Moral relativists who love Edahn

[SillySapienne]

genetics, popular suggestion, who knows... besides my point. not everyone has the ability (or should) try to gauge what is really right and wrong in a given situation, the general approach that morals offer is the best solution for most people since it doesnt require critical thinking.

correct me if im wrong, but what youre saying is that internally determined values are the final word when it comes to right and wrong, and not what is deemed "ok" by society?

what i am asking is... do we really know where this internal sense of right and wrong comes from?


to me, the concept of "morals" is needed for people who are unable to think rationally and independently on a case-by-case basis (most people). most "morals" happen to be synonymous with what makes sense in the bigger picture, but are too general to be perfect in every situation.

There is a difference between morals and ethics, will give a more indepth response in a bit.

 

[Kiddo]

nemo

You took the words right out of my, er, hands?

I was sooooooo close to posting that, but chose to be "ladylike" instead, lol.

One more question. Would it be moral to have more than one account on this site? I'm just curious because that seems to be a much more indicative test of a person's morality. If you could intentionally be deceptive and get away with it, would you?

Anyways, I think the whole "inherent moral compass" thing is quite obviously false.

 

[SillySapienne]

Grayscale you are talking about "Speciesism"

Graphic image ahead...

Speciesism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SillySapienne]

One more question. Would it be moral to have more than one account on this site? I'm just curious because that seems to be a much more indicative test of a person's morality. If you could intentionally be deceptive and get away with it, would you?

Anyways, I think the whole "inherent moral compass" thing is quite obviously false.

LOL

nemo...

my alter ego with a set of balls.

 

[Wandering]

most people dont bat an eye at sanctioned over-hunting of species that upset the ecosystem. that seems a lot like genocide... but it's other animals, so it's ok.

where's "morality" there? there isnt any, because morality is just a very generic approach derived from de-facto logic, and what's logical to us is to facilitate the survival of our species.

But is eradicating another species facilitating the survival of ours? Is upsetting the eco-system a good survival plan for the human race?

Both logically and morally, I personally don't think so.

Not sure this is completely on-topic for this thread, though.

 

[Kiddo]

LOL

nemo...

my alter ego with a set of balls.

What?

 

[SillySapienne]

I believe there's nothing after this life so I intend to make this life as good as possible for myself and others.

I too, am a moral atheist.

 

[SillySapienne]

What?

'Twas an F moment, forgive me please.

 

[Grayscale]

But is eradicating another species facilitating the survival of ours? Is upsetting the eco-system a good survival plan for the human race?

Both logically and morally, I personally don't think so.

Not sure this is completely on-topic for this thread, though.

the point is often not to eradicate an entire species. another example: we kill vast amounts of other animals to expand our footprint. we might kill off a lot of a species to reinstate some sort of balance in the ecosystem because it makes us feel all good inside. it's all about us, because our species is all that matters to us in the end. id bet you'd have a hard time finding an animal-rights activist who would give the life of another human (or more appropriately, themself) to save an animal.


"speciesism" as CC pointed out supports my point that "morals" are just a general approach derived from de-facto logic, perpetuated by society, genetics, etc.

the ones that remain relatively unchanged throughout human existence are still around because they work for us in the grand scheme.


it's important to realize, because... one-size-fits-all logic is extremely rare. why do you think it is so easy for people to come up with examples where conventional morality falls apart? i'll repeat myself: the general approach that morals offer is the best solution for most people since it doesnt require critical thinking... works in the grand scheme, but it's a static approach that isnt perfect for everything.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think human beings should interact/interfere intelligently with nature.

Nature doesn't give a shit about us.

*We* give a shit about us.

We should therefore act in ways that will benefit us as a species.

 

[SillySapienne]

Logic is pretty universal, or should I say, the lack of it, lol.

So what are you getting at Grayscale?

 

[Journey]

For me, what matters is how close to the universal truth (because I believe in such a thing) a set of morals is. Consequences should be monitored, but they should not determine the acceptability or lack thereof of a set of morals.

I agree, kitty.

 

[SillySapienne]

True. But something isn't immoral just because you, one human being, happen to disagree with it, either

This is actually a pretty tricky one to answer.

Some people are born with natural gifts, some are gifted physicists, others, gifted logicians.

I know that I am "gifted" in morality, and I don't need anyone to validate this fact as it has been evident to, not only myself, but to other people as well, since I've been in preschool. So, er, well my thoughts on this subject, *especially* matter.


*damn, I'm ballsy today!!*

 

[6sticks]

This is an unneeded jibe. Nobody on this thread supported a pro-genocide position.

But many of them are neutral on the issue.

That's a position I understand. But I do not share it. Do you think it is wrong of me not to share it?

Edit: actually, I share the second half of it, it's just my motivation that's different. And obviously, we don't agree on what "making this life as good as possible for ourselves and others" might entail

I don't think it's wrong of you not to share those beliefs because your beliefs don't harm others. I do think it's wrong that you don't agree with preventing physical harm to others.

 

[Geoff]

This thread has certainly been interesting reading.

Some, explaining what their personal morals are, and insisting that everyone does (or should) share them, either inherently or because they are "right".

Another, trying to explain thet morals are relevant only to the culture they are found in.

Neither particularly likely to agree with the other view, or for that matter even consider the other.

For what it's worth, I think all morals are dependent on upbringing, because you can not create a human without social conditioning. It'd be something else... they are all "taught".

 

[Wandering]

Some people are born with natural gifts, some are gifted physicists, others, gifted logicians.

I know that I am "gifted" in morality, and I don't need anyone to validate this fact as it has been evident to, not only myself, but to other people as well, since I've been in preschool. So, er, well my thoughts on this subject, *especially* matter.

My gift lies in the understanding of universal and personal mechanisms. Are you going to consider me an authority on this matter ?

***

But many of them are neutral on the issue.

I haven't seen anything that would point to that. Care to elaborate or give examples?

I do think it's wrong that you don't agree with preventing physical harm to others.

Where did you get this idea? I do think it's important to try and prevent physical harm to others.

 

[Grayscale]

I think human beings should interact/interfere intelligently with nature.

Nature doesn't give a shit about us.

*We* give a shit about us.

We should therefore act in ways that will benefit us as a species.

nature is a collective we are a part of. do you see how what you're saying is the exact same thing any other species would "say" if they could talk?

So what are you getting at Grayscale?

what i am getting at is this: indications of "right" and "wrong" arent some mystic, inexplainable force, they are a general approach perpetuated by society and (most likely) genetics in what makes sense in the grand scheme of things... more specifically, our species. once one can come to accept that right and wrong are an extention of what's logical and not constructs in and of themselves, it follows that "morality" is relative right and wrong.

this brings up 2 items of importance: most morals have survived because they work for the greater good, and so they actually are a good approach for the majority of the population. however, like any general approach, they are not perfect for everything, and those with solid critical thinking should favor what is logical in any situation even if it goes against conventional morals.

this is important because a lot of people will cling to the concepts behind "morality" regardless of logic, when morality is a construct of logic. "killing another human is always wrong" would not apply to someone like hitler. thankfully, most people can figure that one out, but it's a simplistic example of my point.

 

[SillySapienne]

nature is a collective we are a part of. do you see how what you're saying is the exact same thing any other species would "say" if they could talk?.

Yeah, and your point? I comfortably draw the line at the species level, i.e. to me, human beings, ultimately matter more than other species.

 

[Geoff]

Yeah, and your point? I comfortably draw the line at the species level, i.e. to me, human beings, ultimately matter more than other species.

Which is a personal view, but why is it any more "morally right" than the views of those who treat nature (eg the life of a dolphin) as being as important and those of humanity?

 

[6sticks]

I haven't seen anything that would point to that. Care to elaborate or give examples?

You yourself said you wouldn't lose any respect for someone who didn't think genocide was wrong.

I happen to think that genocide is wrong too. But I can perfectly understand why some people would think otherwise, without losing any respect for them.

Where did you get this idea? I do think it's important to try and prevent physical harm to others.

You said adhering to the "universal truth" is what's important, regardless of the consequences. I consider the prevention of physical harm to be more important.

For me, what matters is how close to the universal truth (because I believe in such a thing) a set of morals is. Consequences should be monitored, but they should not determine the acceptability or lack thereof of a set of morals.