, and I hoped it might be useful for you to see the fallacy inherent in your insistance that "charity is good" must have been invented by an extrahuman Absolute entity. Humans no more needed a Deity to decide that charity (the act) is good (sometimes) than they needed a Deity to decide that snails taste good (sometimes). "So, I would label the first phase of our exercise: Listing moral absolutes" YOU could certainly label it that. YOU could even believe it. But I would never have the hubris to label my OWN opinions as being Absolute and infallible.