User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 31

  1. #21
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    Kant was wrong, too.

  2. #22
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Kant was wrong, too.
    if you want. either way, it should answer some of OPs questions.

    long story short, since we're all humans and have the ability for empathy, our morals stem from putting ourselves in other people shoes. treating them as we'd like to be treated. cooperation does great things for the advancement of society.

  3. #23
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    How does the conclusion that someone has absolute moral authority over you follow from the premise that they created you? It doesn't. If the universe was created by an evil being, he would be an evil being regardless of his act of creation. A god is not inherently good. So the idea that someone created us is really not an answer to the question of what we're going to ground morals in. At best, it might be argued that our ethical standards were programmed into us by someone, and that would give us a causal foundation for ethics. But we already have a causal foundation for ethics in processes described by evolutionary science and sociology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
    Human beings (I assume all sentient beings) have a concept of good and experience something to the effect of happiness.
    You're conflating two distinct senses of the word "good." There's good in the moral sense and good in the sense of pleasantness. That there's a difference between the two is clear from the fact that morals frequently direct people to forgo pleasure.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  4. #24
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default



    This book taught me all I know about what makes the human mind special.

    All science, no filler.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    How does the conclusion that someone has absolute moral authority over you follow from the premise that they created you? It doesn't.
    I think it is supposed to follow from the idea that this someone created morality itself and put himself in charge of it.

  6. #26
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    You're conflating two distinct senses of the word "good." There's good in the moral sense and good in the sense of pleasantness. That there's a difference between the two is clear from the fact that morals frequently direct people to forgo pleasure.
    I didn't pleasure, I said happiness.

    And I know some peoples' ethical schemes make them forgo their own and other peoples' happiness, and I look down on their ethical schemes. It may be the ethical scheme they try to follow, but it doesn't mean I think their actions are actually moral ones. I am passing a moral judgment on what they consider to be ethical.

    There should not be a separation between good in a moral sense and good in the sense of a good state of mind. It is the only good we have.

    The most happiness distributed across the most people for the longest time.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #27
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    I think it is supposed to follow from the idea that this someone created morality itself and put himself in charge of it.
    Yes, I think so. However, if certain things appear moral to us because someone designed us to experience them as moral, then morality appears not to be intrinsic to the nature of reality. Morality instead appears to be a product of our creator's whim, since he might have given us a different set of scruples or no scruples at all.

    A morality that is designed and chosen is not an objective and binding morality, regardless of who it is that does the choosing and designing. And if such a morality existed, it would positively demonstrate a lack of inherent objectivity in morality. It would be one case of morality existing as a free creation rather than as a binding given. The argument that morals are objective because they were created by God proves the opposite point.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  8. #28
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    Yes, I think so. However, if certain things appear moral to us because someone designed us to experience them as moral, then morality appears not to be intrinsic to the nature of reality. Morality instead appears to be a product of our creator's whim, since he might have given us a different set of scruples or no scruples at all.

    A morality that is designed and chosen is not an objective and binding morality, regardless of who it is that does the choosing and designing. And if such a morality existed, it would positively demonstrate a lack of inherent objectivity in morality. It would be one case of morality existing as a free creation rather than as a binding given. The argument that morals are objective because they were created by God proves the opposite point.
    That makes sense if you would equate the whim of a god to that of a human. I think it's common belief (at least related to the god of the 3 major religions) that if he were the creator according to their faith he would absolute truth. As creator of well everything he would reserve the right to define moral code. Since I asked the question I will tell you that is the view point of which the question was asked. Morals in that sense would not be subjective because I would equate the morals of the god responsible for everything above that of my own seeing as he's responsible for everything. So if that kind of go didn’t exist ect. Something tells me your still going to go on about that disproving objective morals so I’ll respectfully ask you to indulge me.
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

  9. #29
    A Mystery Jacques Le Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    XNTP
    Enneagram
    359
    Posts
    892

    Default

    From what I've seen in my experiences, when you cross the line into morality. You find a lot of hypocritical people, or just people out for themselves.

    Keep in mind I'm not denying the possibility that there is a god. Since at the moment we just don't know if there is or isn't one.

    Though I don't believe that humans have a "higher" purpose or a "divine value".
    Last edited by Jacques Le Paul; 09-19-2013 at 12:26 PM.
    Always forward, never back!

    "I always love talking to people and hearing their story. People always have a good life story to tell ya know?"



    My blog in regular blogs

  10. #30
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
    And I know some peoples' ethical schemes make them forgo their own and other peoples' happiness, and I look down on their ethical schemes. It may be the ethical scheme they try to follow, but it doesn't mean I think their actions are actually moral ones. I am passing a moral judgment on what they consider to be ethical.
    The fact is that these people experience their actions as righteous ones. This demonstrates that the perception of an act's moral goodness is distinct from the perception of an act's ability to provoke happiness.

    Apart from there being a distinction between morality and happiness, happiness is not something that can be measured and quantified. A certain configuration of brain cells is not happiness any more than the letters C-A-T are a cat. A certain configuration of brain cells merely signifies (in non-real-time: you would be seeing the brain as it appeared before the light reached your eyes) what a patient under highly artificial circumstances may or may not report is their feeling of happiness. And they will not be able to put an exact, objective number on their happiness even if you can put an exact, objective number on certain bodily signals they're giving off. And different people or even the same person will have differing reactions to the same set of circumstances, so that even if it were possible to acquire completely accurate measurements of people's levels of happiness, it would be impossible to derive from that anything approaching a detailed list of universal moral guidelines.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

Similar Threads

  1. There is no God
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  2. What is this god of which you speak?
    By juggernaut in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
  3. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO