[_ Old Earth _] absolute morality

[Asimov]

not enough cultures to disprove absolute morality. the majority of human cultures throughout all of human history carry the same moral base.

We don't know too much about very early civilizations, or it's morals. Especially the nomadic ones. The civilizations that developed enough to settle down and be agricultural would have already developed social morals.

you said: communities which display outright violence towards one another within the community quickly die out.

that would mean: violence=negative (bad); bad=extinction.

but then you used the Romans/Greeks to imply that there is no right/wrong (good/bad):

No I didn't. I gave an example about man/boy relationships, and how they were considered normal. I was illustrating that not everyone considered "molestation" to be wrong. And I use molestation loosely, becuase contextually, the Greeks wouldn't have considered it molesting.
It has nothing to do with violence.

sociopaths: actually, since most of them are brought up with skewed morals--abuse (physical, sexual, etc.), they grow up being taught that these things are right.

I'm going to research more into sociopaths before giving you an answer on this.

any context, man. :D don't tell me you're avooiding my question!

No, buddy. I would love to answer your question if you provided a context. You can't apply it to every situation, and say it's all the same.

 

[dragon]

chupacabra:

on most cultures sharing basic moral code, you said:

Totally incorrect.

really? perhaps you should go back and examine these cultures' basic morals. here (just to help you out), one of the most well known (Buddhists):

http://www.watchai.iirt.net/constitud4.html

hmm, sounds very much like western morals to me :-D

on the fact that the decline of morals was one of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, you said i was wrong again:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~zimm/gibho2.html
http://killeenroos.com/1/Romefall.htm
http://home.triad.rr.com/warfford/Roman ... mpire.html
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

finally, regarding the inherent qualities of morals, you said:

As I pointed out, this claim isn't true...

think again.

 

[dragon]

Asimov,

We don't know too much about very early civilization.

we know enough.

I said:

you [Asimov] said: communities which display outright violence towards one another within the community quickly die out.

you said: No I didn't [say that].

Nocturnal_Principal_X wrote:
No doubt an interesting theory but the question is where did society get the notion of morality in the first place…I believe God gave it to us.


Mammals (apes in particular), are extremely social beings. They function in a tightly knit community. In order for that community to function, the animals in the community behave in a certain way that will allow their community to survive. Communities which display outright violence towards one another within the community would quickly die out. So the social behaviour is one based on dependance.

as i've already pointed out, you used the information on the ape as an example to Nocturnal on how humans possibly developed culture. violence in your example was merely one form of negative behavior that balked success in cultures. you brought the romans (greeks) later as an instance where immorality flourished; an example which in your eyes was proof against absolute morality. so, my buddy, maybe that's now what you meant to say, but that is what you said.

finally, you said:

I would love to answer my question if you provided a context.

a context has been provided. it's quite evident that you can't answer the question...maybe it will prove you wrong.

on your mom (i mean no disrespect):

The psychological trauma wasn't the abuse part...

denial is part of the healing process.

 

[Asimov]

we know enough.

dragon, as I said before, a community which can settle down and develop agriculture already has their moral code. Suffice it to say, I can't answer when or how.

I said:

you [Asimov] said: communities which display outright violence towards one another within the community quickly die out.

you said: No I didn't [say that].

You are being dishonest, dragon. First you quote me out of context, then I correct you, then you quote me out of context again. What you quoted me as saying just then is true. I said that. But you linked things together with my statement about the ancient Greeks in a way that I didn't, and never intended to.

a context has been provided. it's quite evident that you can't answer the question...maybe it will prove you wrong.

dragon, don't bandy words with me. You didn't provide a context. You can't apply one thing to all situations, as if they apply to all of them in the same way.

Murder is defined as the illegal killing of another human being, with malicious intent, so murder will always be wrong, and illegal.

 

[dragon]

asimov,

to quote out of context means to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. in no way have i misrepresented the meaning of anything you've said. so, either you don't understand the logical connections between your own statements, or you're embarrassed at what you've said.

you didn't provide a context.

sweetie, it's not that difficult to understand. since this discussion is about morals and them not being inherent, and since murder is wrong/unlawful, do you ever foresee a future in which murder is no longer unlawful (let's call it killing to further simplify the matter)--a future where the benefits are embraced, where killing is taught to children as right and good. and if you do foresee such a future, in what context. :-D

 

[Chupacabra]

hmm, sounds very much like western morals to me

The link represents a much more modern sect of Buddhism. Look at Buddhism's beliefs on man and society, man and nature, beliefs concerning sex, violence, wealth and asceticsim, gender, and labor/usefulness to society. They vary wildly from those of the west. In addition, the philosophy of Taoism shares many Buddhist ideals, but is even more at odds with western belief systems.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~zimm/gibho2.html

Apathy and an ununified society are displayed as causes for Rome's collapse rather than moral recidivism.

http://killeenroos.com/1/Romefall.htm

I'd contest the first part of this link concerning morals. As the author writes, prostitution was rampant even during the Pax Romana, Rome's height. The gladiator games were also popular in this period, so a decay in morals could not have been that big of a cause for Rome's fall. Admitedly, murder rates did little to ameliorate Rome's condition, but the other causes listed, namely corruption, economic woes, and the impracticality of an empire so large, were far more to blame.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

None of the numerous items in this list are elaborated upon, but few have to do with a decline in morals, but many imply a change in morals from paganism to Christianity as a cause of decline. More importantly, however, is the fact that the vast majority of these points have nothing to do with morals.

http://home.triad.rr.com/warfford/Roman_Empire/empire.html

Very little at all on this site had to do with Rome's collapse and most of the information of that topic was about the rise of the Germanic tribes, which again has nothing to do with Rome's morals. I could find really only one sentence about that and it once more cited Christianity as a cause for the empire's collapse.

Seriously, dude, did you actually read any of those links or did you just put down the first result Google turned up?

think again.

I don't see how a two-word argument can rebut my statement. As I pointed out, Rome did not fall because of a lack of morals, but even if it did, using this as evidence for absolute morality would be a spurious correlation. How much do you know of the functionalist theory of sociology?

 

[Featherbop]

While god would probably have to be a logical being, why would a god have to be good?

Is it logical to be good?

 

[Chupacabra]

Is it logical to be good?

For god's case, not really. It is equally advantageous for him to be cruel or compassionate. If we assume the reality of the Christian god, his Old Testament barbarism would show that a being who we assume is logical does not have to be "good" by any sane standard. While it is not irrational to assume that the being who created the universe is logical, there is no basis for the assertion that god, as a rational being, must be good, nor is there a basis for the claim that god's standard of morality is objective and absolute.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Yes, just because a persons opinion is relative, doesn't make their opinion correct. Stinks right, we are all wrong sometimes, except Christ. That's just the way it is.

Um....what?

now your logic is:

1)A persons opinion is relative.
2)A persons opinion is not always correct.
3)Christ is always right.

So? What's your point? You're jumping your argument everywhere, and your meandering like a drunk man.

Sorry for the delay. Asimov, my point did not change. you asked me to explain or expand, I did.

 

[Asimov]

Sorry for the delay. Asimov, my point did not change. you asked me to explain or expand, I did.

Ok, start again, because it seems like your argument is irrelevant.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Truth is absolute, that we can be sure of. Morality is said to hinge on personal opinion. Opinions are formed on what a person believes to be truth. Just because they are convinced that their beleifs are in reality the truth, does not mean that they are. For this reason, morality must be absolute, because correct morality would come from the opinion formed on the absoule truth. The Trick is determining that absolute.

 

[Asimov]

Truth is absolute, that we can be sure of.

Can we?

Morality is said to hinge on personal opinion.

No it isn't.

Opinions are formed on what a person believes to be truth. Just because they are convinced that their beleifs are in reality the truth, does not mean that they are.

True.

For this reason, morality must be absolute, because correct morality would come from the opinion formed on the absoule truth. The Trick is determining that absolute.

Wrong. Morality is not absolute, morality is objective. Your entire idea of morality hinges upon morality being an opinion, truth being absolute, and opinion being formed upon absolute truth.

 

[dragon]

chupacabra,

the link represents a much more modern sect of Buddhism...

here are some more ancient buddhist precepts. sorry, man, but still very similar to western morals:

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/zen_ ... ecepts.htm
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/sex.htm


as for the taos: tao principles echo many core moral values: humility, moderation, selflessness, detachment (shun excessiveness).

on the other articles:

i stated from the beginning: one of the major reasons for the fall of the roman empire was a decline in morals. all of these articles dealt with these matters. : so, it's okay if they only dedicated one paragraph to this fact or even a few words. there aren't many wasy of saying, "morals were one of the major reasons for the fall of the roman empire." it's also okay if the articles talked about other things as well, since there were also other reasons for the empire's fall.

specifically:

on the 210 reasons for the fall of rome article...

few have to do with a decline in morals...the vast majority of theses points have nothing to do with morals.

actually, over 15 reasons have to do with morals.

Many imply a change in morals from Paganism to Christianity.

about two of the 210

Rome did not fall because of a lack of morals.

i agree with you :bday: (what a surprise!)--one of the main reasons for the fall of Rome was a decline in morals.

Using this as evidence for absolute morality would be a spurious correlation.

you're right again! which is why i didn't do that. i rebutted asimov's use of rome as evidence against moral absolutism--a truly spurious correlation.

on the functionalist theory of sociology: judging by how you've run with this post hitherto, i'm sure you think that's what this post is about :wink:

p.s.

i don't see how a two-word argument can rebut my statement.

apparently, seven paragraphs didn't do much for you! :-D

 

[Blazin Bones]

Truth is absolute, that we can be sure of.

Can we?

Morality is said to hinge on personal opinion.

No it isn't.

[quote:84f2c]Opinions are formed on what a person believes to be truth. Just because they are convinced that their beleifs are in reality the truth, does not mean that they are.

True.

For this reason, morality must be absolute, because correct morality would come from the opinion formed on the absoule truth. The Trick is determining that absolute.

Wrong. Morality is not absolute, morality is objective. Your entire idea of morality hinges upon morality being an opinion, truth being absolute, and opinion being formed upon absolute truth.[/quote:84f2c]

Yes we can be sure of some kind of absolute truth. as for Morality being based on opinion, it really is.

I will not do what I feel is wrong or immoral.

That's what my arguemnet should stand on, because we can see a logical progression. The fact that you disagree does not weaken the arguemnet.

 

[Asimov]

Yes we can be sure of some kind of absolute truth.

How can we be sure?

as for Morality being based on opinion, it really is.

I will not do what I feel is wrong or immoral.

That doesnt mean morality itself is subjective.

Say you think murder is wrong.
Say I think murder is right.

How can you say that I cannot murder if morals are opinion base? How can you say anything is wrong or right, and have it apply to everyone if morals are subjective?

For starters, why is murder wrong, brutus? because you think so?

That's what my arguemnet should stand on, because we can see a logical progression. The fact that you disagree does not weaken the arguemnet.

It does so, morality is not based on opinions.

 

[cubedbee]

Truth is absolute, that we can be sure of.

Debatable, but I accept this.

Morality is said to hinge on personal opinion.

To some extent I can buy this.

Opinions are formed on what a person believes to be truth.
Just because they are convinced that their beleifs are in reality the truth, does not mean that they are.

Agreed.

For this reason, morality must be absolute, because correct morality would come from the opinion formed on the absoule truth.

Nope. You've argued that Morality is formed from Opinion is formed from Truth. Truth is absolute, definitely. However, for Morality also to be absolute, the intervening step, Opinion, must be absolute.

And I simply don't think Opionion is absolute. Is there an absolute favorite color, ice cream, piza topping, and potato chip? If we had access to the absolute Truth, would the scenes of the universe have an absolute ranking of beauty that all would agree with? Would we all agree on the best tax system for America?

Opinion is an inward mental reflection on the outside world. Our minds are all unique, and even if we are all presented with a precise and total picture of the outside world, we will process this information differently and form different opinions. If morality is based on opinion, then it is no different.

 

[Asimov]

Truth is absolute, that we can be sure of.

Debatable, but I accept this.

Just for clarification, I'm willing to accept that absolute truth exists, although what that really means I'm not entirely sure. I try not to categorize things into absolutes...

 

[Veritas]

Asimov,
Something you said caught my eye a while back. Maybe you've worked this out already; however, I'd like to go over it for myself

That's not quite right Brutus. There is no absolute morality. There is objective morality.

You do agree that morality, being objective, has actual existance and reality, being uninflueced by emotions or personal prejudices

What I have presented above is basically the definition for the word "objective"

Absolute morality means nearly the same thing. Something that is absolute can be regarded as something that is independent of and unrelated to anything else. In this case, emotions or personal prejudices.

 

[Blazin Bones]

For this reason, morality must be absolute, because correct morality would come from the opinion formed on the absoule truth.

Nope. You've argued that Morality is formed from Opinion is formed from Truth. Truth is absolute, definitely. However, for Morality also to be absolute, the intervening step, Opinion, must be absolute.

And I simply don't think Opionion is absolute. Is there an absolute favorite color, ice cream, piza topping, and potato chip? If we had access to the absolute Truth, would the scenes of the universe have an absolute ranking of beauty that all would agree with? Would we all agree on the best tax system for America?

Opinion is an inward mental reflection on the outside world. Our minds are all unique, and even if we are all presented with a precise and total picture of the outside world, we will process this information differently and form different opinions. If morality is based on opinion, then it is no different.

We argee on absoulute truth, right Bee? Opinions are based on on personal truth, Right? Then your morals extend from your opinions on what is truth, Right?

Here's the deal then, Opinions can be wrong. A correct opinion will stem from the Absolute truth. There are opinions that are wrong. A correct moral will stem from a person who's opinions are rooted in truth. That's How we get an ultimate Morality.

If Asimov sees Murder as "Moral", he is basing his morals off an incorrect opinion. If Berean sees murder as "immoral" then he is basing his morals off a correct opinion. What many people don't like today is the fact that a correct set of Moral absolutes is found in the Bible, and thus rooted in a God.

 

[Asimov]

If Asimov sees Murder as "Moral", he is basing his morals off an incorrect opinion. If Berean sees murder as "immoral" then he is basing his morals off a correct opinion. What many people don't like today is the fact that a correct set of Moral absolutes is found in the Bible, and thus rooted in a God.[/color]

How would you know which opinions is correct, Brutus?

There are many morals found in the bible, many immoral things found in the bible, there are many morals found in many other religious books, and codes.