|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 18, 2014 04:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The question about rights and if they are innate is what started this thread and all of us elaborated on it in the early pages. I'd say animals can have legal protection rather than rights because they wont be able to comprehend any rights they posses. And yes, if things go downhill and chaotic, most rights will be canceled, it's called martial law. However, societies with regimes that recognize certain rights, at least when conditions are normal and peaceful, prove to be much more prosperous, wealthier and also stronger, since they attract brain power and they develop better technologies, better production with better motivated work force. So even only on a pragmatical basis, rights are good.
Oh, my opinion is often what I feel is missing rather than what it is as a whole. It may brainwash us to make us think and feel righteous, often missing out on our own hypocrisy, but yes, you're right, it definitely has more pros than cons.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 04:53 PM |
|
|
Ok, it seems I feel compelled by my inevitably self-destructive conscious to let you know what I think of this.
First of all a clarification:
artu said:
Nearus:
Quote:
I find myself with JJ, it says simply that with only human morality one may simply think that he is entitled to do whatever he wants. Anyway if I have time we'll talk about it tomorrow.
But that's not what he says, even if you only read THIS thread from the beginning. I had like 10 pages of discussion about ethics with JJ and although with different angles, we both agree that morality is mostly based on historical context with subjective tones of individuality. That's why he automatically set things in comparison of social/individual as opposed to individual/divine. But that's got nothing to do with my objection.
As I understand you are telling me that I agree to what JJ said in all of the thread, not just the last message:
artu said:
Well, Neraus the critical part is this:
"inside a world where there's only human morality, my morality is not any lower or any higher than yours or anyone else's. And since we can't find common ground at an ideological level, then the only thing that's left is "might makes right". If you're happy living, then fight to live. If I'm happy killing you, then I'll fight to kill you. In the end it's my happiness vs. yours. There's no reason for me to put your happiness above mine like there's no reason for you to put mine above yours."
This indicates that without faith in some super-natural we might as well shift into this dog-eat-dog chaos, which is not the case both empirically and theoretically, ethics is not as simple as suggesting "if there's no god, everything goes." I enlisted the reasons for it, in my first post.
To which he responded that this wasn't the case and I agreed with his interpretation of the quote and I wrote what I understood from it, and I still don't know how you are interpreting that quote, so, please, could you tell me why do you interpret it that differently.
Now to the topic at hand:
As I think we have established already morality is a socially constructed phenomenon, now I hear debates between already ingrained concepts like: "Murder is bad" as something that is moral to all men, and a subjective interpretation of morality as in: "Murder is bad for you, but it makes me happy and I think it's a good thing".
To explain myself better, morality isn't tangible, it is something that we all experience but cannot give a good idea of what it is, our concept of morality derives from the simple "This is what is good and this is bad" and all the various social ideas that in time became ingrained in our minds as universal codes of conduct that we think everyone should follow.
We also have moral relativism, which can be defined as more correct when confronted with the definition I gave earlier, and that's what you're discussing, but at that point the ones that are immoral, those who diverge from the normal moral codes become legitimized to do what they think is right.
First I want to respond to Mvassilev:
mvassilev said:
Stevie said:
And by which measure that is outside of yourself did you judged that? Because genuine happiness can be extracted out of the excitement of killing someone. That's what motivates serial killers, "the game". Are you saying that they are not happy when they do that?
My claim here has three parts. First, if the murderer is mentally healthy, he'd be happier living a virtuous life, which means no murdering. Second, if the murderer isn't mentally healthy, he should seek out treatment to make himself sane. Third and most importantly (though I think I didn't go into this in my link), it is rational for him to agree to a societal rule of "murder is wrong", because a society with such a rule will be better according to his own preferences than a society without it.
More broadly, I take morality to be a subset of the conclusions of instrumental rationality, which are objective. Supposing that there is some extremely powerful alien Caligula who enjoys torturing people, the right thing for him to do would be to torture. We may not like it if he tortured us, but we would be wrong if we said that he shouldn't do so.
Labeling someone as a psychopath just because he thinks it's alright to murder is a broad generalization, but, I don't know about you but sometimes I do think I should murder someone because he threatens something dear to me, or simply because he disagrees with me. Of course, if you grew up in today's common society you would shiver at the thought, as it would go against your idea of morality, but there are others who murder by moral obligations, take those who administer euthanasia, even if it is explicitly asked for it is still murder, but some of them think it's a moral duty to murder someone that doesn't want to live, are they psychopaths?
artu said:
Part of what constitutes morality is indeed instrumental rationality and the very basic notion of "dont do to others, what you don't want for yourself" yet, studies also show that it exists the way it does because we are capable of affection and empathy. That's the part sociopaths lack, not intelligence or rationality and that's why they are the ones who start their behavioral pattern by torturing animals as kids. And even if that wasn't so, a completely objective set of moral rules would only be possible if happiness was completely objectifiable, we were omniscient and the conditions we lived in were never ever changing. Rationality develops according to the conditions.
and
artu said:
And the measure you can use to decide if one person or the other is right is dependent on factors such as harmfulness, selfishness and overall consaquances of the act which is only subjective to a degree. That is, where as raising your voice to your mother can be considered morally wrong in one society and completely casual in another, killing neighbor's children just to eat their livers will be considered wrong in all of them. Sex out of wedlock will be considered wrong almost everywhere in feudal times where there's no birth control or DNA test, yet once these become available it will cease to be a taboo almost everywhere accordingly and even religious people wont care about it much anymore, start to let it slide. Barbaric societies living on plunder will have no problem with killing strangers, they will even praise it as skills of a warrior, yet once that way of living stops, the praise will also stop.
Each society will have some notion of common sense that they are basing their moral ground on, shaped by the way they live and that will not be absolutely subjective. And if you can manage to violate these rules because you don't care for them, "being able to get away" with a crime and the subjectivity of that crime mean something else entirely, if a psychopath can get away with killing for fun, it certainly does not mean that society as a whole sees killing for fun as a subjective matter. And any individual's personality is strongly linked to his social upbringing whether he is aware of it or not.
This describes perfectly why social norms were constructed and how they mutated during history, but that isn't morality, these norms are not coming from a deep common inner conscience of man but rather the instinct of self-preservation and growth of their own society, take this example:
There is a small village of humans, where there are like 50 of them, and all work hard to survive in their environment.
Suddenly someone decides to kill a man he had a disagreement with.
With his death the village has already lost manpower and this man's wife decides to get vengeance against the murderer and his family.
Now the village has lost let's say 7 individuals, two adult men, a woman and 4 children.
This means that when they need to harvest the crops, hunt or defend the village they won't be as efficient as they were at the beginning of the story.
What is the most reasonable thing to do then?
Of course the chief decides to teach everybody to respect some rules, they do this especially to children and this children learn what the chief says it's good and what it's bad.
But did the chief have an higher sense of morality than the rest of the village, do they have a morality at all?
That's the problem that arises, how do we distinguish moral codes from conducts necessary to the survival and growth of the community?
The immorality of sex out of wedlock had three reasons: one, in case a child was born from this union this child could be not recognized and then sent off to some orphanage, to be adopted or on the streets, the chance that this child would become a burglar was not something that would have been wanted, the chance this child wanted to open his own activity but wouldn't have the money from his parents to do so or the chance that he would grow up in a foster family were a risk.
The other reason is inheritance, a child born out of marriage and then recognized after some years could pose problems to inheritance, so it wasn't something the legitimate heirs would have liked, especially if all children inherited a portion of their father's wealth, that would mean that the child that was born from another mother could steal from them what was rightfully theirs.
And a third, which is just to discourage everyone from being unfaithful, it is a problem of incontinence, meaning that the ones who committed it once could potentially do it again, or with some others, creating confusion and hatred between families, the fact that the ones committing it would have been scorned by relatives and the populace or knowing it is a sin to do so was a way to discourage everyone.
Saying it is immoral gives a good advantage to society as a whole, but gives a disadvantage to anyone that would want to commit this act, what if the wedded man that wants to bed another woman thinks it's immoral to restrain himself? Isn't it against him?
But saying that it has ceased to be a taboo it's wrong, as it still damages the reputation of a family, as we say where I live being unfaithful to your spouse is said to be "Fare le corna" which means "Giving the horns to someone" or "Making the horns for someone", when somebody gives these "horns" his reputation will be forever damaged, especially if your wife has given them to you, that's a shame on you, because you couldn't restrain your spouse from bedding somebody else.
The example of barbarians needs also some more explanation, killing a stranger meant that you have one less opponent to fight and one less guard against your plundering, but it doesn't stop there, for them it was a moral duty to fight, especially sworn enemies (by sworn enemies I mean people at war with you, since as we said they plundered other villages), but it was more like a cult, the vikings began to stop their plundering after they had been converted to Christianity, not having a god to answer for your kills meant having less need to kill a stranger.
But, that doesn't mean we as a whole haven't stopped killing strangers, sometimes they felt morally obligated by our honor, maybe they wouldn't kill a stranger to rob him of his belongings, but they would kill a stranger that had wronged them, or at least resort to violence to settle the question.
In fact where I live we hear about "crimes of honour", and the ones who committed it would say that they felt obligated by their honor.
Also, about the praise of the skills of a warrior, it was the minimum thing you could do for the one who protected you or made your society wealthier, and that didn't stop today, sure we don't praise the aim of someone, or his musculature or his valor, but we recognize the bravery of some soldiers, we express our gratitude to the guardians of our society, our brains dictate so as to not anger them, because we know they could kill us more easily than a normal Joe.
Let's talk about cultures that practiced human sacrifices, they thought it was a moral duty to kill somebody in order to appease some kind of power, also, these cultures weren't just a few, but they were sparse in all of the world, of course you will shiver at the thought of killing your friend, eat his heart and dress in his skin because of a moral duty in some culture, and don't believe that these things haven't stopped, still to this day there are some groups that practice human sacrifices, but isn't that immoral?
They don't think so, they think they have a moral obligation to do so.
To continue my response to Mvassilev were all these cultures with these abominable practices comprised by psychopaths?
All of this was to say that morality and preservation instinct are two separate things, and that many of our moral principles were influenced by the latter.
In fact I believe that the definition of morality is like the definition of soul, or happiness, we can only agree with an interpretation of it.
I hope this analysis was clear enough and helped you understand what I think about the objectivity of morality from our point of view.
Putting that aside, I haven't yet expressed myself on my personal opinion.
I tried to explain morality from an objective point of view, which, mind you, is prone to be disagreed with, because as I said we can only interpret morality and cannot define it.
But, if we seek the help of an higher morality, be it the group, the city, the society, the state, the world or God, we can borrow or embrace the code of conduct that we grew up with.
That said, and I know that for you it means discrediting myself, I believe that God's morality is the zenit in moral concept.
The reason is simple, if He created everything then He knows what's right and what's wrong.
Of course you don't have to believe so as you are free to not believe in the same thing I believe in.
Repetitions aside, since this thread is apparently also about religion, I wanted to talk about something that has bothered me for a lot of time, and I want to get off my chest:
I found in the internet something that has been repeated to the point of nausea, and I hope you don't think so, that Theists in general and especially Christians are reputed to be dull idiots, bigots and ignorant.
Why do you think these people have this idea?
I know my answer, but I want to know what you all think of this.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 05:43 PM |
|
|
I agree with your text for the most part.
About the examples. People might start arguing over the context rather than see the point. Like, with civilizations sacrificing live humans to appease a power of some sort, someone might say that they acted on a belief which is wrong - while the problem is not that at all, but rather that regardless if it was right or wrong to sacrifice humans, we have no authority within ourselves over others to decide what's right or wrong for them.
Remember, the value of my morality is equal to the value of anyone else's morality. This might as well be regarded as an axiom.
Also I would like to point out that utilitarianism in morality is a recipe for disaster, because you can eliminate any intrinsic value of an action by sheer numbers. For example, in a village of 7 billion people called Earth it would be beneficial to exterminate some 2 billion for more space and resources for the other 5 billion. And at that point you've just made mass murder morally right and even desirable. That's the reason we have very influential people that think about depopulation plans and I don't think it's because they're psychopaths.
About Theists being idiots, etc.
Some are, some are not. Idiocy is not a result of faith. So it's a false premise. The argument is just highly emotional.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I found in the internet something that has been repeated to the point of nausea, and I hope you don't think so, that Theists in general and especially Christians are reputed to be dull idiots, bigots and ignorant.
I've rarely encountered this, and those times I had were just youtube where some random guy/woman posts some off=topic comment about god or a religion and thus gets dogged or ridiculed.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 18:02, 18 Oct 2014.
|
About human sacrifices, the point wasn't about their beliefs or their religion, but rather the moral duty of their sacrifice.
Though I agree that my examples could be mis-interpreted, as I've been called "obscure", they were kind of necessary to drive the point.
The problem with social morality is this, it's not like the majority knows what's better for everyone, they do what they think is better for themselves, especially if it's a small group that's dictating the rules.
And about my question: It's not like I'm asking why are Theists idiots? But rather why are Theists are percieved as idiots?
That perception didn't come from just your average youtube user, but rather from some places I went in, like there was some hidden consensus, that's the reason I hope it's not how I think it is.
Anyway I'm expecting some more answers, then I'll try to explain why I asked the question.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:12 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
...that Theists in general and especially Christians are reputed to be dull idiots, bigots and ignorant.
Why do you think these people have this idea?
I know my answer, but I want to know what you all think of this.
I do hope these slams are not happening here @ HC. It's impossible for me to read all that is in this thread, so I won't try.
When it comes to those descriptions of people, I have heard those labels used on all sorts of folks, no matter their background. People are universal and so are their rants.
Why would you care what motivates them? I ask because I did "once upon a time" but that faded very quickly. Debate, conversation and fellowship etc. all need the common meeting ground of respect. Just remember what Christ said about where you cast your treasure. And btw, that goes for every person.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:17 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 18:33, 18 Oct 2014.
|
That I know of I haven't seen these things on HC, but the reason of this question is radicated in knowing why people say these things, which, no matter how much I think about it I can't understand the reason.
Perhaps it's not actually what I feared, but just to be sure I wanted to ask if someone knew the reason.
But if it's not this large phenomenon that I thought of, then this question doesn't mean anything after all...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:37 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 18:38, 18 Oct 2014.
|
You think labeling is the forerunner of the outright persecution towards Christians in the end days?
Or maybe you think about Psalms 14?
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:50 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 18:50, 18 Oct 2014.
|
No, what I fear is that given time this idea could really damage some people, the web gives a voice to many...
To be sincere I posted the question while I was reading some news about things that are happening in Italy, so maybe that made me a little too fired up about the subject...
It's more like an advancing wave, but I'm positive that an outright discrimination won't happen in the near future.
Also @stevie
I like how Psalm 14 was integrated in the Sorceress theme in Heroes II
Anyway, disregard that question, I asked it in a moment of self-interrogation.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 06:52 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
About Theists being idiots, etc.
Some are, some are not. Idiocy is not a result of faith.
Sorry to interfere, but I think this is very debatable. While consciously pursuing your spiritual development is commendable, joining an established religion such as Christianity or Islam can in fact have serious impact on your intellectual development. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development.
I must just underline that there is such danger, not that it always occur. I know a lot of very religious people with a very open mindset, but I know even more religious people with an insane intolerant behavior and creepy arguments.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:29, 18 Oct 2014.
|
@Neraus
First let me help you get that thing off your chest:
"I found in the internet something that has been repeated to the point of nausea, and I hope you don't think so, that Theists in general and especially Christians are reputed to be dull idiots, bigots and ignorant."
Sal's post above covers it quite well, but let me add some of my own words. People become religious for many reasons, including cultural habitat, psychological need of an anchor, sometimes they just like to inherit the family tradition. No, of course, I don't think all of them are stupid, (my favorite novelist is Dostoyevsky and my favorite HC poster is baklava, for Christ's sake ). But that doesn't change the very simple fact that religion itself is dogmatic, it's horizon and norms are way behind our knowledge and comprehension, God is not a very deep or interesting idea which deserves some special treatment and no matter how smart or comprehensive a religious person may be, his attempts at defending religion itself are doomed to be not so smart because the material is not exactly shining gold. And the smart ones are at least decent enough to realize that they would be most probably defending a whole other set of religious rules if only they were born somewhere else. In cases like this, basically, it's like watching a friend who's in love with a very ugly girl, telling you on and on about how beautiful she is.
Then we have the "God said so and that's that" type, which is way more common than the free-thinker, spiritual religious type. Since that is literally the opposite of what an intellectual person is, I honestly think all they do is not bring down but zap down the quality of any discussion they participate in.
So back on topic, you had written quite a long post and most of it elaborates on what I already said, with one critical difference, the oversimplification here:
Quote:
To explain myself better, morality isn't tangible, it is something that we all experience but cannot give a good idea of what it is, our concept of morality derives from the simple "This is what is good and this is bad" and all the various social ideas that in time became ingrained in our minds as universal codes of conduct that we think everyone should follow.
We also have moral relativism, which can be defined as more correct when confronted with the definition I gave earlier, and that's what you're discussing, but at that point the ones that are immoral, those who diverge from the normal moral codes become legitimized to do what they think is right.
The first part is just a conceptualization of morality that religious people can't seem to shake off and in reality, as in when we look through history, it does not exist. Even religions themselves and their teachings bend to the spirit of the time which is the major determiner of what is morally acceptable, just look at the relation between slavery and religion. Or premarital sex and religion (yes, it has not completely ceased to be a taboo but is about to be very soon.)
Morality being a social construct does not mean or does not result in every single individual arbitrarily making up a set of moral rules that suits them best from scratch. We are not Robinsons deciding what morality is or what it will turn into, sitting under a tree. It doesn't work that way. There may be pioneers whose comprehension of what morality should consist of is beyond their time, there are one dimensional approaches based on ideological limitations and there are simply people with anti-social personality disorder who can get away
with things, yet, an overall look will clearly show you that the actual painter that holds the brush on morality is history and patterns that are rooted deeply in every civilization. These are also tangible yet their movements are more like the movement of the tectonic plates. Social constructs change slowly and it's hard to observe bigger changes in a life time, yet they are there, morality evolves and apart from very general socio-biological patterns such as don't kill own group members for no reason, protect the younglings etc, we have no way of knowing what people will think of as a moral act, 20.000 years from now.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 08:28 PM |
|
|
Stevie:Stevie said:
Your statement was this: "First, if the murderer is mentally healthy, he'd be happier living a virtuous life, which means no murdering.", which is very different from this: "either being virtuous makes them happier, or not.".
These are separate but related arguments. There's the more specific argument that humans should be virtuous because it would make them happier, as that is how human nature is constituted. Then there's the more general argument that however a being is constituted - whatever its nature is - it should do what makes it happy. In the case of humans, they should be virtuous, e.g. they shouldn't murder, because being virtuous would make them happier. But if we're considering something with a radically different nature from humans, such as a rational Caligula-alien who gains great pleasure from torturing others, we have no argument to offer it that it should do what we humans would consider moral, i.e. it has no reason to be moral in the specifics of what that entails for humans. However, there are truths about what the Caligula-alien should do, which are derived from the application of instrumental rationality to its desires. We may not like what it should do, but we can't deny that it is indeed what it should do. The decision rule that motivates the Caligula-alien to torture is the same decision rule that would motivate humans to live virtuously.
Quote:
So answer me this question: Why is murder morally wrong to an individual when that brings him happiness? And defend your position that a murderer would be happier living virtuously and not murdering.
If some individual, such as the Caligula-alien, would be made happier by murdering than not murdering, then it would be rational for them to murder. Then there's a terminological choice - you can either say that it is moral for the Caligula-alien to murder (because that's what it should do), or you can say that it has no reason to be moral (because it can rationally reject the commandment "do not murder"). If you choose the former, then morality is universal, but its content can vary widely, at least theoretically. If you choose the latter, then the content of morality looks more familiar, but then there are possible beings that can rationally reject being moral. Ultimately that's just a terminological difference, though.
But due to human nature, a human would be happier living virtuously and not murdering, because humans aren't Caligula-aliens. As many have said, man is a social animal, and gains much from peaceful, mutually positive interaction with other people. In contrast, murderers are often unhappy. Look at a prison, for example - do the murderers there look like they lived happy lives before they were caught? Do you think that if you had traded lives with them, you'd be happier? Of course not, as that's at least in part because being virtuous leads to happiness.
Neraus:
Things like euthanasia and self-defense aren't murder, because they aren't the unjust killing of someone against their will.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 08:53 PM |
|
|
@artu
You do have a valid point about people who blindly follow religion and this (not surprisingly) has been actually discouraged by many religious men (Just think about the concept of Fides et Ratio).
I had a missing piece in my understanding of this opinion, and you gave me some ideas.
I wasn't actually saying that we built morality from scratch, but that we evolved a sense of morality as to thrive as a civilization.
Mostly my idea is that the morality we are talking about was developed to ingrain laws into the conscious of people, as to make them agree that some things should not be done.
Anyway, I elaborated on some of your examples to make my point that old moral codes are difficult to remove, as we have been teached since our childhood the moral code of our parents and our society, and that's what they were teached when they were children and so on, but the revolutionary will at some point appear trying to change the society's morality.
But, I agree on the rest of your response, our sense of morality is after all different from the ancient Romans moral codes, or even more different from the ancient Egyptian one, to be fair it's also different from Medieval Europe's, but let's not forget they were the foundations of our modern morality, and even if it will be different from the one from thousands of years in the future we'll see that they should have something in common with ours.
Unfortunately predictions are bound to end in disappointment, as I can only speculate what they will do, who's to say we won't be killed by aliens.
@mvas
It depends on what you define as murder, I just define it as killing a man, but it is possible to justify a murder.
Also, for some groups euthanasia and abortion are murder, but let's not go there, or else things will get messy.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 09:05 PM |
|
|
Your argument from human nature is not any different than an argument from quantity. But it doesn't even matter anymore because I already got my answer with your "alien" example.
mvassilev said:
If some individual, such as the Caligula-alien, would be made happier by murdering than not murdering, then it would be rational for them to murder.
Thank you. If it's an alien is justified but if it's a human it isn't. You just need to replace Caligula-alien with Human and you get exactly what I'm trying to say.
So how does exactly "human nature" make that immoral? And what exactly is human nature if not ultimately a human source for a standard? You think not murdering is not human nature? And why should I listen to my human nature if that comes in the way of my happiness? You think a sentient being cannot comprehend what makes it happy? What, do I sin against my human nature if I murder to achieve happiness? Then human nature is a just a hindrance preventing me from achieving happiness for no valid reason.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 09:19 PM |
|
|
Social context is not argument from quantity since it does not imply majority is always right. It's an ontological part of human nature itself. Jack The Ripper and Galilei were both condemned by the majority, where as one has anti-social personality disorder and the other doesn't.
People who are diagnosed with psychopathy are not diagnosed so because they disagree with majority, they are diagnosed so because they lack certain capabilities of affection and empathy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 09:33 PM |
|
|
Neraus:
If you define murder merely as "killing people", then it would be uncontroversial to say that murder can be justified. Few would say that you're morally forbidden from killing someone in self-defense.
Stevie:
If human nature were more variable than I think it is, then Caligula-alien-like humans would be possible. However, I also stipulated that the Caligula-alien is powerful, which would mean that they could do what they want with impunity. Not so for humans, who can defend themselves and kill each other, and would rationally agree not to kill each other, because even if you have no regard for other people's well-being as such, you would still find it in your self-interest to refrain from murdering in exchange for others doing the same to you, because self-preservation is really important.
But as for human nature, it shapes what would be rational for a human to do. It's not preventing you from doing something, it partially determines what you should do. It's not a hindrance, it's part of who you are.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If human nature were more variable than I think it is, then Caligula-alien-like humans would be possible. However, I also stipulated that the Caligula-alien is powerful, which would mean that they could do what they want with impunity. Not so for humans, who can defend themselves and kill each other, and would rationally agree not to kill each other, because even if you have no regard for other people's well-being as such, you would still find it in your self-interest to refrain from murdering in exchange for others doing the same to you, because self-preservation is really important.
I am of course arguing the example in which self preservation comes second to achieving happiness for an individual. I would pursue happiness in spite of the risk of punishment. Even much so if there's a chance that I can get away with it. Preserving myself in a state which denies me happiness is by far the worst case for me. That's akin to the concept of Hell in Christianity.
Quote:
But as for human nature, it shapes what would be rational for a human to do. It's not preventing you from doing something, it partially determines what you should do. It's not a hindrance, it's part of who you are.
Then what you understand by human nature is just a rehashed concept of individual morality which is different from one person to another to the point it can be contradictory. It is not a standard within ourselves that has the same definition for everyone. What you understand by human nature can be very different from what I understand. Which is a prime example that our nature is different. Which was my point all along. We have different moral compasses which define our nature in different and even contradictory ways. By that you can't make a case for what is right or wrong.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 18, 2014 10:58 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:19, 18 Oct 2014.
|
Which had been moot all along because your compass is not any less human, except for the fact that you are partly in denial that it's human, yet, once you admit it's as subjective as a non-theistic compass, there is no ground to differentiate it as super-human.
It's extremely simple: As long as it's humans that interpret what "God" wants, God's morality is as relative as a human's morality. Which turns the question into how relative human morality is. There are three possibilities:
1- Morality is absolutely objective.
That would mean it's timeless and independent of how circumstances shape it.
2- Morality is partly subjective and conditional, it's never poison, but it's like a liquid that takes the shape of the container it is filled in.
3- Morality is absolutely subjective (which equals to arbitrary or chaotic depending on your terminology).
That would, again, mean it's independent of how circumstances shape it.
1 and 3 are refuted by anthropological studies since we can not witness any compass that had been accepted no matter what the circumstances are.
You can not claim that your compass is objective according to your subjective POV. That is paradoxical.
And when he says, it's not about hindrance, what he means is, it's not about "not being able to get away with it" which you insist on not getting and repeat the same "I subjectively believe in my objectivity" instead. Why wouldn't dogs eat their own puppies all the time, if they have no universal compass or criminal law, because that's not how they developed as a specie, spiders on the other hand, didn't. We are closer to dogs. We don't need to assume a super-natural guardian, to observe that and see that number 3 is not the case.
Aren't there people whose actions are closer to spiders? There are, it's a reality. But it's not what constitutes us as a specie, as a whole. Not because majority restricts it, because majority does not feel that way to begin with.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 12:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am of course arguing the example in which self preservation comes second to achieving happiness for an individual. I would pursue happiness in spite of the risk of punishment.
In this specific case, to do so would be irrational, because unless murder is literally the only way you can get anything positive, you would gain more in a world where no one can murder compared to a world in which anyone can. As the philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote, "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Or, to put it more shortly, "If we don't accept that murder is wrong, then life would suck".
Which means that even if you enjoy murder in general, you would still be better off if you were to agree to not murder, with other people doing the same, because it protects you and makes civil society possible.Quote:
What you understand by human nature can be very different from what I understand.
We can disagree about it, but if we do, at least one of us is wrong, because it's a matter of fact. What human nature is isn't a matter of opinion, any more than gravity is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 01:03 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Or, to put it more shortly, "If we don't accept that murder is wrong, then life would suck".
For the murderer it's "If I don't accept murder as right, then life would suck.", so back at you.
We can keep this all day, it won't go beyond what one considers right and another considers wrong. Which is exactly what I'm trying to prove.
Quote:
Which means that even if you enjoy murder in general, you would still be better off if you were to agree to not murder, with other people doing the same, because it protects you and makes civil society possible.
The one that enjoys murder would beg to differ. He says that he knows better than you what's best for him and he decided that he would pursue happiness no matter what the cost, because that's his ultimate goal in life.
Quote:
We can disagree about it, but if we do, at least one of us is wrong, because it's a matter of fact. What human nature is isn't a matter of opinion, any more than gravity is.
It doesn't matter what human nature is to our conversation, since it can be established that its source is ultimately human, the individual, which makes it subjective so not fit as a standard.
|
| |
|
|
