|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 09, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
@mvass:
Let's consider a society where gay people are absolutely hated and are not allowed to have an income. Do you really think that the gay people that would start to steal (obviously to not starve) are EVIL?
You have a very strange definition of "evil". And no, it's not an exaggerated example, since black people were also discriminated in the past. I don't know why but you seem to think the current model of society is the flawless and perfect one. People (like you it seems) used to say the same about the old society model (with black people being discriminated), yet it changed. This one will have major changes in the future too
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No. Rights come from morals. Laws are supposed to protect rights, but not create them.
I disagree. Morals never said what are your "rights" -- they only outline what you should do or (in my absolute case) enable you to make the difference (like a dictionary). But laws are the ones who create rights, because that's what rights mean. Rights are built by a specific law, each has different rights, even if for example, some people don't agree with the law and want different rights (especially in non-democratic systems), but the morals are usually shared (usually).
Quote:
Quote:
use the money to "enslave" the weak, not literally
Could you clarify on this statement?
Ok, let's take a very extreme example. Let's say that you "own" (whatever that is) the whole land (whole Earth). Do you think it's fair that others are supposed to follow your 'laws' since the whole land is your property? What, exactly, gave you the property in the first place? Surely not the ones you know "enslave" (not literally, again), they didn't have anything to do with it. They want a "property" of their own -- who said that the land belongs to you? Nature doesn't say anything about "property" since it's only a law-concept 
In case you'll bring morals, morals have nothing to do with "property".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Minion:
Quote:
people are poor because the rich own the lands they are working and then later taxate all the profits for themselves
Well, I don't see anything wrong with the rich owning the lands, but they shouldn't tax all of the profits. But feudalism is a different system. Under feudalism, the government doesn't derive its power from the consent of the governed. I'm talking more about free-market capitalism.
Well of course you are talking about the free-market capitalism 
But if the example is about Robin Hood, you should consider the fact that they are living in a different society. Surely morality is not only tied to free-market capitalism, now is it?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:26 PM |
|
|
Asheera:
Quote:
Let's consider a society where gay people are absolutely hated and are not allowed to have an income. Do you really think that the gay people that would start to steal (obviously to not starve) are EVIL?
The society would be flawed, but yes, they would be evil. It would be a mistake for society to isolate a segment of the population like this and prevent them from contributing anything, but that still doesn't give them the right to other people's property. If you are doubtful, consider this: after a hard day at work, you have cashed your paycheck, and a bum runs up to you and steals your money. Is this morally right? After all, he is poorer than you. I'd say that it would be wrong for him to do so. (Of course, returning to your example, if there are any governmental laws that restrict their rights, then the gay people have the right to conflict with the government, but not with the individual people.)
TheDeath:
Quote:
But laws are the ones who create rights, because that's what rights mean.
No, that isn't what rights mean. Rights exist outside of laws. Just look at the Soviet Union in the Stalin years. Would you say that Stalin had the right to liquidate all of those people, because the law said so?
Quote:
Do you think it's fair that others are supposed to follow your 'laws' since the whole land is your property?
If it's my property, then they're there by my rules. Let's say that someone decides to sit on your lawn. Do you not have the right to remove them? So if you buy up all of the Earth, why wouldn't the same principle apply?
Quote:
What, exactly, gave you the property in the first place? Surely not the ones you know "enslave" (not literally, again), they didn't have anything to do with it.
What gave me the property? The ones who were selling it, of course. If every private individual and every government decided to sell all of their property, and somehow Antarctica was available for purchase as well, and I had enough money to buy all of it and wanted to, why not? And the people may want their own property, but that doesn't give them the right to my property. Property is not only a law-concept. It is a moral right to own property. If a man labors for himself, he has the right to the fruits of his labors. If he labors for others, he has whatever rights there are in the contract, and has the right to the money that he earns.
Minion:
Quote:
But if the example is about Robin Hood, you should consider the fact that they are living in a different society. Surely morality is not only tied to free-market capitalism, now is it?
No, but free-market capitalism is probably the best way to organize society (if emotional benefits are taken into account). If there are laws that are oppressing them, then they can oppose the government, but not steal from the individuals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The society would be flawed, but yes, they would be evil. It would be a mistake for society to isolate a segment of the population like this and prevent them from contributing anything, but that still doesn't give them the right to other people's property.
The only problem I see with you is that you think that the current model of society is flawless and perfect, but trust me, it is not and it will change one day
And no they would not be evil (since they did not steal only for "pleasure" but to survive!), just not lawful.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only problem I see with you is that you think that the current model of society is flawless and perfect
No, I don't. Here in America, gay people (I'm not one of them) and atheists (I am one of them) are looked down upon, and the former group are legally discriminated against. And I don't think that a good thing. So current society could use some improvement in that area, as well as some others. Current society is better than it used to be, but it's far from perfect.
Quote:
And no they would not be evil (since they did not steal only for "pleasure" but to survive!), just not lawful
Like I said, intent vs. end. The end is that I get my stuff stolen. I don't care why they stole it, I just care that they stole it. And stealing is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:48, 09 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
No, that isn't what rights mean. Rights exist outside of laws. Just look at the Soviet Union in the Stalin years. Would you say that Stalin had the right to liquidate all of those people, because the law said so?
Actually he did in that law's perspective. Obviously, it would be "evil" or whatever, but evil/wrong doesn't mean to violate rights, since the former speaks about morals, the latter about the law (how I perceive it). He had the "right" in that system, but that doesn't mean he wasn't evil, so to speak.
As for the property:Quote:
If it's my property, then they're there by my rules. Let's say that someone decides to sit on your lawn. Do you not have the right to remove them? So if you buy up all of the Earth, why wouldn't the same principle apply?
Quote:
What gave me the property? The ones who were selling it, of course. If every private individual and every government decided to sell all of their property, and somehow Antarctica was available for purchase as well, and I had enough money to buy all of it and wanted to, why not? And the people may want their own property, but that doesn't give them the right to my property. Property is not only a law-concept. It is a moral right to own property. If a man labors for himself, he has the right to the fruits of his labors. If he labors for others, he has whatever rights there are in the contract, and has the right to the money that he earns.
This is the flaw. You might have "bought" all the Earth, but what about *new* people? I mean, why do they have to obey your laws, they didn't even take part in your "business" that gave you the property. Those people, who need to follow your "laws" since they can't go anywhere else, what did they do to be like that? Actually, it's one of the reasons where I would oppress so-called law myself, if it happened (obviously it's a very extreme made-up example, but it's to get the point).
If I am born and I have nowhere to go because damn everything is owned by someone else, then I'd say it is unfair to say the least. Yes you might call it the best system, and I would agree -- but that's it, it's just a system. Systems always have flaws in some situations... and it's why morals are not dependent on 'systems' (at least, my absolute view of them).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually he did in that law's perspective.
Perhaps in the law's perspective, but right and wrong are determined though application of the non-aggression and mutual aid principles, not by any laws.
Quote:
You might have "bought" all the Earth, but what about *new* people?
Okay, then what about the current situation? People own property now, and new people who are born don't own anything. Also, there's another big problem with what you said. They're born, yes, and they don't have any property. So? That doesn't give them the right to my property. I have worked to earn the money, and I have legitemately aquired all of the property. Why should they be able to take away what I've earned?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps in the law's perspective, but right and wrong are determined though application of the non-aggression and mutual aid principles, not by any laws.
That's only because you have been brought up in such laws, trust me, were you to be Stalin, you would consider it different
Quote:
Okay, then what about the current situation? People own property now, and new people who are born don't own anything. Also, there's another big problem with what you said. They're born, yes, and they don't have any property. So? That doesn't give them the right to my property. I have worked to earn the money, and I have legitemately aquired all of the property. Why should they be able to take away what I've earned?
Because by your logic, they can't own anything. You tell me that you're the victim here because you worked hard, etc...
but what about them? What have they done to deserve the fact that they can't go anywhere?? Were they involved when you took the Earth? Nope, so what have they done for that?
I know you think you are the victim here, but think about them. It's not like they don't WANT to work for the same thing, but they CANNOT (since you own everything in this example).. there's something of a flaw in there.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's only because you have been brought up in such laws, trust me, were you to be Stalin, you would consider it different
Stalin was a crazy guy, anyway.
Quote:
Because by your logic, they can't own anything.
They can, if I choose to sell something to them. And they'll have the money if I choose to employ them.
Quote:
Nope, so what have they done for that?
Nothing, but people are born into bad circumstances all the time, and that doesn't give them the right to other people's property. You see, I have worked. They haven't. However, you do raise an interesting argument: what you said is exactly the problem with monopolies, and there should be some government action there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They can, if I choose to sell something to them. And they'll have the money if I choose to employ them.
But what if you choose to get them out of your property?
Quote:
Nothing, but people are born into bad circumstances all the time, and that doesn't give them the right to other people's property. You see, I have worked. They haven't. However, you do raise an interesting argument: what you said is exactly the problem with monopolies, and there should be some government action there.
Not in my book (of morals) and neither in the D&D alignment system it seems.
Actually, you say that you have worked. This is the exact same problem that we face in abortion (the fetus having an opportunity, but let's not get into that). It's wrong to think of "have worked", rather think of opportunities instead. You have worked, and HAD the opportunity to. They may not have worked, but that doesn't mean they're lazy if they never had the opportunity. It's wrong to think of work alone -- you need to take into account also if they have the same chances/opportunities when comparing between people that have worked harder or not.
Life is unfair, I agree, bad circumstances exist... it's why we need guys like Robin Hood in these cases
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But what if you choose to get them out of your property?
Sucks to be them, doesn't it? But it is my property. That's the problem with monopolies, though, and they should be prevented. I shouldn't be able to buy 100% of everything. But people shouldn't be able to take what I do buy.
Quote:
Not in my book (of morals) and neither in the D&D alignment system it seems.
Yes, because the D&D alignment system is the Absolute Book of Truth, right?
Quote:
It's wrong to think of "have worked"
Actually, it's right. What matters is not what you can do, but what you actually do. It is not a question of opportunity, but a question of action. If you produce something, you have the right to own it or trade it. I don't see why they have to violate my rights. There are plenty of people without opportunities around today, but that doesn't give them the right to steal from the successful.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sucks to be them, doesn't it? But it is my property. That's the problem with monopolies, though, and they should be prevented. I shouldn't be able to buy 100% of everything. But people shouldn't be able to take what I do buy.
If life were that simple though
Quote:
Yes, because the D&D alignment system is the Absolute Book of Truth, right?
Nah, I only presented something, never claimed it's truth. But what good is a discussion without arguments or presenting opinions?
Quote:
Actually, it's right. What matters is not what you can do, but what you actually do. It is not a question of opportunity, but a question of action. If you produce something, you have the right to own it or trade it. I don't see why they have to violate my rights. There are plenty of people without opportunities around today, but that doesn't give them the right to steal from the successful.
Of course it doesn't give them the right, or so the law says. Frankly I understand that the law will never be able to get this to work, since it would be both dangerous and a lot more subjective that it currently is.
The problem becomes when you think that with these laws the world is fair to all. it isn't perfect, and it is probably impossible to be, but when something is unfair, we need guys like Robin Hood
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course it doesn't give them the right, or so the law says.
Not only does that law say that, but it is morally wrong as well.
Quote:
Frankly I understand that the law will never be able to get this to work, since it would be both dangerous and a lot more subjective that it currently is.
I should hope that the law would never get this to work! Even if they managed to get wealth distribution to work without any problems, it would still be wrong.
Quote:
The problem becomes when you think that with these laws the world is fair to all.
I just said that life isn't fair. And certainly some groups are discriminated against, and they shouldn't be. But the system that I am suggesting is an improvement over the current system (or, rather, a refinement of it).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 06:21 AM |
|
|
Forgive me for bumping this thread, but this seems to be a hot topic around here at the moment, and I wanted to pose a thought experiment that didn't fit in one of the other threads in which the objectivity/subjectivity of morals is being discussed at the moment. So, this seemed the appropriate place.
Here's the thought experiment.
Consider six male children, physically identical - sextuplets. They are born and raised isolated from the rest of society on an island. They are educated (basic language, reading, etc.) but with no instruction in what is "good" or "bad" behavior. Basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.) are provided. The children are raised together, so they have human contact, but only with each other.
What sort of "morality" does this group of children have when they become adults? Characterize the morality of their six-member society.
Also consider any or all of the following permutations:
(1) Basic necessities for survival are not provided after children reach a certain age.
(2) Children are raised separately in isolated islands and then dumped on the bigger island when they are adults.
(3) Children are half male and half female.
(4) Children are all female.
(5) Children are provided with a Bible.
Will these affect the experiment's outcome?
If anyone has read Lord of the Flies, feel free to comment on that scenario, as well.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 08:51 AM |
|
|
I really hate to get involved in any thread that has the word "philosophy" in the title ,but...
I think the intent of your question is that there are no outside influences. Language, reading, and even the food they eat, will inadvertently introduce outside influences. But I'll pretend it doesn't.
I don't have a lot to say about the subject but this. I believe (admittedly with only VERY weak evidence) that it would be at least partially genetic. I think if you had 2 sets of sextuplets raised separately, but equally, you would get two different results. And that the cause of those results would not be due to randomness.
As I said my evidence is weak, having spent some time at adoptions forums, along with some minor "poking around" on the subject. It also just "feels" right to me. I think if you looked into cases of siblings separated at birth, you would find some suggestion of similar levels of morality, even if raised by parents of different moralities.
I believe that largely, morality is an inherent trait. And furthermore, the inherent trait is not equal in everyone, it would tend to run in families.
So how would moralities form if not taught? If a four year old child sees a cat chase and catch a bunny, then hears the bunny scream before the cat kills it, how does the child react and how does it affect the child's future sense of morality? Do you think different children would react and be affected differently? Do you think sextuplets would react similarly? What if the sextuplets were raised together or separately (permutation #2)?
A step further. What if the young child sees lighting hit a tree and the tree falls, would he think it's "unfair". Is that a morality? Would one child react differently than another?
It's very difficult to imagine a white room environment where children are raised with absolutely no contact or influence with the outside world, where the children are not even witness to a cat killing a bunny or lightning hitting a tree. But I think as adults they would have some sort of morality and there would be many similarities between adults raised seperately in this manner. And furthermore I think the differences between them would tend to run in families. I think the differences would tend to be the "level" of morality more than the moral itself (how strongly they feel about it).
Corribus, you had a baby not long ago, let me ask a question. I'll phrase it as "was your experience similar to mine?"
In hind sight this seems like common sense, but at the time it was somewhat of a revelation (and hard to describe). I hadn't really been around babies before, but when my son was just a few weeks old I remember holding him and being amazed that he was a real person. I guess I had thought of a baby as a future person, or maybe along the lines of an unintelligent animal or something (terrible analogy, but try to follow). What was really the surprise was that at just a few weeks old, he was fully intelligent with full observation and cognitive ability. He lacked knowledge, but he observed and appeared to absorb everything around him with a high degree of intellegence.
It's really hard to express, but if you experienced something similar you'd know what I mean.
So the next question is, if a newborn baby has full (or highly advanced) intelligence, observation ability, amazing amount of facial expressions, etc., can a newborn baby also have a sense of morality?
A two month old baby:
Daddy walks up and smacks a wall or the couch. Daddy walks up and smacks mommy. Does the baby react differently to the two?
Daddy is watching the tied game with 10 seconds left. His team scores and he jumps up and yells. Daddy yells at mommy in anger. Does the baby react differently?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Forgive me for bumping this thread, but this seems to be a hot topic around here at the moment, and I wanted to pose a thought experiment that didn't fit in one of the other threads in which the objectivity/subjectivity of morals is being discussed at the moment. So, this seemed the appropriate place.
Here's the thought experiment.
Consider six male children, physically identical - sextuplets. They are born and raised isolated from the rest of society on an island. They are educated (basic language, reading, etc.) but with no instruction in what is "good" or "bad" behavior. Basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.) are provided. The children are raised together, so they have human contact, but only with each other.
What sort of "morality" does this group of children have when they become adults? Characterize the morality of their six-member society.
Also consider any or all of the following permutations:
(1) Basic necessities for survival are not provided after children reach a certain age.
(2) Children are raised separately in isolated islands and then dumped on the bigger island when they are adults.
(3) Children are half male and half female.
(4) Children are all female.
(5) Children are provided with a Bible.
Will these affect the experiment's outcome?
If anyone has read Lord of the Flies, feel free to comment on that scenario, as well.
In my opinion of course they would probably come up with different morals. However the reason I am an advocate of absolute morals is because they have to be discovered, not just influenced. (and for the record, just because absolute morals exist doesn't mean there are no subjective morals).
It would be like people having different beliefs on the same outcome. In this case the scientific method would apply for the "discovery" principle rather than formulate (and contrast to their beliefs).
Anyway, of course we can't apply the scientific method for morals, but there's a difference between analyzing them from a neutral perspective and "growing up with them". The former doesn't guarantee you'll EVER reach the perfect absolute viewpoint, just like science doesn't ever guarantee truth (it wouldn't be science otherwise, that's why we keep improving it).
Furthermore some people just do not WANT to look from a neutral perspective, because they don't LIKE it, so they keep to subjective morals. That does NOT mean that absolute morals don't exist -- it simply means those people are not willing to discover or consider them.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 24, 2009 04:59 PM |
|
|
@Bin
Yes, the intent of the thought experiment was to try to imagine how morals would develop in a "society" that cannot be taught their morals from someone else.
Do you believe that people in such a society would be little better than animals? Or do you believe that such people would believe that killing each other, for example, is wrong?
I'm not sure I agree that morality is genetic, per se, but I do believe that the capability for emotion is innate. That is, such a society would be capable of, for example, love. I've defended this position elsewhere so I'll assume it here. Anyway, if people are able to love each other, then it stands to reason that murder would naturally evolve to be anathema. In the beginning this might only apply to people an individual personally loves, but I don't see it as too much of a stretch to go from the idea of "killing someone I love = bad" to "killing in general = bad". The latter is, of course, a rudimentary system of morality.
The point is that in an isolated society, morality will arise naturally because of our capacity for emotion (which in turn IS genetic, because emotional responses are primarily biochemical). Therefore, obviously, morality does not come from God or religion - it comes from humans.
Anyway, that's what I was getting at - perhaps I overcomplicated it with the permutations.
Quote:
Corribus, you had a baby not long ago, let me ask a question. I'll phrase it as "was your experience similar to mine?"
I know exactly what you mean, I agree it's hard to describe what you are referring to. My daughter, though barely able to communicate, clearly knows when she's doing something she's not supposed to be doing. That doesn't mean she doesn't do it anyway, of course.
However, I also know that she is much more efficient at receiving communication than giving it. For instance, comprehension of language comes way before being able to speak it. My daughter understands a huge amount of vocabulary even though she can only say a handful of words, and poorly at that. She can't, for example, say Fire-Truck very well, but if I ask her to point at a Fire-Truck, she can do it with no problem.
So, whether her understanding of "You don't hit your friend!" is an innate understanding of morality, or an understanding arising from observation of my own actions isn't really clear. That's why my thought experiment aimed at invisaging a society where a child's actions MUST be intrinsic to them and not due to outside influences.
|
| |
|
|
