Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Where did you get your moral code?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Where did you get your moral code?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Where did you get your moral code?

Religion

14%

[ 10 ]

Society

[ 3 ]

Parent/Authority figure

24%

[ 17 ]

Role model/Personal hero

[ 2 ]

Devised my own

35%

[ 25 ]

Other

18%

[ 13 ]

Total Votes : 70

Author

Message

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"All pantheism must ultimately be shipwrecked on the inescapable demands of ethics, and then on the evil and suffering of the world. If the world is a theophany, then everything done by man, and even by animal, is equally divine and excellent; nothing can be more censurable and nothing more praiseworthy than anything else; hence there is no ethics."

�The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVII

I guess this depends on the person's definition of a "god" and on the assumption that all morality has to come from one. There may be gods and goddesses who sometimes behave unethically or immorally ... but that doesn't mean we should follow their example (if they exist).

seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: re:

red dog wrote:

Quote:

This is a quote by Arthur Schopenhauer referring to pantheistic ethics. In the case of what he is actually referring to, I think he is correct, though what I think compared to what Schopenhauer thought is of no real significance.

Peace

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: re:

seoulunitarian wrote:

red dog wrote:

Quote:

Well, I'm a bit confused. Obviously you're concerned about ethics, and I thought you also defended pantheism not very long ago? Is that correct, and if so how can you agree with the quote?

seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: re:

red dog wrote:

seoulunitarian wrote:

red dog wrote:

Quote:

Well, I'm a bit confused. Obviously you're concerned about ethics, and I thought you also defended pantheism not very long ago? Is that correct, and if so how can you agree with the quote?

I did not say I agree with him. I said I think he is correct in his reference to a naturalistic pantheism (which is the type of pantheism he is referring to). I am not a naturalistic pantheist. I am a classical pantheist. I am also a proponent of a neo-process theology.

Peace

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:31 am Post subject:

Aaargh!!! This discussion is becoming more and more interesting and thought provoking as it progresses. It's killing me that due to other committments I probably won't be able to take part in it today.

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: Re: re:

seoulunitarian wrote:

red dog wrote:

seoulunitarian wrote:

red dog wrote:

Quote:

"All pantheism must ultimately be shipwrecked on the inescapable demands of ethics, and then on the evil and suffering of the world. If the world is a theophany, then everything done by man, and even by animal, is equally divine and excellent; nothing can be more censurable and nothing more praiseworthy than anything else; hence there is no ethics."

—The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVII

Well, I'm a bit confused. Obviously you're concerned about ethics, and I thought you also defended pantheism not very long ago? Is that correct, and if so how can you agree with the quote?

Thanks for clarifying that.

seoulshock

Joined: 12 Jul 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:23 am Post subject:

Andrew J. Galambos ... author of ... Sic Itur Ad Astra: Theory of Volition (Volume I)

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:41 am Post subject:

Spinoza, thanks for clarifying your position also. I feel that you still haven't addressed an important question, though ... how to decide whose feelings are more valid or count more when people disagree about a moral issue. Some people feel very strongly that the death penalty is wrong; others feel equally strongly that it's right. Does that mean it's impossible to resolve the matter in a just way?

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:35 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

SPINOZA

Quote:

humans tend to believe that characteristics of our language are also the characteristics of an immeasurably huge, uncaring cosmos

Can you explain what this means. Confused

Items of language like 'right and wrong', 'good way to live', 'best way to organize society', are prescriptive. They not only refer (like a noun refers to an object in the world, or a concept, or like a verb refers to some action or state of being) they tell us what we should do, what there should be, not merely what there is. They prescribe behaviour. Psychologically, they are not strange at all since humans have an abstract consciousness, but if assumed to be also non-human, objective in significance, it's very hard to incorporate them into a modern scientific view of the world.*

Also, because these items of language are of emotional significance and say it's wrong, it's right, you SHOULD, they appear quite powerful, so powerful that they may appear to be not merely of the psychological to some observers.

Amongst many other items of mind and language, humans suppose them to be not only items of human communication and thought, but also characteristics of objective reality. One doesn't even have to be religious to believe this. Consequently, some folks believe in 'absolute truths' of morality, said to exist like an absolute truth of reason, or an observable fact.

* Generally, proponents of absolute truths of morality - truths of right and wrong that would exist somehow regardless of the existence of human beings - advocate an absolutely crackpot metaphysics.

Thanks for the explanation SPINOZA. It seems we hold very similar views on the issues of morality. I have even started recently to try to avoid using 'prescriptive terms' as much as possible (altho' I never had a name for them before reading your post). However in ordinary conversation it's almost impossible to avoid using these, so I try to make do by reminding myself regularly that they have no real validity.

(Incidently other primates demonstrate a sense of justice as well but it is patently obvious that a sense of justice is an aberration rather than the norm as far as the universe is concerned.)

Similarly I believe that nothing has any intrinsic value (including human life). So the only value things have is the value that humans put on things. Since this is a subjective value it is liable to differ according to factors such as culture, time etc.

As I said before, I find this view very problematic. Parents who leave their baby in a hot car to suffocate will (hopefully) go to jail, because society values the child's life even if the parents don't. If there's no rational reason in favour of that position, the parents have done nothing wrong and shouldn't be deprived of their freedom. The fact that other people react emotionally to a situation like that doesn't seem like a good reason to imprison the parents. I think it's more accurate to say that we react with horror and disgust because the child does have intrinsic value ... whether the parents recognize it or not.

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:39 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Any moral code ultimately must be enforced by penalties for straying from it.

or it is worthless. Up tothe individual.

There must be an absolute authority to exeute justice.

What do you mean? God and hell? I don't see that ... to me, a "moral" code would seem just about worthless if fear of hell was what kept people from "straying." Then they'd just be acting out of self-interest, wouldn't they?

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: re:

seoulunitarian wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

seoulunitarian

Quote:

I simply defend the position that intrinsic value does exist.

(I think I may have sprained my brain thinking this one thro' so if someone can come up with a better answer feel free to jump in).

Okay here goes....

For something to have a value it must be valued by someone (can you think of anything that has a value that is valued by no one). But in that case the value is assigned to it, and therefore is not by definition intrinsic.

I see your point, and I always fear that I am playing a semantic game in these kinds of discussions (I like semantic games~).

It is kind of a moot point to say that something must be valued by someone to be valuable since everyone values something, and humans cannot live outside a pscyhologically and linguistically value-based reality.

I really do hope that we find some way to get past this psychological/linguistic barrier in the discussion so we can continue attempting to figure this out. I am enjoying the discussion.
Peace

We do agree that things things have value. We would probably place similar values on certain things (human life for instance?). Where we differ is that you believe that certain things have intrinsic value and I believe that they have value because that value is assigned to them (as a corollary you would believe that the value of those things can never change, whereas I would believe that their value can change and that in some circumstances they have no value at all.

Why do I believe that nothing has an intrinsic value?

SPINOZA says it all.

Quote:

Value is just not the kind of thing that�s intrinsic. Form is intrinsic and perhaps function in many cases. The truth of a spider�s form and function does not require our consideration, but value surely does. Value always comes from a thinker � not in things themselves, even creatures, which, remove our sentiment, are just objects, items of physical reality.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:

red dog

Quote:

I can't agree. There are plenty of rational reasons for assigning value to things that have no intrinsic value! This is one of the most positive things about human nature, our tendency to value things that have no intrinsic value (altho' it's not always positive, think of the cachet branded goods carry).

Quote:

I think it's more accurate to say that we react with horror and disgust because the child does have intrinsic value ... whether the parents recognize it or not.

I believe our horror and disgust comes from certain qualities like empathy and a sense of justice which we evolved with, qualities that allow us to live in social groups.[/quote]

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject:

seoulshock wrote:

Andrew J. Galambos ... author of ...

Sic Itur Ad Astra: Theory of Volition (Volume I)

Can you tell us a little more about it?

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Any moral code ultimately must be enforced by penalties for straying from it.

or it is worthless. Up tothe individual.

There must be an absolute authority to exeute justice.

There is no absolute authority.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Some aspect of morality seems to be inherent. Studies have shown that our cousins the apes have a sense of fairness. For example, if a group has a bucket of bananas, it will usually be shared out equally. A member of the group who takes more than his fair share will later be punished by the other members by not being given any bananas next time around.

Because a sense of justice appears to be inherent in some species of primate you cannot infer that there is an absolute morality. Do apes and humans punish greed in the same way?

A sense of justice reflects a value system and values can vary. An absolute morality by definition cannot vary.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 10 of 12

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe