|
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 |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Do apes and humans punish greed in the same way?
|
I would argue that there is no need to cross generic boundaries, humans treat greed differently. Compare the sentiments between the camel and the eye of the needle and the line about the winner being the one who dies with the most toys.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen,
very interesting.
I shall respond to a few choice items. First, let me point out that I do not advocate the complete overthrow of metaphysical moral realism. My belief is that objective reality is not knowable. To know it requires a leap out of our cognitive faculties. I believe humans to be thinking, conceptualizing creatures, and the world out there to be a non-thinking, non-conceptual thing in itself, possibly radically different from the way it appears when filtered through our senses and minds. Yes, I should�ve called my Daves id Kant rather than Spin, but the latter rather stuck because I too was in love with pantheism at one point. But whether reality contains our features of consciousness � numbers, concepts, propositions, morals � or whether it does not (I believe not, but cannot know it), cannot ever be observed or known, thus you�ve no compulsion accept metaphysical moral anti-realism. However, because I want to account for moral phenomena in a naturalistic way (no metaphysics), I�m quite happy with the thesis that moral statements are disguised �I really like X, I passionate dislike Y behavior�-statements carrying the appearance of truth.
| Red Dog on the parents who leave the baby in the car wrote: |
| The fact that other people react emotionally to a situation like that doesn't seem like a good reason to imprison the parents. 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 |
In my opinion, that's precisely why we do it and I see little problem with it.
Retribution is part and parcel of the concept of justice.
You require a rational reason for punishment, but is punishment itself even rational? What's the point in punishing? It won't bring the baby back to life or reverse the state of affairs. Is punishing even moral? Not according to Jesus � he advocated unwavering forgiveness if the wrongdoer is genuinely remorseful. Your question presupposes that to punish offensive individuals is good yet this theme is not uncritically accepted by all.
Analysis of the concept of justice reveals desire, desire to: (a) remove the parents from society to prevent repeat offence, (b) make the parents suffer because, well, just because, and (c) make an example of them so others are not tempted to do likewise (prevention) and (d) seek to rehabilitate the parents to some extent.
I do not consider this evidence that moral terms are not disguised emotive statements of preferred behaviors. Indeed, the desire to punish those actions we hate, usually acts of gratuitous selfishness at the expense/suffering of others, is all the more reason to accept moral discourse is chiefly discourse about emotions � strong emotions about conduct. That humans seek to make these strong emotions absolute truths and impose features of human languages on a vast, complicated cosmos � yes, we appear to feel THAT strongly about injustice � is understandable because we are highly-strung, emotional creatures, but from a philosophy and science standpoint, it�s not very good I say.
| Red Dog wrote: |
| 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? |
I think so.
An ethical issue such as the death penalty is very complex and I see no objective way of settling the matter. Some say to kill is wrong � thus it�s ridiculous to kill a killer as a punishment for killing. Some say there are far worthier recipients of attention and money than a criminal and the cheaper option of execution is preferable. Both strong arguments. And it�s amusing you should use the death penalty as an example because that�s a moral issue I completely cannot make my mind up about. Naturally, I seem to have selected a fence-sitting position � that generally one is not in favor of execution, but in certain, rare circumstances it�s a good idea.
| Grimilkin wrote: |
| There is no absolute authority. |
As an agnostic, I say that�s gratuitous.
I doubt very much the existence of an absolute authority because it�s an extremely primitive idea and also adds mystery rather than solves mystery (this ought to cause alarm bells in any intelligent observer about any issue), however I refuse to rule out the possibility.
| Schopenhauer wrote: |
"The chief objection I have to pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world"."
�Arthur Schopenhauer, A Few Words On Pantheism, 1851 |
Oh my word, this is so on the money it�s SCARY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Grimilkin wrote:
There is no absolute authority. |
As an agnostic, I say that�s gratuitous. |
I don't think the issue of whether or not there is a god is relevant to the issue of absolute authority for who could know the mind of god? And even if one person did know, how can we know absolutely that they know? Therefore even if god exists his idea of justice is unknown so how can it have any authority?
Using an issue already raised as an example, what does god think about the death penalty?
Who knows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Some say there are far worthier recipients of attention and money than a criminal and the cheaper option of execution is preferable |
Execution in the US at least is extremely expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
red dog
| Quote: |
| 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 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. |
But if the baby has no intrinsic value, then how can we say society is right to assign value to her, when her parents presumably didn't? How can we determine whether a society that punishes such bad parents is better than a hypothetical society that condones the fatal neglect of children? I think the author Mith quoted earlier had a common-sense view of morality that allows people and societies to make just decisions.
And let's suppose the baby isn't human anymore -- suppose she's a dog, who will suffer just as much as a baby in that situation and has the same desire to preserve her own life. She's basically just as helpless as the baby, and she suffers a horrible death because her guardians don't care about her. Some societies will punish the dog guardians and others won't. A harsh punishment is unlikely in any society, but even in the most animal-friendly location, there is no way the dog killers will stir up the same kind of public outrage as the baby killers. Why is that?
It's not enough to say, "People just feel more disgust when the baby is human. It's natural." Society needs a rational reason for assigning more value to the human baby, or it's guilty of inconsistency (and therefore injustice). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Some say there are far worthier recipients of attention and money than a criminal and the cheaper option of execution is preferable |
Execution in the US at least is extremely expensive. |
I don't think this is relevant to the question of whether it's right or wrong, though. If it's wrong, then it doesn't matter which option is more expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Grimilkin wrote:
There is no absolute authority. |
As an agnostic, I say that�s gratuitous. |
I don't think the issue of whether or not there is a god is relevant to the issue of absolute authority for who could know the mind of god? And even if one person did know, how can we know absolutely that they know? Therefore even if god exists his idea of justice is unknown so how can it have any authority?
Using an issue already raised as an example, what does god think about the death penalty?
Who knows? |
Good point ... and the idea that people can resolve an issue such as the death penalty by studying the bible and trying to figure out god's opinion is extremely silly. It doesn't stop people on both sides from coming up with religious arguments, though.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: |
| Quote: |
Red Dog wrote:
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? |
I think so.
An ethical issue such as the death penalty is very complex and I see no objective way of settling the matter. Some say to kill is wrong � thus it�s ridiculous to kill a killer as a punishment for killing. Some say there are far worthier recipients of attention and money than a criminal and the cheaper option of execution is preferable. Both strong arguments. And it�s amusing you should use the death penalty as an example because that�s a moral issue I completely cannot make my mind up about. Naturally, I seem to have selected a fence-sitting position � that generally one is not in favor of execution, but in certain, rare circumstances it�s a good idea. |
But to influence others, you need to support your position and you would obviously expect your opponents to support theirs. Eventually, maybe over many centuries, societies can hope to come up with the best, most just way of punishing the worst criminals.
If everyone's opinion on the death penalty (or any other controversial subject) is equally valid, what's the point of discussion and dialogue? We may as well decide public policy by flipping a coin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Seoulunitarian, thanks for saying more, as I must confess I didn�t really understand the post I responded to or how it related to what I�d said. I shall focus on the second paragraph of the above, in particular one sentence which doesn't appear to have any justification:
| Quote: |
| But even if a Universal Mind does not exist, and the inanimate objects you listed do not have intrinsic value, that does not in any way prove that other things more conscious do not have intrinsic value |
A human life � and this sounds really harsh � has no more intrinsic value than an insect that only lives for a day. Value always comes from a perceiver, a thinker, not to mention a perspective (what kind of value? Is intrinsic value definable into something less metaphysically strange?). Creatures, including humans, are physical objects like any other and you appear to advocate the possibility of a distinction between things of no intrinsic value (rocks, planets etc) and things of intrinsic value (conscious things, with humans having the highest level of consciousness and therefore the highest intrinsic value presumably � higher than a shark or a cat, even though these and other creatures have abilities far surpassing ours, despite their incapacity for abstract thought). I suggest you reject this possibility as highly arbitrary and unscientific and simply your unfounded opinion that conscious things are inherently of merit.
A more satisfactory thesis IMO would be that nothing is of intrinsic value; this way we avoid metaphysics and dividing reality up without justification. Value, if not merely something humans apply to things, must be a metaphysical property and be immediately dubious.
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.
Of course, my belief is that a human life is of much higher value than anything else I can think of, but this value originates from my thought and nothing whatsoever may be said re this without invoking metaphysics. A misanthrope (and there�s plenty of reason to despise humanity and possibly intelligence too as the latter has proved incredibly destructive) may place a higher value on an elephant, or a nocturnal creature from another planet may place a higher value on domestic cats because they can see almost perfectly in pitch-black darkness. These are silly examples but the point I�m trying to make is that value comes from observers and perspectives � value is not a property of the physical world. I�m completely unhappy with the notion that objects of perception, in themselves, contain ideas/concepts. To echo something you said earlier, loved ones and friends are of higher value to us than strangers (and certainly enemies), but this value's origin is belief about objects, not objects themselves. |
I think there's a more rational option, and that is for humans capable of considering and discussing such matters to agree among ourselves that all beings who are capable of feeling pain and experiencing anything at all should be treated as if they have intrinsic value. My understanding of this concept is based on the work of Tom Regan, who argues that humans and "at least some animals" have it. If you're defining it differently, I apologize.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/animalrights_posistion.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I completely agree we should believe that humans have intrinsic value. The consequences of not doing don't appeal in the least. My life has value, my mother's life has value - everyone has intrinsic value - and this is the common sense view that should continue. Other than in metaphysics (which tries to make sense of abstract phenomena), there's no reason whatsoever to challenge it.
However, scientifically, we should at least give credence to the possibility that a human life, or human life in general, has no intrinsic value in the secular physical universe of the empirical sciences. If there is a God-like value-giving observer - guaranteeing that things have intrinsic value in our absence, then things have value. But even then it wouldn't be intrinsic value; it'd be because-God-thinks-so value. But if such a thing doesn't exist, which is a distinct possibility, I fail to see how there can be any such thing as value without dodgy metaphysics. If you've no problem with dodgy metaphysics, fair enough, but I've got a big problem with it, for reasons given previously (chief among them: it suggests features of consciousness are features of the non-human universe, which we are a truly microscopic and contingent part of). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
red dog
| Quote: |
| But if the baby has no intrinsic value, then how can we say society is right to assign value to her, when her parents presumably didn't? |
1)Intrinsic value cannot exist since value must always be assigned. Something that is assigned is not by definition intrinsic (c.f. earlier discussion).
2)That is not to say the baby has no value since we can assign a value to her, clearly society does, and that is why a price is demanded for her loss.
3)To ask if we are right or wrong to assign a a value to her brings us back to the question of absolute morality. Absolute morality requires an arbiter and there is no arbiter of absolute morality therefore assigning a value is neither right nor wrong. We simply choose to do so and that choice is neither right nor wrong, no more than my choice to have tea instead of coffee for breakfast is neither right nor wrong.
4)Because nothing has an intrinsic value does not mean we should not assign a value to anything. Similarly because there is no absolute morality does not mean we should not not have a moral code. There are many practical reasons for both that renders them meaningful in themselves.
| Quote: |
A harsh punishment is unlikely in any society, but even in the most animal-friendly location, there is no way the dog killers will stir up the same kind of public outrage as the baby killers. Why is that?
|
Because of the different values we place on the lives of a baby and a dog. And because justice can never be consistent that does not make it injustice. It simply means it is not absolute (which follows from the fact that morality is not absolute).
Last edited by Grimalkin on Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
red dog
| Quote: |
| If everyone's opinion on the death penalty (or any other controversial subject) is equally valid, what's the point of discussion and dialogue? We may as well decide public policy by flipping a coin. |
.....or by a majority consensus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, people, we seem to be going around in circles.
1. "Justice" that is completely arbitrary isn't justice.
2. Before societies make public policy decisions (by majority consensus, of course), there's usually a lot of debate and discussion. If morality were based only on people's preferences, we could skip that part of the process. I wouldn't waste time trying to convince you that having tea for breakfast is a more rational choice than having coffee, but I do think we can and should try to influence other people when moral issues are at stake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
Sorry, I was sick in bed all day today. I'll chime in tomorrow~
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:19 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Sorry, I was sick in bed all day today. I'll chime in tomorrow~
Peace |
Hope you feel better soon. |
|
| 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
