|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Where did you get your moral code? |
| Religion |
|
14% |
[ 10 ] |
| Society |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| Parent/Authority figure |
|
24% |
[ 17 ] |
| Role model/Personal hero |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Devised my own |
|
35% |
[ 25 ] |
| Other |
|
18% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 70 |
|
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I think Seoulunitarian made excellent points, and I'm interested in seeing how moral anti-realists address them. Also, what do "evolutionary" arguments have to do with morality? Rape is wrong because it harms the victim -- regardless of whether the victim is a fertile woman, a man, a child, a woman who is past menopause or on birth control, a nonhuman animal, etc. Who would seriously suggest that its wrongness depends on what happens to the rapist's genes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
Except that most rape of women by men does not result in ejaculation, and so has no evolutionary consequences.....
h |
|
Sorry I overlooked the 'most'.
I think I could still put forward a possible evolutionary argument for rape however that would be getting us side-tracked into an argument of whether or not there is is an evolutionary advantage to rape and that is not the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zoobot wrote: |
Grimalkin: I find your evolutionary argument in favour of rape very shallow (although I realize your polemic purpose). Morals themselves can be beneficial for evolutionary purposes. Take the incest taboo, for example. And I don't imagine many of us would want to work with a rapist (although some of us probably do). By shunning socially unacceptable behavior, we make it more difficult for trangressors to survive. And your argument doesn't take into account the difference between survival and "thrival"  .
Abortion. |
I absolutely agree with everything you say here but I'm a little puzzled as to why you might think I wouldn't. Nothing you have said here is any indication of there being an absolute morality.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoobot
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh... Nothing I said indicated that I didn't agree with you on that point. My point, I suppose is: so what?
Nothing has value until we project value on to it. But why does it help us to know this. What evolutionary advantage does that serve? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Sorry I overlooked the 'most'.
I think I could still put forward a possible evolutionary argument for rape however that would be getting us side-tracked into an argument of whether or not there is is an evolutionary advantage to rape and that is not the issue. |
And it certainly has been, by the wonderfully named Randy Thornhill, a human sexuality researcher, and Craig T. Palmer.
It was widely criticized, however I havent read it.
They do have a paper that relates human female orgasm rates with symmetricality of their partners that has much to recommend it. Symmetricality, in organisms that are basically symmetrical, is a good measure of the organisms ability to either avoid or deal with environmental stress. It has previously been shown that swallows (I am not making this up!!) have less symmetrical tail feathers if there is a large parasite load in the nest, and that female swallows are select mates with symmetrical tail feathers more often.
Other studies have shown that symmetrical human faces are considered more beautiful than those that arent, and that even very small differences can change the viewers perception of beauty.
The paper in question interviewed U.S. college students in stable relationships and determined that the symmetricality of the male had positive influence on the orgasm rate of the female.
They went on to reiterate the "upsuck hypothesis" that postulates that during and after orgasm the cervix will suck more sperm up. This results in higher fertilization rates. So the female, in this hypothesis, is unconsciously judging the genetic worth of her partner by his symmetricallity, and using this to determine his chances of impregnating her.
Of course all of this psychological machinery evolved long before birth control.
Strange but true.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seoulunitarian
| Quote: |
Your subjective placement of value on human life is quite disturbing.
|
I understand that it is disturbing. It's disturbing for me too. I would much prefer if there was an absolute morality, it would make things a lot simpler. Nevertheless I cannot accept that there is simply because it would give me more peace of mind.
| Quote: |
| I realize that you may be a "good" man, and value life just as much as the next person. |
I appreciate your willingness to give me the benefit of the doubt as to my goodness but I have to point out that I do not believe in the concept of good or evil.
You are right that I do place a high value on human life (I am totally opposed to the death penalty) but again I have to restate that because I choose to put a value on something that does not mean that that is it's real value or even that it has a real value.
| Quote: |
| But, according to your moral philosophy, there cannot be a unified outrage at human atrocities the world over. |
This is where your argument completely falls apart. Clearly there is not a unified outrage at human atrocities the world over. The people who perpetrate the atrocities are not outraged by them. This means that some people are outraged by them and some people are not. You cannot argue that since the majority are outraged by them this gives the outrage validity because then you are arguing that morality is a matter of consensus and thus QED it is not absolute.
But lets suppose for a moment that it is absolute. Who would be its arbiter? As we have seen it cannot be decided on by consensus as then it could not be absolute. The only arbiter possible would be an absolutely infallibly just god. For someone who believes in such an entity it is possible to believe in an absolute morality. For anyone who doesn't it is not.
| Quote: |
| In other words, you may be outraged that hundreds of thousands of people are genocidally slaughtered in the Sudan, but your philosophy allows no room for you to expect other people to be outraged. |
This is untrue. Of course I expect people to be outraged. It's part of human nature to be. I also expect people to become indifferent to outrages when too many are happening and they feel helpless to stop them as it's also part of human nature to emotionally burn out. (Images of starving children cause people to react in a sypathetic manner, continuous images cause people to shut them out. This is a well known phenomenon.
What I cannot do is demand people be outraged because I am not the arbiter of absolute morality nor do I believe one exists.
| Quote: |
| How can you claim that genocide is morally wrong (assuming you do believe that) if your philosophy doesn't call for the objective wrongfulness of genocide? |
I can't and I don't. What I do believe is that it is repugnant to the majority of mankind and we reject it.
Legality by consensus is feasible. Morality by consensus is feasible. I also believe it to be necessary......but it is not absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zoobot wrote: |
oh... Nothing I said indicated that I didn't agree with you on that point. My point, I suppose is: so what?
Nothing has value until we project value on to it. But why does it help us to know this. What evolutionary advantage does that serve? |
My point is that nothing has value until we project value on to it. Others are disagreeing with me. I am not making any arguments for why it helps to know this. I am not discussing the evolutionary advantage.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Did you perhaps come in in the middle of the discussion and misunderstand what the issue is?
(That is not meant as a put down. I simply do not understand why you're saying what you're saying ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoobot
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was affirming your point; I thought your argument in support of that point via the rape example (which was supposedly predicated on the evolutionary advantage) was weak.
Nothing has value until we give it value (Marx said this in the nineteenth century.) True: but so what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
seoulunitarian
| Quote: |
Your subjective placement of value on human life is quite disturbing.
|
I understand that it is disturbing. It's disturbing for me too. I would much prefer if there was an absolute morality, it would make things a lot simpler. Nevertheless I cannot accept that there is simply because it would give me more peace of mind.
| Quote: |
| I realize that you may be a "good" man, and value life just as much as the next person. |
I appreciate your willingness to give me the benefit of the doubt as to my goodness but I have to point out that I do not believe in the concept of good or evil.
You are right that I do place a high value on human life (I am totally opposed to the death penalty) but again I have to restate that because I choose to put a value on something that does not mean that that is it's real value or even that it has a real value.
| Quote: |
| But, according to your moral philosophy, there cannot be a unified outrage at human atrocities the world over. |
This is where your argument completely falls apart. Clearly there is not a unified outrage at human atrocities the world over. The people who perpetrate the atrocities are not outraged by them. This means that some people are outraged by them and some people are not. you cannot argue that the since majority are outraged by them this gives the outrage validity because then you are arguing that morality is a matter of consensus and thus QED it is not absolute.
But lets suppose for a moment that it is absolute. Who would be its arbiter? As we have seen it cannot be decided on by consensus as then it could not be absolute. The only arbiter possible would be an absolutely infallibly just god. For someone who believes in such an entity it is possible to believe in an absolute morality. For anyone who doesn't it is not.
| Quote: |
| In other words, you may be outraged that hundreds of thousands of people are genocidally slaughtered in the Sudan, but your philosophy allows no room for you to expect other people to be outraged. |
This is untrue. Of course I expect people to be outraged. It's part of human nature to be. I also expect people to become indifferent to outrages when too many are happening and they feel helpless to stop them as it's also part of human nature to emotionally burn out. (Images of starving children cause people to react in a sypathetic manner, continuous images cause people to shut them out. This is a well known phenomenon.
What I cannot do is demand people be outraged because I am not the arbiter of absolute morality nor do I believe one exists.
| Quote: |
| How can you claim that genocide is morally wrong (assuming you do believe that) if your philosophy doesn't call for the objective wrongfulness of genocide? |
I can't and I don't. What I do believe is that it is repugnant to the majority of mankind and we reject it.
Legality by consensus is feasible. Morality by consensus is feasible. I also believe it to be necessary......but it is not absolute. |
[/quote]
I put the word good in quotes because I knew you would object to the reality of good vs. evil. It was a compromise for your sake~
You say that placing a high value on a person does not equal an objectively high value of said person. This is a dilemna for me, because it is actually how we all live of necessity, but it is not how most of us think. For example, my partner is more subjectively valuable to me than a stranger half-way across the world dying of starvation. I would die for my partner. I would not die for a stranger. This is how most of us operate. However, most people agree that the majority of people are valuable in and of their own existence. If I pass a person on the street who is obviously starving, and I am able to give them food, I will do so to the best of my ability. This is not because I know them, or have anything invested in them. It is simply because they are another human being. So, why do I give the starving person food rather than save the money of food for myself? It has nothing to do with survival of the species. There are already too many people on earth for ecological stability. Wouldn't it be more responsible to withold food from him, hoping he will die and relieve the planet of that little bit of stress? Perhaps, but something inside me tells me that would be the evil thing to do.
I never claimed that the opinions or feelings of a majority is the equivalent of truth. Throughout history, those if the minority have often proclaimed truth much louder than those in the majority. When I wrote of a "unified outrage", I did not mean, of course, that every single person is outraged by genocide. I did, however, mean that those people who have not allowed human suffering to sear their consciences are rightly outraged by acts of violence. [I should insert here that I believe very few morals to be absolute].
You wrote something very enlightening, which I agree with: "I expect people to be outraged. It's part of human nature to be." It certainly is part of human nature. Unless something is neurologically wrong with an individual, disgust at violence is a natural reaction. Why is this? Nature (apart from humans) certainly does not exhibit this same disgust. What makes humans so special in this regard? I would argue that it has something to with Who created us. People only become accustomed to violence by having it thrown in their face time after time. You or I could have become a mujahidin had we been born and raised in a different place and culture. The moral repugnance of being a mujahidin does not change simply because being a mujahidin is a cultural construct. If you believe that, then any atrocity at any time can be justified as a simple cultural or social occurrence.
So, if genocide were acceptable to the majority of the human population, you would accept it is moral? How can morality be necessary, but not absolute?
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's three o' clock in the morning where I am and I'm beginning to fade. I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give your post as full a reply as it deserves. I hope my brevity does not come across as brusqueness.
| Quote: |
| I never claimed that the opinions or feelings of a majority is the equivalent of truth. |
I hope then you can accept then referring to 'most' or 'the majority' does not add to to the belief in the existance of a moral absolute.
[/quote]disgust at violence is a natural reaction. Why is this?[/quote]
It's because of the ability of social animals to empathise. It results from the bonding experience that allows such animals to function as a group.
| Quote: |
| Nature (apart from humans) certainly does not exhibit this same disgust. What makes humans so special in this regard? |
Other primates also express outrage at perceived injustice.
Okay I gotta sign off here. Have a good day. I'll take it up with you again tomorrow if you're still interested in the discussion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| I think morals are not absolutes, but a set of principles which if adhered to would create the best life for the most people. |
This seems to indicate that morals would change over time if what was required for the best life for the most people also changed over time. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?
h |
Its a set of principles. The principles would stay the same but thier application would change with circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
It's three o' clock in the morning where I am and I'm beginning to fade. I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give your post as full a reply as it deserves. I hope my brevity does not come across as brusqueness.
| Quote: |
| I never claimed that the opinions or feelings of a majority is the equivalent of truth. |
I hope then you can accept then referring to 'most' or 'the majority' does not add to to the belief in the existance of a moral absolute.
|
disgust at violence is a natural reaction. Why is this?[/quote]
It's because of the ability of social animals to empathise. It results from the bonding experience that allows such animals to function as a group.
| Quote: |
| Nature (apart from humans) certainly does not exhibit this same disgust. What makes humans so special in this regard? |
Other primates also express outrage at perceived injustice.
Okay I gotta sign off here. Have a good day. I'll take it up with you again tomorrow if you're still interested in the discussion. [/quote]
I look forward to it.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is Grimilkin'ss view that nothing has intrinsic value receiving so much opposition?
Value = "x is good because....."
It is a perceiver-dependent, thinker-dependent phenomena. Other words in the family are importance, merit, worth.
Things in the world just are.
To think about the world is to use concepts. The world is non-conceptual. I have never seen - and don't expect to ever encounter - evidence suggesting value has any being-status beyond the psychological and the linguistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Why is Grimilkin'ss view that nothing has intrinsic value receiving so much opposition?
Value = "x is good because....."
It is a perceiver-dependent, thinker-dependent phenomena. Other words in the family are importance, merit, worth.
Things in the world just are.
To think about the world is to use concepts. The world is non-conceptual. I have never seen - and don't expect to ever encounter - evidence suggesting value has any being-status beyond the psychological and the linguistic. |
Living in the world is impossible beyond the psychological and linguistic. Existence as we know it is tied to psychology and linguistics. Hence, value judgments are intrinsic.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
To Red Dog,
it�s important to be clear about our concepts. I am not a moral anti-realist. If I�ve said I am, I curse myself for not having been more guarded. I do not deny that there is such a thing as morality. Morality is a theory of language like mathematics (the latter argues that numerical terms have objective referents). I am a metaphysical moral anti-realist. What�s the difference? I believe in morality. Of course I do! I can concieve of morality, so it seems odd to disbelieve in it, but I do not believe that moral terms refer to objective states of affairs. An objective state of affairs is one that exists independently of the human experience. Whether ANY such state of affairs as we understand them, even a physical world, exists is open to question. Reality is non-conceptual, much less moral. This is my view.
My beliefs on barmy metaphysics do not affect my day-to-day morality. As I said earlier in the thread, amongst my ethical beliefs are impeccable manners, one has no right to kill a person unless in self-defence, racial heritage does not affect ability or behaviour amongst others. Not much different to what you see elsewhere. This is reconcilable with my metaphysical moral anti-realism because � simply � my ethical beliefs are based on my likes and dislikes.
My analysis of moral terms has revealed them to be disguised �I like y�, �I dislike X� utterances. Moral terms can be explained away by one should not rape = humans, mostly, dislike rape; most humans sympathize with rape victims. �One should give money to the poor and not be selfish� = �it�d be nicer if we gave money to the poor and were not selfish�. �People being raped and beaten by goriilas for entertainment is morally wrong� = �this activity, if it existed, revolts me�. This is the emotivist theory of ethical discourse. I buy it. Metaphysical, strange entities, like absolute, timelessly true sentences of ethics are unnecessary and extremely difficult to account for in a secular, non-supernatural view of the universe. Humans have emotions and we listen to them. We should try to agree on the basics, because life rocks and it�d be nice if we prolonged it. But there is a physical world that exists independently of us, existed before us, will continue to exist after us, and it has no concern for our welfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
