| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2008 02:45:29 PM · #1051 |
Originally posted by Louis:
To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral. |
According to this article and your definition - americans eating meat is immoral.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 14:48:27. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:45:44 PM · #1052 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I didn't say killing was wrong. I said killing SOMEONE was immoral. |
Sorry, you misunderstand. Is it morally wrong for one ant to kill another ant? Do moral absolutes extend to everything within the universe?
Originally posted by dahkota:
'Wrong but acceptable' is different from 'less wrong.' You are stuck in a utilitarian way of viewing things - through their ends and the amount of good promoted. Killing one person instead of another because of circumstance is not 'less wrong,' but you may be more justified in doing so - a completely different topic. |
You are merely substituting one word for another. If you like the word "acceptable" better than just replace it in all my conversation above. Your position begs the question "who cares if something is always 'wrong' if at the same time it is often acceptable? What practical knowledge is gained by proving or knowing something is always wrong if there are many instances where it is accpetable?
Originally posted by dahkota:
Believing in a creator does not preclude secularism just as it does not promote religion. Additionally, your statement implies that there could be no morality before the belief in a god nor without a belief in a god unless that morality is relative. I disagree. It is possible to have objective discoverable moral truth without a god just as we have objective discoverable physical truth about the universe. |
I would like an example of an objective discoverable moral truth and the process in which it was discovered. Take your "Killing someone is wrong". How was this discovered?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:46:15 PM · #1053 |
Originally posted by Louis:
In my view, very simply. There is only one moral absolute: suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral. Since we're talking about the human sphere, this doesn't mean to suggest that destructive natural forces like hurricanes are immoral. We also don't need to confuse the abatement of suffering with hedonism, so we don't need to argue that shooting heroin is moral. We don't need gods for any of this, since we are strictly talking about humans' ability to cause or ameliorate suffering. |
I think many people, myself included, might take issue with your blanket statement that causing suffering is immoral.
The marathon runner. The masochist. The weightlifter. The soldier. The doctor.
There are many situations where suffering is not only expected, but is actually beneficial!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:47:17 PM · #1054 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I think many people, myself included, might take issue with your blanket statement that causing suffering is immoral. |
Causing suffering to others. The soldier is actually a good example. If a soldier causes harm outside the context of combat, he can and will be punished for that immoral action. Ultimately, his job is not to kill, but to protect- even if it means harming others to prevent greater harm.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 14:50:32. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:48:04 PM · #1055 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
you were probably the least directly against my idea that absolute morality is dependent on a Supreme Being |
What on earth ever gave you that idea?
Originally posted by scalvert:
A basic sense of right and wrong does NOT require religion. |
Monkeys have a sense of morality. People with no exposure to any particular religion understand that killing people is wrong (though sometimes necessary). Absolute Morality is not and CANNOT require a Supreme Being. It only requires evolution as a social animal, and with that the need for cooperation and consideration, basically expressed as Louis just described. |
You are confusing the question. I am not arguing moral amorality apart from a supreme being. Read the wiki on Moral universalism and get back to me on what that has to do with evolution. (hint: nothing) |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:49:05 PM · #1056 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I think many people, myself included, might take issue with your blanket statement that causing suffering is immoral. |
Causing suffering to others. |
The doctor, the school teacher, the parent. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:49:22 PM · #1057 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Suffering leads to growth. A life without suffering may not produce much. |
I would take issue with this because it's not universal. I've been reading a lot about the Inquisition lately. There is no doubt in my mind that it was universally immoral, even though the position of the Catholic church and the current pope is one of moral relativism that excuses the Inquisition as an expression of the morality of the time. There is no amount of apology that could be constructed about the Inquisition that would help me conclude that it "helped individuals grow". It helped society to grow out of the stranglehold of the church and into the age of the Enlightenment, but we could have done without the hot irons to the feet, the rack, and the autos-de-fe to begin with. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:50:25 PM · #1058 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
There are many situations where suffering is not only expected, but is actually beneficial! |
The definition of suffering doesn't generally include that which is ultimately a benefit. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:51:20 PM · #1059 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I think many people, myself included, might take issue with your blanket statement that causing suffering is immoral. |
Causing suffering to others. |
That's why I included the masochist, who depends on the sadist to cause them suffering for sexual gratification, the doctor, who routinely causes others to suffer for a longer-term beneficial goal, and the soldier, who's duty often causes suffering to the enemy.
Or is a soldier following their orders... immoral?
Support our troops!
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 14:53:15. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:51:54 PM · #1060 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong" (you are welcome to make X as simple or complex, situational or absolute as you like but don't introduce a specific example in your argument). What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect. Dahkota can play too please. |
To argue against a position I would need to understand that position. Supply me with something where two people would disagree.
With regard to homosexual marriage, the problem I see here is:
one group looks at it as a morality problem related to sexual choice
one group looks at it as a problem with discrimination.
Neither side will ever agree until they start arguing the same point. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:54:00 PM · #1061 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There are many situations where suffering is not only expected, but is actually beneficial! |
The definition of suffering doesn't generally include that which is ultimately a benefit. |
Uh oh, here come the qualifications. however, suffering as defined by dictionary.com merely states "To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment." It mentions nothing about benefit and specifically does mention punishment as being suffering although we can hope and assume punishment can carry benefit. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:54:46 PM · #1062 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There are many situations where suffering is not only expected, but is actually beneficial! |
The definition of suffering doesn't generally include that which is ultimately a benefit. |
I disagree!
No pain no gain!!!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:54:56 PM · #1063 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong" (you are welcome to make X as simple or complex, situational or absolute as you like but don't introduce a specific example in your argument). What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect. Dahkota can play too please. |
To argue against a position I would need to understand that position. Supply me with something where two people would disagree.
|
Nope. I just need to know what method or authority is presented in general to show B is wrong and A is right. Is it rationality? What? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:56:44 PM · #1064 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Uh oh, here come the qualifications. |
You are correct sir! I don't like it when any side of an issue uses a ratchet to construct their arguments. :)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 02:58:11 PM · #1065 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the wiki on Moral universalism and get back to me on what that has to do with evolution. (hint: nothing) |
Everything. Religious diversity precludes a common "universal" morality, but do we share a common evolutionary ancestry that emphasizes cooperation and compassion to overcome our lack of fangs and claws in order to survive. A Buddhist monk, Muslim jihadist, or cannibal tribesman will not agree on whether their god condones killing, but all will normally hesitate to kill a friend or family member. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:02:58 PM · #1066 |
| Let me throw Louis a lifeline. Perhaps the word he's looking for is "cruelty" rather than "suffering". My goal wasn't to rip down his framework, but rather ask why he considers his framework to be corrent if and when someone disagrees with it. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:04:18 PM · #1067 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I didn't say killing was wrong. I said killing SOMEONE was immoral. |
Sorry, you misunderstand. Is it morally wrong for one ant to kill another ant? Do moral absolutes extend to everything within the universe? |
I don't know - I am not an ant.
Originally posted by dahkota:
'Wrong but acceptable' is different from 'less wrong.' You are stuck in a utilitarian way of viewing things - through their ends and the amount of good promoted. Killing one person instead of another because of circumstance is not 'less wrong,' but you may be more justified in doing so - a completely different topic. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are merely substituting one word for another. If you like the word "acceptable" better than just replace it in all my conversation above. Your position begs the question "who cares if something is always 'wrong' if at the same time it is often acceptable? What practical knowledge is gained by proving or knowing something is always wrong if there are many instances where it is accpetable? |
No I'm not - there is a vast difference between 'less wrong' and 'wrong but acceptable.' Less wrong implies there is a continuum - a sliding scale if you will. Being acceptable by society has no relation to the morality of an individual act.
John kills Joe. Is it wrong? Is it wrong if Joe was a thief? Is it wrong if John was out of his mind on drugs? Is it wrong if Joe was a drunk driver? Or if Joe was the father of ten? These are situations where acceptability comes into play. The act is never 'less wrong,' it only more acceptable in some instances than in others. Our view of morality in the United States is very much shaped by our laws. Our laws take situations, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, into consideration when deciding punishment and assigning blame.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would like an example of an objective discoverable moral truth and the process in which it was discovered. Take your "Killing someone is wrong". How was this discovered? |
Hmmm...the same way your god was discovered. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:04:19 PM · #1068 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
That's why I included the masochist, who depends on the sadist to cause them suffering for sexual gratification, the doctor, who routinely causes others to suffer for a longer-term beneficial goal, and the soldier, who's duty often causes suffering to the enemy. |
A masochist doesn't suffer at the hands of another. By definition, he enjoys it.
The doctor must first do no harm.
I already explained soldiers.
A teacher or parent who inflicts suffering violates the law (and, no, "you can't have ice cream" isn't suffering). |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:06:38 PM · #1069 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the wiki on Moral universalism and get back to me on what that has to do with evolution. (hint: nothing) |
Everything. Religious diversity precludes a common "universal" morality, but do we share a common evolutionary ancestry that emphasizes cooperation and compassion to overcome our lack of fangs and claws in order to survive. A Buddhist monk, Muslim jihadist, or cannibal tribesman will not agree on whether their god condones killing, but all will normally hesitate to kill a friend or family member. |
OK. I might give you this (I haven't decided yet). But I may then counter your universal morality is very weak and unhelpful because we have so many different ways in which to interpret "cooperation" and "compassion". I'd actually take beef with "compassion". I think you just threw that in. Evolutionarily, give me an example where "compassion" plays a role that couldn't simply be described under "cooperation". |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:09:31 PM · #1070 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
John kills Joe. Is it wrong? Is it wrong if Joe was a thief? Is it wrong if John was out of his mind on drugs? Is it wrong if Joe was a drunk driver? Or if Joe was the father of ten? These are situations where acceptability comes into play. The act is never 'less wrong,' it only more acceptable in some instances than in others. Our view of morality in the United States is very much shaped by our laws. Our laws take situations, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, into consideration when deciding punishment and assigning blame. |
So, again, who cares if something is "wrong" if society considers it acceptable. If you were to tell me "discriminating against homosexuality" is wrong and I point out it is currently acceptable, then what? That's just a hypothetical, but I don't see the helpfulness of your position.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would like an example of an objective discoverable moral truth and the process in which it was discovered. Take your "Killing someone is wrong". How was this discovered? |
Hmmm...the same way your god was discovered. [/quote]
A burning bush? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:10:42 PM · #1071 |
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
here is a better reference, much more reliable for the full picture, than wiki, for information on Moral Relativism. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:12:03 PM · #1072 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolutionarily, give me an example where "compassion" plays a role that couldn't simply be described under "cooperation". |
An animal rescuing or nursing another species. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:12:03 PM · #1073 |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:15:40 PM · #1074 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you were to tell me "discriminating against homosexuality" is wrong and I point out it is currently acceptable, then what? That's just a hypothetical, but I don't see the helpfulness of your position. |
It's not hypothetical. 20 years ago homosexuality was unacceptable, and 20 years from now it'll be acceptable. The same thing (in reverse) happened with slavery. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:16:52 PM · #1075 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
John kills Joe. Is it wrong? Is it wrong if Joe was a thief? Is it wrong if John was out of his mind on drugs? Is it wrong if Joe was a drunk driver? Or if Joe was the father of ten? These are situations where acceptability comes into play. The act is never 'less wrong,' it only more acceptable in some instances than in others. Our view of morality in the United States is very much shaped by our laws. Our laws take situations, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, into consideration when deciding punishment and assigning blame. |
So, again, who cares if something is "wrong" if society considers it acceptable. If you were to tell me "discriminating against homosexuality" is wrong and I point out it is currently acceptable, then what? That's just a hypothetical, but I don't see the helpfulness of your position. |
Society thought slavery was right. And discrimination. And imperialism. They were and always will be immoral. There is no relation between morality and what is acceptable by society. When we are lucky, they match. We can claim to be following Utilitarianism, or Christianity, or any one of a dozen other 'frameworks,' but that doesn't change the morality or immorality of an act. You can tell me that discrimination against a small group is best for the whole of society, but I will never believe you. You can justify discrimination by stating that your Christian God condones it, but I still won't believe you.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 02:21:49 PM EDT.
