|
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 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| red dog wrote: |
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. |
1. May I ask why you've said this? Justice being completely arbitrary hasn't had any proponents in the thread, as far as I know.
I don't quite get the bolded bit in 2 either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| 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.
|
|
The biggest problem I have with saying that values cannot be intrinsic is that one "atrocity" could be considered barbaric in one culture, and simply "the way things are done" in another culture. Let's use slavery as an example. Most westerners abhor slavery as immoral; however, other parts of the world (specifically some African countries) practice it. So, who are we, as westerners, to say that slavery is wrong? If human value is not intrinsic, how can we condemn slavery or any other human atrocity with conviction?
My answer is that slavery has always been wrong because of the intrinsic value of human beings. However, I will play the devil's advocate, and point out that slavery was an accpeted practice the world over until very recently in human history. Does this prove what some posters on this thread advocate, mainly the fluctuating, perspectival nature of morality? Perhaps. It's something to discuss anyway.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
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). |
Perhaps I should stop using the term intrinsic to describe the nature of values. I do not believe any object, outside of perspectival existence, has any value. The problem is that no object exists outside of perspectival reality, at least no object about which we are talking. Everything has some kind of value of necessity. So, instead of intrinsic value, I believe in necessary value. Necessary value always exists on some level, though it may change with time and culture.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
seoulunitarian
| Quote: |
Perhaps I should stop using the term intrinsic to describe the nature of values. I do not believe any object, outside of perspectival existence, has any value. The problem is that no object exists outside of perspectival reality, at least no object about which we are talking. Everything has some kind of value of necessity. So, instead of intrinsic value, I believe in necessary value. Necessary value always exists on some level, though it may change with time and culture.
|
I can agree with this. I also want to emphasise that since people's perspective differ, the value different people put on something will also differ. Therefore in a democracy if people want to make laws based on the value of something it has to be by a majority consensus. This is why I believe that Europe can have different laws concerning the death penalty and no one can say that one is right and the other is wrong.
A personal code is different however. People are free to develop their own moral code according to their own personal values. They need to remember tho' that if acting according to their moral code brings them in conflict with the law (because the value they place on something differs from the consensus reflected in the law) then the law may require them to pay a price for their action. (the case of the more militant animal rights activists comes to mind here). They do of course always have the option of trying to persuade the majority to a different consensus, either before or after the action, in order to avoid paying that price.
(In my own case the value I place on personal freedom, is higher than the law allows either here at home or in Korea. With regard to smoking dope, I would risk it here because I'm prepared to pay the penalty. In Korea I wouldn't because the penalty exacted would be too high. In neither case tho' would I feel I'd violated my moral code). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
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. |
I don't really think we're going around in circles. To me it seems that we are finding more common ground as the discussion progresses.
Personally, I've been suprised to find that, on thinking issues thro', it would be possible for me to come to an agreement with theists on the question of morality. I would have thought, before this discussion started, that that would have been an impossibility, since I had believed that they would have had to approach the issue from their perspective of a belief in the existance of a god, and I on my part from my perspective of a belief in the non-existance of a god. Now it seems to me that the question of that existance or not, would be largely irrelevant, except in the case of catholics who believe that it is possible for the pope to infallibly know the mind of god in the matters of faith and morals (....it's taking me a huge effort of will not to get started on that one!).
Okay where do we have common ground?
Well if you were happy that the the value of human life (for example), which you believe to be intrinsic, is adequately reflected in the law, and I feel the same law adequately reflected the value I believed I assigned to human life, then we shouldn't have a problem.
Likewise even if either or both of us are not happy with the value on human life reflected in the law, we nonetheless agree to accept the majority consensus (always with the caveat that we are free to try to persuade the majority to a different consensus), then again we shouldn't have a problem.
Again, if we could agree that if a person following their own moral code, breaks the law, society has the right to exact the penalty required by the law, even if we personally feel they have done nothing morally wrong, (bearing in mind again that we are free to try to change the law to help them avoid that penalty), there again we shouldn't have a problem.
Lastly, it's worth bearing in mind that altho' we do differ in our views on the nature of morality, we are in agreement on the necessity of having a personal moral code. After all if nobody had a personal moral code then there would be no possiblity of having laws that reflect a consensus view on moralty.
Likewise neither should we feel that once the laws are set in place, the need for a personal moral code is obviated, since it is always possible for an individual or individuals to change the majority consensus. This is very important as circumstances change, and we are forced to think more deeply about certain issues, or even address certain ethical questions we have never been faced with before (as for example the issue of cloning and others that the developement of biotechnology is likely to raise).
This is why I feel the discussion isn't been going around in circles. It's been necessary to express, clarify and develop our views in order to understand each other better and to be able to find areas on which we might agree.
(And from a purely selfish point of view, even if we are going around in circles, I still feel I'm benefitting from this discussion.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
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. |
1. May I ask why you've said this? Justice being completely arbitrary hasn't had any proponents in the thread, as far as I know.
I don't quite get the bolded bit in 2 either. |
Green: I was referring to what Grimalkin said earlier about the respective legal consequences of leaving a baby in a hot car vs. doing the same thing to a dog. Grimalkin said society treats the two acts unequally because it assigns different amounts of value to the dog and the child. This is true, of course, but IMO there's no rational reason for our failure to recognize the dog's inherent value (as defined in the Tom Regan essay I linked to earlier). A legal system that assigns value to beings in such an arbitrary way is unjust.
Red: There wouldn't be any point in trying to convince anyone to change their opinions about moral issues, if all morality were as subjective as some people have suggested. Suppose the U.S. decided to hold a referendum on the death penalty. Would they just declare the referendum one day and hold it the next, without giving people a chance to reflect on the issues? Of course not. They'd set a date well in advance, and people on both sides would do their best to present the most persuasive arguments so the public could make up their minds ... after careful consideration. It isn't at all like deciding whether to have coffee or tea with breakfast, where neither choice is better than the other and any debate would be pointless.
Last edited by red dog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:17 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Grimalkin,
It's an important topic and I'm grateful to you for bringing it up, but I feel the discussion has gotten a bit too abstract and that I'm in danger of repeating myself. (I may already have done so, as a matter of fact.  ) To sum up my position, it seems kind of contradictory to be concerned with morality on the one hand and then say on the other that moral questions are totally subjective. Just the idea of having a moral code seems incompatible with the statement you made earlier about tea and coffee.
What we have in common is the belief that we have to work these things out for ourselves without the help of a god or authority figure -- and I think it's possible to do so in a way that advances justice. I don't think we need to "give up" by deciding there's no way to resolve difficult questions.
Also, I think everyone here agrees that human life has great value ... but we don't all agree on why. If you read that essay by Tom Regan, he presents a convincing case that human life has inherent value because humans have certain characteristics -- many of which other animals share. So if human lives matter, so do the lives of at least some nonhuman animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
red dog
I've obviously expressed myself badly here...
| Quote: |
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.
|
.....let me try again.
I believe that there is no absolute right or wrong. Even so I still think it is important for people to judge certain actions to be right or wrong. This is because people are social animals and for us to live harmoniously together we need to develop a set of rules. In a democracy this is done by consensus. Because these rules have no absolute validity that does not mean they are unimportant. They are important because they contribute to the harmony in society.
Also because I said that choices that we make are never absolutely right or wrong (no more than my choice to have coffee or tea is absolutely right or wrong) that does not mean that all choices are equally important. My choice to vote for or against the death penalty (should a referendum ever occur) would have greater consequences than my choice to have tea or coffee. Therefore it is fitting that I should give the former choice much more consideration than the latter.
I can appreciate that you are finding the discussion somewhat abstract. I'm afraid that I may be contributing to the problem. The ideas that I've expressed have been thought out by myself and the terms I use to express them are not derived from any particular discipline (philosophy for instance). There are probably terms belonging to other disciplines that would express these ideas a lot more clearly. Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with them.
I too wish that humans placed more value on the lives of animals. However if it ever came to a choice I would always choose to place more value on the life of a human than that of an animal (even tho' I don't believe that that one is inherently more valuable than the other). The reason that I would choose to do so is again because I believe that if humans treated the two as equally important, it would create problems in society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've nothing further to add really.
Probably I was the one most guilty of blasting the thread off to distant abstract space, but then I am a metaphysician and generally feel the more discourse we can explain without mind-independent abstract entities the better.
Like drug prohibition, it's an issue I'm a complete pain in the arse about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fort Benning, Georgia.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks to everyone for helping me understand your views a bit better. I'm going to have to give some more thought to the statement (made by Grimalkin earlier) that "absolute morality requires an arbiter ... ." I still don't see why that's necessarily the case, but I think I have a better idea of where some of you stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
red dog
| Quote: |
| I'm going to have to give some more thought to the statement (made by Grimalkin earlier) that "absolute morality requires an arbiter ... ." I still don't see why that's necessarily the case |
Basically I feel that to have absolute morality someone needs to know absolutely what is right and what is wrong. However since none of us are infallible that condition can't be met.
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
Like drug prohibition, it's an issue I'm a complete pain in the arse about. |
Maybe we should get into that one someday!
It looks as tho' the discussion is winding down. I'm certainly going to miss it. Thanks particularly to red dog, seoulunitarian and SPINOZA for both aiding me in and forcing me to think things thro' more carefully |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Toad
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a great many deceived who are duped by Demons. Then there are those who love their devilish pleasures and deceive themselves. For a good example of this one needs only watch that hateful and morally repugnant but surprisingly thoughtful eposode wherein Chief is killed- although to wade through all that vile gore and sick twistedness is hardly worth it unless you are already depraved in which case perhaps you may give thought to your own bloody state. I say "Bloody" in terms of guilt not in the cuss, "Zounds!"
Anyhow if we look at human sacrifice we see how it was an intrinsic part of the Aztec culture. Further, the slave keeping Indians of the NOrthern Pacific thought it quite helpful and luck giving to slay a slave and bury him under the doorstep of a new home.
Yet, this does not make it right. Crusaders and Heroes like Hernando Cortez (well perhaps a bit duplicitous at times) and Don Quixote were ones who set things right. A believer in Absolutes and the Supremacy and righteousness of his Moral Codes; Hernando made it a practice of destroying the idols of the villages he conquered and ordering the new Catholic made native priest to stop sacrificing and eating the human flesh of the victim.... a similar thing was done with the Jews who also sacrificed animals and consumed some of the meat that was not burnt ...
The whole point of this is is that Most all of you with no Moral Absolutes are weak prime material for the next charismatic demi-god like Hitler who will suspend human freedom in favor of the greater good. You all will be duped and tricked like most of the pleasure seeking sheep of this world ... this age where the ultimate good is your own fulfillment. Why is it that more canna be upright and humble like the Noble Class- of which I am Supreme, my R00lz from Toad Hall: Delphi's wisdom. I will plan my take over and soon All Asia will Fall Under My Righteous Roolz.
http://images.scotsman.com/2005/06/27/grahame-frog.jpg
I am fearful of what you are teaching your students- my guess is all the Canadian teachers brag about how they receive free condoms and sex use with them in their amoral sk00ls. The only thing that keeps Canada together is the common suffering and thus love that comes through the wretched winters of that Moose attacking Wasteland.
It is by my will and might that I bring judgment upon such dammed tripe, if only I could ascend and set myself up as philosopher king then I would outlaw backpack flags, Korean drivers, Taiwan Scooter drivers, Dog soup, Monkey meat, and wasteful uses of band width. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also appreciated hearing what Grimalkin, Spinoza and Seoulunitarian have had to say ... it's always nice when people can share their views on difficult subjects sincerely and seriously.
Still, I feel these are two separate questions:
| Quote: |
Basically I feel that to have absolute morality someone needs to know absolutely what is right and what is wrong. However since none of us are infallible that condition can't be met.
|
If by "absolute morality" you mean correct answers about what's right and wrong in particular situations, I don't see why they can't exist in the absence of an authority figure who knows what they are. But again I'm afraid we may be going around in circles. I don't know if there's much more I can add either. |
|
| 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
