wannasee posted:Quixotic-Sith posted:There are natural, overarching moral principles; morality is not relative. These two things are not related. While there do seem to be some natural, overarching principles for some aspects of morality (incest is bad, respect for parents, marriage etc.), it does not necessarily follow that all morality is absolute. I will accept that “67 universal features” of morality have been found, however, it is unlikely that these 67 features cover all areas of moral choice in our lives.
Quixotic-Sith posted:There are natural, overarching moral principles; morality is not relative.
wannasee posted:Regarding the treatment of animals, I can see no overarching principle that can reconcile the attitude of a hunter with that of a Buddhist, other than that they are both doing what they think is right. Since that is not what I think you meant by “overarching principles”, can you tell me what the overarching principle is that is governing these two seemingly disparate practices?
wannasee posted:Isn’t morality decided in the mind of the individual? Doesn’t that, by definition, make it subjective ie relative? Or does morality come from God?
wannasee posted:Morality in the individual is learned. Just as a child can learn any language, so can he learn any morality. In other words, morality is relative.
Quixotic-Sith posted:wannasee posted:Quixotic-Sith posted:There are natural, overarching moral principles; morality is not relative. These two things are not related. While there do seem to be some natural, overarching principles for some aspects of morality (incest is bad, respect for parents, marriage etc.), it does not necessarily follow that all morality is absolute. I will accept that “67 universal features” of morality have been found, however, it is unlikely that these 67 features cover all areas of moral choice in our lives. The underlying point of the universals is that cultures are more alike than different.
Quixotic-Sith posted:wannasee posted:Regarding the treatment of animals, I can see no overarching principle that can reconcile the attitude of a hunter with that of a Buddhist, other than that they are both doing what they think is right. Since that is not what I think you meant by “overarching principles”, can you tell me what the overarching principle is that is governing these two seemingly disparate practices? Here's the first problem - you are looking at the actions of individuals, not cultures, and that's shifting the ground of the discussion. The "principle vs. practice" analysis is a social analysis, not individual analysis, so it's inappropriate to critique it from this perspective. It's like saying a screwdriver is a bad tool because it does a bad job of painting your house.
Quixotic-Sith posted:wannasee posted:Isn’t morality decided in the mind of the individual? Doesn’t that, by definition, make it subjective ie relative? Or does morality come from God? It's not one or the other (you are creating a false dilemma). Further, individual choices are made up in the mind of the individual, but it does not follow that morality is made up there. Individual choices, as has already been argued, can be wrong. An individual may believe that what he or she is doing is moral, but they can be entirely mistaken.
Quixotic-Sith posted:wannasee posted:Morality in the individual is learned. Just as a child can learn any language, so can he learn any morality. In other words, morality is relative. I agree that children learn standards of conduct and are socialized, internalizing expectations in the process. This does not, however, produce moral relativism - children can be brought up as racists, which is immoral, despite the fact that this was their process of formulation. It does not follow that because a child can learn any moral system that morality is relative. The bulk of your responses are still committing the fallacy of "People differ, therefore it is all relative."
Quixotic-Sith posted: The way that I teach morality and ethics to my students is to break the concept down into three categories: 1. Metaethics 2. Moral Methodologies 3. Particular judgments
king_alvarez posted:Quixotic-Sith posted: The way that I teach morality and ethics to my students is to break the concept down into three categories: 1. Metaethics 2. Moral Methodologies 3. Particular judgments OK, the way you are going from steps one to three makes sense. I'm still thinking about step one regarding absolutism versus relativism in light of your earlier statements, which I might add to later. Here's another question though. If we exist in a completely deterministic universe where choice and consciousness is entirely illusory, doesn't that make the concept of good/evil irrelevant on a universal scale outside of the human framework? That's not to say that morality would not be relevant within the human framework; to me that would merely indicate different levels of absolute.
Quixotic-Sith posted:king_alvarez posted:Quixotic-Sith posted: The way that I teach morality and ethics to my students is to break the concept down into three categories: 1. Metaethics 2. Moral Methodologies 3. Particular judgments OK, the way you are going from steps one to three makes sense. I'm still thinking about step one regarding absolutism versus relativism in light of your earlier statements, which I might add to later. Here's another question though. If we exist in a completely deterministic universe where choice and consciousness is entirely illusory, doesn't that make the concept of good/evil irrelevant on a universal scale outside of the human framework? That's not to say that morality would not be relevant within the human framework; to me that would merely indicate different levels of absolute. If it were entirely deterministic, absolutely. Unfortunately the physics suggest otherwise. Deterministic Newtonian mechanics only accounts for about 4% of the universe (e.g., objects like us, buildings, cows, etc.), with quantum mechanics (*very* indeterministic) and relativity accounting for very small objects and very large objects, respectively. In terms of human agency, I *do* argue that the idea of "free will" is a lot more limited than we give credit. There are *strong* arguments from cognitive psychology that most of our conscious processing is an after-effect of preconscious processes. This produces a strong modifier on behavior, but I'm not convinced that this does away with the concept of responsibility. We certainly respond to environmental and psychological stimuli, but we aren't simply blind machines - we can learn from experience, which introduces concepts like responsibility and re-opens the door to moral decision-making.
Quixotic-Sith posted: In terms of human agency, I *do* argue that the idea of "free will" is a lot more limited than we give credit. There are *strong* arguments from cognitive psychology that most of our conscious processing is an after-effect of preconscious processes. This produces a strong modifier on behavior, but I'm not convinced that this does away with the concept of responsibility. We certainly respond to environmental and psychological stimuli, but we aren't simply blind machines - we can learn from experience, which introduces concepts like responsibility and re-opens the door to moral decision-making.
Quixotic-Sith posted:If it were entirely deterministic, absolutely. Unfortunately the physics suggest otherwise. Deterministic Newtonian mechanics only accounts for about 4% of the universe (e.g., objects like us, buildings, cows, etc.), with quantum mechanics (*very* indeterministic) and relativity accounting for very small objects and very large objects, respectively. In terms of human agency, I *do* argue that the idea of "free will" is a lot more limited than we give credit. There are *strong* arguments from cognitive psychology that most of our conscious processing is an after-effect of preconscious processes. This produces a strong modifier on behavior, but I'm not convinced that this does away with the concept of responsibility. We certainly respond to environmental and psychological stimuli, but we aren't simply blind machines - we can learn from experience, which introduces concepts like responsibility and re-opens the door to moral decision-making.
ophelia as proxy posted:Let us agree that Newtonian physics breaks down at a size of roughly a Planck's length (don't ask me why I remember that), and determinism fades into WT*. (Or, for scientific types getting ready to scream, it "fades into things that can be mathematically described, but not predicted.")
ophelia as proxy posted:So what in that <1 Planck world can you reasonably describe as "you?" The quantum world is bizarre because particles cannot be precisely located anywhere--they could be in your pinkie one moment and in the Andromeda galaxy the next, or maybe they're in both places at once.
ophelia as proxy posted:The concept of "I" only makes sense in a Newtonian world, where "I" have a "hand" that can knock my "water glass" onto my "keyboard," thus preventing me from rambling on any further in this "conversation."
ophelia as proxy posted:So material determinism --> Newtonian physics --> the illusion of "I."
ophelia as proxy posted:Free will, if it existed, would have to arise from an "I." There has to be someone to do the choosing before choice can exist. So a universe with free will would theoretically look like this: material determinism --> Newtonian physics --> the illusion of "I" - - - > Free will. Unfortunately, the entire system rests upon material determinism, which is to free will as fire is to water. If time could be rewound and replayed in such a world, when you reached this moment again you'd still be exactly where you are, reading this exact same ridiculous post from the exact same nutjob on the internet, and having the exact same distracting thoughts about whether there's any ice cream left or if you left the iron on.
ophelia as proxy posted:So even though there may be unpredictability at the very base of the universe, "you" have no access to it, since the concept of "you" is antithetical to unpredictability. Ideas like "self," "free will" and "responsibility" can only exist in the predictable world of Newtonian physics--which has laws that just happen to negate all of them.
