Proof that God exists.

[James R]

hippo:

<i>I thought no religious framework or morality really existed.</i>

That's a funny thing to say. Religions are all about morality.

<i>Why do you see this as a necessity?</i>

Why are morals necessary? They're not. They are an inevitable consequence of being human. <b>Every</b> human being has some moral sense, even if it is no better than "follow my own interests".

<i>Can you give an answer to the question, 'Why shouldn't a person you meet at a bar kill you?'</i>

Here's one answer, grounded in utilitarianism:

To kill me would be to remove a person who can contribute usefully to society. The greatest good for the greatest number will be obtained by not killing me. Hence, the moral conclusion drawn is that I should not be killed.

But if I use another system of morals, I might well get a different answer. Some systems would say there is no reason not to kill me.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a moral absolute. If it was, we wouldn't have wars.

 

[hippo]

nice one

Tyler,

You must be afraid of this line of questioning to call brain dead a typology line of reasoning which has been used by many folks with greater intellect than me. You may call my questions brain dead if it makes you feel like an important person..who am I to stop you.

1) it's illegal. Most people do not wish to go to jail
2) it is taught to most of us from birth on that killing is morally wrong by our parents and the society around us(note: in no way does this even suggest an absolute moral)
3) the male of a species will often feel the desire to kill when provoked enough, but rarely to never when not provoked

1. why is it illegal
2. why do parents teach that it is wrong
3. this is about emotional response and a tangent.What is your point?

Given the option...Tyler, let this child be raped and all wars will end OR this child does not get raped and all wars
continue......which would you choose? I choose the child raping. Rape is possibly the most disgusting of human
indecencies. But not as horrible or detrimental as war. Therefore - I would choose all wars ending forever for a
child being raped.

You set up an absurd psuedo-buddist non-sequittor scenario to hide the weakness of your argument. If you fell for this option and raped the child you would be laughed at by the evil entity who gave you a choice to commit a personal evil act to end an un-endable phenomenon in history.

As for your 'theory' that a child being raped is an absolute moral. Wrongo.

So you think that child rape is not absolutely wrong? Stay away from the maternity ward. You leap from denying it is absolutely wrong to describing why so few occur. Even if your analysis for a 'fewness' of child rape occurences is correct, you are not giving me a basis for when child rape is good.

Your child-porn to absolute morality link is about as thought out as saying 'there is candy, therefore there must be oompa-loompas'.

No I am linking child rape to absolute wrong and you cannot stand an absolute moral wrong, so you avoid it directly and indirectly leave an opening for child rape to be OK sometimes.

Wrong again. Morals are entirely personal. I can however be justified in telling someone not to do something. I can either be doing it to (a) help them out (b) ensure I am not hurt (c) ensure others are not made victims. You may say that (c) proves absolute morality, but again this is just flawed logic. Others being made victims of is detrimental to a society, neighborhood and such. I do not wish my area to be made worse, so in the best interest of myself I can advise someone not to do something that would be detrimental to themselves, me, or society. Understand?

Wrongo..right back atcha. If your personal morals say child-rape is OK, I will disagree and alert the authorities. Your a) implies a good that is rooted somewhere...your b) is self-preservation, your c) implies an altruistic motive that has a sweet smell of a divine good, that may actually be rooted in a subconcious absolute. Your conscious self can only define this as a flawed view, but nevertheless, you're flawed in thinking it is flawed. Why would you care if anything is detrimental. If morality is personal then what is detrimental is personal. How dare you impose your private view of detrimental on society. Shame on you. Understand?

Simply because something is against the majority of people's moral structure does not mean it is an absolute moral that has existed forever.

Simply because something is for the majority of people's moral structure does not mean it is an absolute moral that has existed forever. I contend that, in my single extreme case, that regardless of how many people are for or against child-rape, that it was, is and always will be absolutely wrong. It is an evil act. In history, people either have adhered to this absolute truth or rejected it. Are you saying that it could be considered good and we should accept that conclusion?

James:

That's a funny thing to say. Religions are all about morality.

Your knee keeps jerking. I am framing the question purely as a question...you leap right in asking about religion. If anything your question might be better posed as what is Morality?

Why are morals necessary? They're not. They are an inevitable consequence of being human. Every human being has some moral sense, even if it is no better than "follow my own interests".

If you say morals just happen, then you say that morals are a necessary consequence of being human. So they must be necessary. So a randomly evolved moral sense of each and every person is equally valid? So the Nazi's moral sense is the equivalent to Ghandi's; they are both good? they are both neutral?

To kill me would be to remove a person who can contribute usefully to society. The greatest good for the greatest number will be obtained by not killing me. Hence, the moral conclusion drawn is that I should not be killed.

Utilitarianism can lead to your death as well. Maybe you are unimportant and should be killed? Eugenical genocide was based on this premise. Not very satisfying answer to your would be killer.

But if I use another system of morals, I might well get a different answer. Some systems would say there is no reason not to kill me.

So all systems of morals are equal to you and none is important enough to try and convince your killer to abstain from murdering you? So what would you do, endlessly list all possible equivalent moral options and hope you bore the killer to death with your apathetic 'solution' to the option, 'For you to be, or not to be?'

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a moral absolute. If it was, we wouldn't have wars.

OK, now this is just plain weak noodle thinking. Whether people abide by an absolute or not, does not affect the existence of an absolute. Whether a bottle of Absolut Vodka is empty or not does not invalidate the existence of the bottle. Come-on James..that is not worthy of your intellect. By the way...nice Apostolic name. If Thou shalt not steal is not an absolute, how about posting you address and list some of the goodies you own. Someone reading may want to pay a visit and see what you are willing to part with unawares....If it is not absolutely wrong to steal, then let us remove it from the legal system. Besides, think of all the situational moral situations which permit stealing..extreme hunger..for example...this means there is no substance behind 'thou shalt not steal', come on evryone...down to the halls of justice to rip out any references to the 'wrongness' of stealing. We shal create a better society, because if everyone could steal, then everyone would have what they want; At least for a little while.

hippo

 

[James R]

hippo,

<i>If you say morals just happen, then you say that morals are a necessary consequence of being human.</i>

I didn't say they just happen. There are many cultural and biological influences which affect moral systems. I <b>did</b> say that they are a necessary consequence of being human. However, necessary in no way implies an absolute.

<i>So a randomly evolved moral sense of each and every person is equally valid? So the Nazi's moral sense is the equivalent to Ghandi's</i>

Yes, but...

<i>... they are both good? they are both neutral?</i>

To judge "good" what do you need? Answer: a moral system! In other words, to say that Ghandi's morals were "better", more "good" or "nobler" than those of the Nazis you have to look at them from the point of view of a moral system you've previously established. Use Ghandi's own moral system, and the inevitable conclusion is that Ghandi's morals are good. Use the Nazi moral system and Nazi morals are good. Use common religious moral systems and most come out in favour of Ghandi. But there are no absolutes.

<i>Utilitarianism can lead to your death as well.</i>

Absolutely.

<i>Maybe you are unimportant and should be killed?</i>

Maybe. <b>I</b> don't think I am unimportant, but that's according to my own system.

<i>So all systems of morals are equal to you and none is important enough to try and convince your killer to abstain from murdering you?</i>

If I was trying to convince my would-be killer not to kill me, I would try to convince him that <b>my</b> system of morals is a good one to follow. That in no way implies that my system is the best system, or that my morality is absolute.

<i>Whether people abide by an absolute or not, does not affect the existence of an absolute.</i>

Surely an absolute is something which is absolutely accepted as true, automatically, by everyone? My whole argument is against that. I say that there <b>are</b> some people who think that killing in some circumstances is justifiable on moral grounds. There are people who think rape is ok. If they didn't, they wouldn't commit rape, would they?

<i>If Thou shalt not steal is not an absolute, how about posting you address and list some of the goodies you own.</i>

I do not believe that everybody thinks stealing is a bad thing. If they did, they wouldn't do it. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are many people who think "It is ok to steal, because I need the money more than the person I'm stealing from". That is a moral system.

<i>If it is not absolutely wrong to steal, then let us remove it from the legal system.</i>

The legal system is based on a certain moral framework, but not an absolute one.

<i>Besides, think of all the situational moral situations which permit stealing..extreme hunger..for example...</i>

So, even you admit that there are exceptions to the "thou shalt not steal" rule? It's not very absolute, is it?

 

[Tyler]

"1. why is it illegal"

Laws are created to best benefit society. It is in the greatest interest of a society to outlaw murder. Why? Having a relative or friend murdered causes great pain so the majority of people would not like it to be legal. Also, murder legalized could mean a nation run by gangsters and murderers. This is definetly detrimental to a society.

"2. why do parents teach that it is wrong"

Because they are raised as it being wrong. Your question seems to just point at asking me why murder is morally wrong. Well, to me it is morally wrong because it causes pain to other human beings. To you it may be morally wrong because God says so. To someone else it may be a different reason.

"3. this is about emotional response and a tangent.What is your point?"

Your question asked why some random person wouldn't just come up and kill me. I gave you a reason.



"You set up an absurd psuedo-buddist non-sequittor scenario to hide the weakness of your argument. If you fell for this option and raped the child you would be laughed at by the evil entity who gave you a choice to commit a personal evil act to end an un-endable phenomenon in history."

If someone gave me the option of letting a child get raped which would save 3 people's lives I would say yes. The point is, I do not feel child raping is always the worst of two options. Same with murder. Given the option of killing one person to save 100 you would surely choose the one.


"So you think that child rape is not absolutely wrong? Stay away from the maternity ward. You leap from denying it is absolutely wrong to describing why so few occur. Even if your analysis for a 'fewness' of child rape occurences is correct, you are not giving me a basis for when child rape is good."

Oh now this is hilarious. I say it's not an absolute moral because I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that absolute morality exists. Then you say "so to you it's not absolutely wrong?" Brilliant. I suggest you go get a life and then return. The term 'absolute morality' means something completely fucking different from saying something isn't 'absolutely wrong' in my opinion. Idiot.


"No I am linking child rape to absolute wrong and you cannot stand an absolute moral wrong, so you avoid it directly and indirectly leave an opening for child rape to be OK sometimes."

I asked you to prove absolute morality exists. You haven't done so. All you've tried to show is that the vast majority of people think child rape is morally wrong. The vast majority of people thought the earth was flat. Didn't make it true.

You have yet to make any link what so ever. If every single human on earth thought child rape was wrong it still wouldn't be proof of absolute morality. Child rape is detrimental to society, causes a young victem and greatly hurts those around the victem. It is only natural that the vast majority would be against this act.


"Your a) implies a good that is rooted somewhere"

That's pretty dumb. And you didn't even show how it apparently does this. If my act is going to aid another human being I will do it because it is polite and I take pride because of my upbringing in being a polite and gentlemanly human being.


"c) implies an altruistic motive that has a sweet smell of a divine good, that may actually be rooted in a subconcious absolute"

Nope. It was what was instilled in me from childhood on.


"I contend that, in my single extreme case, that regardless of how many people are for or against child-rape, that it was, is and always will be absolutely wrong"

And so far you have shown zero evidence to support this. It's just a pretty claim you like to make.


"Are you saying that it could be considered good and we should accept that conclusion?"

Did I say that? Or are you putting words into my mouth because you feel like it.

 

[hippo]

wishy washy

James:

I didn't say they just happen. There are many cultural and biological influences which affect moral systems. I did say that they are a necessary consequence of being human. However, necessary in no way implies an absolute.

Then they mean nothing and can be abolished. If nothing is absolutely wrong, then anything can be claimed to be equally valid. We can try to push laws that benefit ourselves and hopefully the mob of humanity will make it true by force. This is a bankrupt mode of thinking.

hippo: So a randomly evolved moral sense of each and every person is equally valid? So the Nazi's moral sense is the equivalent to Ghandi's
James R: Yes, but...

No but justifies your equivalence justification. Your style of thinking mirrors exactly what brought the state sponsored oppression, genocide, tyrany...name your slave master system.

If I was trying to convince my would-be killer not to kill me, I would try to convince him that my system of morals is a good one to follow. That in no way implies that my system is the best system, or that my morality is absolute.

Unless you could say that it is wrong in an of itself, an evil act, then the chain of why nots would reduce you to a simpering slop of tears wondering why he shouldn't kill you.

Surely an absolute is something which is absolutely accepted as true, automatically, by everyone?

Then it was absolutely true that the world was flat. This is sloppy logic and you know it [I hope] Consensus does not make it true. This is the point of my holding out that the rape of a child is absolutely wrong. If you cannot agree with this, then it is frightening to think what sort of personal, societal, or legal concessions you would permit.

I say that there are some people who think that killing in some circumstances is justifiable on moral grounds.

You keep changing the parameters to soften your stance. There may be some people that think raping a child in some circumstances is justifiable on [self deluded] moral grounds. Are you saying that this is OK as long as someone thinks it is OK?

I do not believe that everybody thinks stealing is a bad thing. If they did, they wouldn't do it. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are many people who think "It is ok to steal, because I need the money more than the person I'm stealing from". That is a moral system.

There are many people who know it is wrong and do it anyway, too. Since you cannot argue that they are wrong in their own framework..go ahead and post your address. Justifications of moral transgressions can easily fall under a dispensationalism, but this does not make it a moral good.

The legal system is based on a certain moral framework, but not an absolute one.

If the legal system is not based on an absolute moral framework, then there is no reason why it should not be changed. Why should we support any framework that has no real basis for existence. I can create an economic model where no one should own anything and enforce it. Hmmm...lovely systems called communism did that. I guess it was just as legitimate as a system that allows freedoms and persons to retain their property.

So, even you admit that there are exceptions to the "thou shalt not steal" rule? It's not very absolute, is it?

Oh, I believe it is an absolute. The situational ethics crowd use this to your advantage, but if you know your economics and social theories well, then you know that if someone has retained all manner of production and is starving a person, one who is truly hungry and in need, then the hoarder of all sustenance is under an absolute moral imperitave to feed the hungry. If in a case a person is truly starving and there is no one is available to help them, and she steals an apple, then the 'stealer' must endeavor to compensate the apple owner. The moral absolute remains intact, but there are demands on the 'thief' and the owner of the property to balance the scales.
tyler,

Also, murder legalized could mean a nation run by gangsters and murderers. This is definetly detrimental to a society.

The mafia and drug lords are very efficient and actual benefit many communities so maybe it is not detrimental. People who wanted things or hated each other would kill each other off, population would be thinned and everyone would find their proper caste. This could lead to quite a stable and polite society.

Because they are raised as it being wrong. Your question seems to just point at asking me why murder is morally wrong. Well, to me it is morally wrong because it causes pain to other human beings. To you it may be morally wrong because God says so. To someone else it may be a different reason.

Ahh, the chain of morality which goes back through the generations. But where is its root? You can kill someone very painlessly and without their knowledge, so your morals could stay intact then if you killed someone painlessly? If murder or child rape is not always wrong, then there is no reason to have any law against it.

Your question asked why some random person wouldn't just come up and kill me. I gave you a reason.

No, I asked why someone you meet in a bar SHOULDN'T kill you, not why they wouldn't.

If someone gave me the option of letting a child get raped which would save 3 people's lives I would say yes. The point is, I do not feel child raping is always the worst of two options. Same with murder. Given the option of killing one person to save 100 you would surely choose the one.

Once again you support child-rape, as if committing a horribly evil act would somehow save three lives. I would never murder someone to save a hundred. I would make them kill me. If they gave me a gun, I would turn it on the evil persons trying to make me commit an evil act, and in self-defense attempt to kill those who are forcing these conditions.

Oh now this is hilarious. I say it's not an absolute moral because I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that absolute morality exists. Then you say "so to you it's not absolutely wrong?" Brilliant. I suggest you go get a life and then return. The term 'absolute morality' means something completely fucking different from saying something isn't 'absolutely wrong' in my opinion. Idiot.

Coward...you cannot stand the thought of an absolute, so if the thought starts creeping in you attack. You cannot say that child rape is absolutely wrong; Absolutely wrong implies an absolute moral system. Your fury at the thought is self-convicting of your inability to logically and consistently say that there is no absolute morality and therefore you have to say child-rape could be right in some circumstances. Sorry, but your derisive words will not get me off track in empty words of anger...better wipe the drool off your keyboard before it shorts out.

I asked you to prove absolute morality exists. You haven't done so. All you've tried to show is that the vast majority of people think child rape is morally wrong. The vast majority of people thought the earth was flat. Didn't make it true.--...Child rape is detrimental to society, causes a young victem and greatly hurts those around the victem. It is only natural that the vast majority would be against this act.

Where did I ever say that child-rape is morally wrong because the vast majority of people say it is? I have attempted to focus that it is wrong no matter how many people think it is wrong or right. Child-rape is absolutely morally wrong, you say that it is not, because there are no absolutes, therefore it is OK sometimes. Maybe some societies think it is good! To cause hurt or pain? Why should that matter if there is no absolute right or wrong? People can justify it any way they want and you cannot argue against them. IF a self-sufficient indigenous people want to perform this act, and they consider it good for their society, are you saying that it must be OK, cause it is not detimental to society? There are more and more evil folks out there promoting the sexualizing of children. I contend that child rape is an absolute moral wrong and if you say that this is invalid, then anyone can set up a system that justifies the evil act as good, and in your system, there can be no argument against it.

That's pretty dumb. And you didn't even show how it apparently does this. If my act is going to aid another human being I will do it because it is polite and I take pride because of my upbringing in being a polite and gentlemanly human being.

To help someone? An altruistic act? Are these things meaningless? To aid another human being selflessly is quite a divine partaking of a love of humanity and a very saintly act. Good for you, you are well on the road to understanding where the absolute morality is merely a way of describing the standard of true goodness of Love Incarnate which all humans should strive for in little daily acts.

Nope. It was what was instilled in me from childhood on.

If it is a mere affectation, then abandon it. It is a meaningless sense of obligation to your parents. Come to think of it, maybe that is close to the idea of the moral absolute of a right and wrong which you accept and perform without question, because good people gave you a foundation which made sense...

And so far you have shown zero evidence to support this. It's just a pretty claim you like to make.

My claim must be phrased in a way you obviously cannot understand.1] The evil shadow of the justification of child-rape highlights the importance of the definition that child-rape is absolutely immoral and evil. 2] If there are no moral absolutes, then every act is possible, and we cannot call anything good or bad, evil or good. 3]Any attempt to lay a framework of personal morality as the basis for demanding 'right behavior' of another person has no grounding. If it is not absolutely wrong, absolutely immoral to rape a child, then you must think that it can be justified.
James does a good job illustrating how frightening this is. Ghandi and Hitler are equal, there is no defense or offense for one system being better than the other, unless one begins to develop a moral outrage at evil acts. This moral outrage and demand that evil acts must stop, must be grounded in an absolute, or it means nothing.

hippo:"Are you saying that it could be considered good and we should accept that conclusion?" Tyler:- Did I say that? Or are you putting words into my mouth because you feel like it.

That is the conclusion that is demanded of your empty system of ethics.

The smug arrogance of some posters is very amusing. Are you not used to someone who doesn't kiss your ass and bow down before your superior intellects?


love to stay and chat, but I have some Saint Augustine to read. Try it you may like it and remember you are in the Image and Likeness of God, no matter how smudged it may be...
Peace & love and the grace of Love Incarnate be bestowed on you.
hippo

 

[Xev]

hippo:

Unless you could say that it is wrong in an of itself, an evil act, then the chain of why nots would reduce you to a simpering slop of tears wondering why he shouldn't kill you.

Law is a crutch for the weak who do not posess innate goodness or the ability to restrain themselves. Nietzsche called them the slaves.

Unfortunately, the slaves predominate. Law is thus necessary.

If the legal system is not based on an absolute moral framework, then there is no reason why it should not be changed.

Correct. You see how democracy came to be now, don't you? The concept of Divine Right of Kings died, and people began to wonder....

"Should not government benefit the people?"

Was a short step from here to the revolution of '76.

Why should we support any framework that has no real basis for existence.

Power. Power is ultimately the basis on which governments exist.

No, I asked why someone you meet in a bar SHOULDN'T kill you, not why they wouldn't.

Depends. You want the Nietzschean reason?

If they are a higher man, they will not out of an innate goodness - since they are capable of evil, they choose good.

If you speak of a normal man, they should not kill you because they will be hurt by doing so, and it is their nature to avoid pain.

Sorry, but your derisive words will not get me off track in empty words of anger...better wipe the drool off your keyboard before it shorts out.

Empty words of anger?

Your entire contribution to this debate has been spurious argumentation. "Empty words of anger" might be a plus....

As for derisive, I'd suggest that you remove the beam from your own eye before commenting on the mote in Tyler's. You have been extremely derisive and insulting to Avatar, Tyler and JamesR.

Anyways, the rape of a child is wrong in several ways, especially when one considers master-slave morality.

It is wrong for a higher man - who might be Nietzsche's "master" - or rather one who is closer to the ubermensch than most humans - it is wrong for such a person.

Why? Because it harms one weaker than themselves. It is not their nature to do this - or rather, it is not in their nature to succumb to such an urge.

It is wrong for a slave - a weaker, lower man - for several reasons.

The utilitarian (Utilitarianism, to Nietzsche, is only a system of slave-ethics) because it is harmful to the many for the "good" of the one.

Also because it is illegal, and will result in punishment.

There are no moral absolutes.

 

[Tyler]

"The mafia and drug lords are very efficient and actual benefit many communities so maybe it is not detrimental. People who wanted things or hated each other would kill each other off, population would be thinned and everyone would find their proper caste. This could lead to quite a stable and polite society."

Want me to go take a poll on how many people wish for the mafia to be in control? I'm betting on most people saying no thanks but if you really want I'll do a poll.


"Ahh, the chain of morality which goes back through the generations. But where is its root? You can kill someone very painlessly and without their knowledge, so your morals could stay intact then if you killed someone painlessly? If murder or child rape is not always wrong, then there is no reason to have any law against it."

When I said pain I hoped you would understand that means pain to the family and friends more than anything. Now, before you ask 'what about someoen with no friends or family?'. To me it is morally wrong to kill because there is a victem. I am a very immoral person in the sense that I don't do much by morals. I don't care for them, they get in the way of logic. However, one of my few morals is that if an action of mine will cause a victem or many victems great pain I will simply not do it. These are my personal morals.


"No, I asked why someone you meet in a bar SHOULDN'T kill you, not why they wouldn't"

And I've already told you why I wouldn't. It's against my morals. However, it may not be against their morals. Then I would say they shouldn't kill me because it is detrimental to society and society will punish them for doing something like this. Your problem is that you haven't defined the question. Why shouldn't someone kill me randomly? Well, according to who? I have already explained to you why I wouldn't do it, now who's morals do you want to hear about? In Western culture at the moment it is against the vast majority's moral beliefs to kill. Therefore, there is punishment for it.


"Once again you support child-rape, as if committing a horribly evil act would somehow save three lives. I would never murder someone to save a hundred. I would make them kill me. If they gave me a gun, I would turn it on the evil persons trying to make me commit an evil act, and in self-defense attempt to kill those who are forcing these conditions"

Nope. All I've done is show that there are situations where I would allow child rape. You would never muder someone to save a hundred innocent lives? I consider you a murderer then. To kill yourself in that situation is both cowardly and would go against my morals.


"Coward...you cannot stand the thought of an absolute, so if the thought starts creeping in you attack. You cannot say that child rape is absolutely wrong; Absolutely wrong implies an absolute moral system. Your fury at the thought is self-convicting of your inability to logically and consistently say that there is no absolute morality and therefore you have to say child-rape could be right in some circumstances. Sorry, but your derisive words will not get me off track in empty words of anger...better wipe the drool off your keyboard before it shorts out."

I'll wipe the droof off as soon as you learn English. Until then I don't think we'll get very far. Here, I'll give you a little lesson to start you off:

"absolutely wrong to you": implies a scenario or act which I will always think is 100% morally wrong in MY OWN MORALS
"absolute morality": implies that every human being ever has some god-given moral binding.

Learn the difference, then get back to me.


"Where did I ever say that child-rape is morally wrong because the vast majority of people say it is? I have attempted to focus that it is wrong no matter how many people think it is wrong or right. Child-rape is absolutely morally wrong, you say that it is not, because there are no absolutes, therefore it is OK sometimes. Maybe some societies think it is good! To cause hurt or pain? Why should that matter if there is no absolute right or wrong? People can justify it any way they want and you cannot argue against them. IF a self-sufficient indigenous people want to perform this act, and they consider it good for their society, are you saying that it must be OK, cause it is not detimental to society? There are more and more evil folks out there promoting the sexualizing of children. I contend that child rape is an absolute moral wrong and if you say that this is invalid, then anyone can set up a system that justifies the evil act as good, and in your system, there can be no argument against it."

You don't understand the basis of your own arguement. It's becoming more and more useless talking to you. You keep asking me if something is against my morals. Repeatadly, I have said yes it is against my morals. Then you say "but if someone else thinks it's okay does that make it okay?". Does that make it okay to who? To me? No. Someone else's view does not change my view simply because it exists. That would make Nazism okay. Then to who? Your argueing on the assumption that absolute morality exists. Poor choice.


"To help someone? An altruistic act? Are these things meaningless? To aid another human being selflessly is quite a divine partaking of a love of humanity and a very saintly act. Good for you, you are well on the road to understanding where the absolute morality is merely a way of describing the standard of true goodness of Love Incarnate which all humans should strive for in little daily acts."

Meaningless in what sense. It's nothing special, it's just the way I was raised.


"If it is a mere affectation, then abandon it. It is a meaningless sense of obligation to your parents. Come to think of it, maybe that is close to the idea of the moral absolute of a right and wrong which you accept and perform without question, because good people gave you a foundation which made sense..."

It was how I was raised and it is my natural reaction now. I see zero reason to get rid of it. There are no negatives to it and plenty of positives. If someone convinced me that it was better and more beneficial to be an asshole to everyone I would gladly switch. So far, I haven't seen that. Look at business. You always benefit more from being courteous, polite and caring.


"2] If there are no moral absolutes, then every act is possible, and we cannot call anything good or bad, evil or good"

Wrong. You're saying "if everyone can't agree, than no one can have a personal opinion". I can call things good or bad, evil or good. It just might differ from another person's opinion. I fail to see how this is impossible. It happens every day.


"3]Any attempt to lay a framework of personal morality as the basis for demanding 'right behavior' of another person has no grounding. If it is not absolutely wrong, absolutely immoral to rape a child, then you must think that it can be justified."

Wrong again. I believe you're insinuating that we cannot put someone in jail for something that is not absolutely wrong (or along those lines, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't believe the law is in place because of morals. Or it shouldn't be. As I have illustrated before, it is detrimental to society for people to go around raping children, killing other humans and generally causing pain. Anything that is detrimental to society in a large manner is outlawed. Simple as that. Being detrimental to society has nothing to do with morals. If your daughter was killed would you be sad? Is that becuase of your morals? No.


"love to stay and chat, but I have some Saint Augustine to read. Try it you may like it and remember you are in the Image and Likeness of God, no matter how smudged it may be..."

Read it actually. And if we're the image of god, I'm not imressed.

 

[James R]

hippo,

<i>If nothing is absolutely wrong, then anything can be claimed to be equally valid.</i>

That's a false dichotomy in most moral systems. Some moral systems have demonstrably better outcomes than others, and so are preferable on utilitarian grounds. But notice that even that conclusion is based on a moral system. If I choose a system of morals where all actions are morally neutral, then what you say is 100% correct.

<i>We can try to push laws that benefit ourselves and hopefully the mob of humanity will make it true by force. This is a bankrupt mode of thinking.</i>

That's one particular moral system - it is "good" if it benefits the lawmakers. Not a particularly good system, in my opinion, but it is a system.

<i>Your style of thinking mirrors exactly what brought the state sponsored oppression, genocide, tyrany...name your slave master system.</i>

I haven't told you anything about my style of thinking. My preferred personal moral system doesn't condone oppression etc.

<i>Unless you could say that it is wrong in an of itself, an evil act, then the chain of why nots would reduce you to a simpering slop of tears wondering why he shouldn't kill you.</i>

It wouldn't make me wonder at all. I have a perfectly well-constructed moral system. That in no way guarantees that the would=be killer's preferred moral system doesn't allow him to kill me.

<i>Consensus does not make it true. This is the point of my holding out that the rape of a child is absolutely wrong. If you cannot agree with this, then it is frightening to think what sort of personal, societal, or legal concessions you would permit.</i>

I, personally, would not permit a legal system which condoned child rape. But that is based on my own moral system. What I would permit and what can actually happen are two different things.

<i>You keep changing the parameters to soften your stance. There may be some people that think raping a child in some circumstances is justifiable on [self deluded] moral grounds. Are you saying that this is OK as long as someone thinks it is OK?</i>

No. You keep missing the point. The conclusion that such a thing is not ok is based on a moral system, whether it be yours or mine or some other system. There is no absolute prohibition against child rape. If everybody believed child rape was bad, they wouldn't commit it.

<i>There are many people who know [stealing] is wrong and do it anyway, too.</i>

No. If they really thought it was wrong, they would not do it. In their own personal moral system, they justify stealing to themselves, which makes it ok to them. Ask a thief "Why do you steal?" and you'll get all kinds of different answers. They might tell you that rich people can afford to lose some wealth. They might tell you that their immediate needs outweigh those they steal from. A very common thing you'll hear is "I know it was wrong, <b>but</b>...", and then you get the justification. The first half of that sentence is an attempt to connect to your moral system, because that person knows you are judging them on the basis of a morality which differs from their own. By saying "I know it was wrong..." they are just telling you what you want to hear.

<i>Since you cannot argue that they are wrong in their own framework..go ahead and post your address.</i>

You are right. I cannot argue that they are wrong in their own framework. I <b>can</b> argue that they are wrong in <b>my</b> framework. Neither framework is absolute.

<i>If the legal system is not based on an absolute moral framework, then there is no reason why it should not be changed.</i>

The legal system is based on a consensus of the society we live in. Sure, there's no reason not to change it, provided that the majority agrees. In fact, that's usually why law reform happens.

<i>Why should we support any framework that has no real basis for existence.</i>

Who said there was no real basis? I only said there's no <b>absolute</b> moral basis.

<i>I can create an economic model where no one should own anything and enforce it. Hmmm...lovely systems called communism did that.</i>

You can only create such a framework with the backing of a large number of people. As for your second comment, communism is not a bad system, in theory. But that's another discussion.

<i>I guess it was just as legitimate as a system that allows freedoms and persons to retain their property.</i>

Yes.

 

[hippo]

well now..

If I choose a system of morals where all actions are morally neutral,
then what you say is 100% correct.

False dichotomy? This statement proves the point. You have no basis for a based-morality. And yes, ultimately the argument built from 'why not this' or from religion must converge within a moral system where somethings are wrong as an absolute and some things are
right as an absolute. Again, child-rape is absolutely wrong at all times and
places. If you disagree, then you have a misguided conscience or intellect.
Perhaps you fear the absolute because it points towards a creator, a theistic singularity and wellspring of all life and goodness? If we create a system based on utilitarianism, we can easily construct a third reich, a Soviet Union - you name it and no one, with your baseless moral system can ultimately complain that it violates any moral system of consequence. Might makes right.
The utilitarian claim is to eliminate the complainers or punish them or pay
them off into a 'useful' state of being.

That's one particular moral
system - it is "good" if it benefits the lawmakers. Not a particularly good
system, in my opinion, but it is a system.

Good for the lawmaker is
general...true good is a good that is adhered too even when it is difficult.
A man who inherited slaves may have been enlightened to the violation of
humanity and demanded laws to end slavery and freed his slaves. This is not
good economically, devasted the economy locally and put himself at risk for
revenge or prosecution. The [hypothetical] slave owner's decision is a good that was based on something which you
deny.

I haven't told you anything about my style of thinking. My
preferred personal moral system doesn't condone oppression etc.

You
may not condone or support it internal to your personal system, but you
condone it externally or allow it. If your system is personal, then anyone
else can impose theirs and step # one, if it affects those not in your circle,then
who cares and step # two they come for you and you have no argument against it except for
girlie slaps and statements of, 'this violates my personal moral
system.'

I have a perfectly well-constructed moral system. That in no
way guarantees
that the would=be killer's preferred moral system doesn't allow him to kill
me.

Then you may as well resign yourself to never arguing your moral
system and accept whatever is done in society.

I, personally, would not
permit a legal system which condoned child rape. But that is based on my own
moral system. What I would permit and what can actually happen are two
different things.

You argue personal moral for the absolute not. Then
you argue that prohibitions do not afffect what just happens externally. The question, then, is this -" Would you ever allow child-rape in
your moral system?"

There is no absolute prohibition against child rape.
If everybody believed child rape was bad, they wouldn't commit it.

You
confuse what is prohibited with what people are doing. You are naive to think
people do not do things because they are wrong. A law which says something is
absolutely wrong may be violated. A person may know it is wrong to steal, but
do so anyway. The absolute prohibition in moral terms is not a physical or
mental shackle that mandate adherence. It exists independent of it adherents.

No. If they really thought it was wrong, they would not do it.

This is truly an
absurd remark based on modern society. You must not get out much. There are
many people who violate moral systems and they do so with full conscience.
From a legal standpoint under Western law, the full consent to violate a
'moral code' is one of the tests for prosecution.

A very common thing you'll hear is "I know it was wrong,
but...", and then you get the justification. The first half of that sentence is an attempt to connect to your moral
system, because that person knows you are judging them on the basis of a morality which differs from their own.
By saying "I know it was wrong..." they are just telling you what you want to hear.

Again, your construct is due to naivete or willful ignoring of reality. So every rape and murder is done because of a personal moral system. Is "I do what I want and I want to rape children" a moral system? Are you saying that your personal system is better that the former system? If you are then you are treading on grounds of absolutism...this is what qualifiers such as 'better' lead to. If each system has equal validity, then you stomp out any defense against 'crimes and misdemeanors.'

You are right. I cannot argue that they are wrong in their own framework. I can argue that they are wrong in my framework. Neither framework is absolute.

So then the thief who thinks it is right to steal from you is equally valid in his thievery. You cannot say it is wrong or that you do not like it that he steals your stuff. Both are equally valid; no claim has more weight. Post your address..I need a CD player...thanks.

The legal system is based on a consensus of the society we live in. Sure, there's no reason not to change it, provided that the majority agrees. In fact, that's usually why law reform happens.

Law and legal system is a little more complex than that. Most of the western world has a law based on English common law and that goes backwards in history. Many legal systems Safeguard certain 'rights' against consensus, to prevent majority [consensus] from performing and justifying oppression.

Who said there was no real basis? I only said there's no absolute moral basis.

If the morality has no absolutes then it can change for any reason...therefor no meaningful base...baseless.

You can only create such a framework with the backing of a large number of people. As for your second comment, communism is not a bad system, in theory. But that's another discussion.

No, it takes a relatively few to enact this...you just need a lot of useful idiots to enact it. Communist analysis may be fairly sound, but the system as enacted by humans? History shows its ugly oppressive face. All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

hippo -I guess it was just as legitimate as a system that allows freedoms and persons to retain their property.
James -Yes.

Nazism just as legitimate? Must be...

Tyler,

Want me to go take a poll on how many people wish for the mafia to be in control? I'm betting on most people saying no thanks but if you really want I'll do a poll.

Re: mafioso control --there are studies out there weighted towards the families involved...plus there are people who would never say anything negative. re: drug lords --there are large numbers of villages and areas which directly benefit and have never had it economically better. Go ahead and poll if you like...I 'd love to see the results.

To me it is morally wrong to kill because
there is a victem. I am a very immoral person in the sense that I don't do much by morals. I don't care for them,
they get in the way of logic. However, one of my few morals is that if an action of mine will cause a victem or
many victems great pain I will simply not do it. These are my personal morals.

Start a thread on how logic gets in the way of morals. I would love to read how that would play out. Who cares if there is a victim or the families are in pain. If there is no absolute right and wrong then what does it matter whether someone murders or not.

And I've already told you why I wouldn't. It's against my morals. However, it may not be against their morals. Then I would say they shouldn't kill me because it is detrimental to society and society will punish them for doing something like this. Your problem is that you haven't defined the question. Why shouldn't someone kill me randomly? Well, according to who? I have already explained to you why I wouldn't do it, now who's morals do you want to hear about? In Western culture at the moment it is against the vast majority's moral beliefs to kill. Therefore, there is punishment for it.

You are trapped in your own personal morality and cannot see the difference between would not and should not. The question is defined appropriatly, but the only way you can answer is to relatavize it. It is either wrong for a murder to occur between strangers in a bar or not AND whether they are in violent Tangiers or Vienna!! You cannot answer it and are morally paralyzed.

Nope. All I've done is show that there are situations where I would allow child rape. You would never muder someone to save a hundred innocent lives? I consider you a murderer then. To kill yourself in that situation is both cowardly and would go against my morals.

Yes you have! You create a construct in which an evil act is promised to end greater evil. To rape a child in this circumstance is just as evil. If I want to perform an act of heroism and kill the oppressors who are attempting to make me rape a child and I am killed, then I have avoided committing a futile evil act. Re-read it. I never said I would commit suicide by my own hand. You on the other hand would consciously rape a child in an ignorant attempt to stop the death of millions. You would trust the word of evil people and commit an evil act. I say this sort of thinking is caused by your baseless moral system.

"absolutely wrong to you": implies a scenario or act which I will always think is 100% morally wrong in MY OWN MORALS "absolute morality": implies that every human being ever has some god-given moral binding.

Your English is good enough..Why the lesson. i understand too well that a personal morality means nothing, unless it is admitted that it partakes of the absolute morality. I say that your hatred of child-rape, your 'absolutely wrong to you' of this evil act is right in the circle of absolute morality and you do not even realize it. YOur conscience is fairly well-formed and does not seem to be Nietchzefied to far. There is hope for you yet. Here is a good prayer for you, if you dare, 'Lord enlighten my intellect and teach me how to use it.'

Then to who? Your argueing on the assumption that absolute morality exists. Poor choice.

I understand it very well, but you do not like it. The basis of the original question is one that is illustrating that personal morality MUST intersect an absolute or it is meaningless. We do not live in a vacuum. If everyone has there own equally legitamate moral system. Then no moral system has any claim to 'rightness. If there is no foundation for all of these various personal moralities then ther is NOT argument for or against evil acts, be they state sponsored [Naziism] or personal interactive evils [child-rape]. There must be absolute rights and wrongs, or as you point out, no one can say that child-rape is absolutely wrong. This is a pretty henious conclusion to reach.

Meaningless in what sense. It's nothing special, it's just the way I was raised.

It sounds like 'raised with goodness and right behaviour' is a mere nogstalia, as fleeting as a meteor streak.

If someone convinced me that it was better and more beneficial to be an asshole to everyone I would gladly switch. So far, I haven't seen that. Look at business. You always benefit more from being courteous, polite and caring.

In some country's this is the problem. Because the adherence to a morality based on absolutes, the assholes are gaining ground in the business environments in many Western Countries. I can convince you easily. Manipulate your co-workers and take all the successes to yourself..do it sneakily and you will rise to the top and make very good money. You can create scenarios and character assasinations and get rid of your competition and move very quickly to success. Why not. If you can get a way with it. To be safe, only do these things which are merely unethical, not illegal, and then no one can complain that you should be jailed.

I can call things good or bad, evil or good. It just might differ from another person's opinion. I fail to see how this is impossible. It happens every day.

If anyone says that Child-rape is good..I can say, 'nope, there is an absolute morality which condemns this as an evil act.' you can merely say, 'My personal morality says it is bad, but if yours says it is good...why should I contradict yours?'

Wrong again. I believe you're insinuating that we cannot put someone in jail for something that is not absolutely wrong (or along those lines, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't believe the law is in place because of morals. Or it shouldn't be. As I have illustrated before, it is detrimental to society for people to go around raping children, killing other humans and generally causing pain. Anything that is detrimental to society in a large manner is outlawed. Simple as that. Being detrimental to society has nothing to do with morals. If your daughter was killed would you
be sad? Is that becuase of your morals? No.

I cannot be wrong, except in your personal framework, so therefore I am right by your standard of referencing an individual's standards, right? The history of law is steeped in morality. Why should it be considered detrimental. Perhaps if everyone behaved in this detrimental way, then it would become accepted behavior. If everyone is doing it then it will become OK. Being detrimental to society, in many cases, has everything to do with morality. As simple as a broken contract...a broken promise is a violation. Emotional response to a crime committed has nothing to do with whether something is immoral or not.

Read it actually. And if we're the image of god, I'm not imressed.

Free will allows for evil to be committed, but this does not diminish the image and likeness. Was Jesus not impressive? St. Francis? St Vincent?Mother Theresa? There are plenty of folks throughout history who shine in a manner which shows what the image and likeness of God can mean in a world. Pick your secular heroes of clean character. Become impressed with yourself a little when you commit a good act which partakes of the divine goodness within you.

Peace!
hippo

 

[hippo]

and yet another

Xev:

Law is a crutch for the weak who do not posess innate goodness or the ability to restrain themselves. Nietzsche called them the slaves.

Itchy Nietzche rejected goodness and restraint and reason and morality and faith and love. Maybe in another thread you can show us where Nietzche thought goodness meant anything of substance?

Correct. You see how democracy came to be now, don't you? The concept of Divine Right of Kings died, and people began to wonder...."Should not government benefit the people?" Was a short step from here to the revolution of '76.

There is a history of law which mirrors an adherence to something which superceded the desires of the masses, the kings or the individual. You are moving into the history and politics of the States and I cannot claim any in depth knowledge. There may be a parallel in the mule-headed human tendency to try to deny that there are absolutes, but that ultimately these absolutes errupt onto the historical stage demanding equal freedom for all as an absolute requirement of human dignity. Is this what you are trying to say?

Power. Power is ultimately the basis on which governments exist.

Power of the government is the yoke that many Western countries, France, and the States, tried to reign in and under subservience to the absolute goods, certain inalienable rights[?] which were endowed by a Creator. Power of the states was to be held in check...by forceful removal of power hungry leaders, if necessary. What is your point.

Depends. You want the Nietzschean reason? If they are a higher man, they will not out of an innate goodness - since they are capable of evil, they choose good. If you speak of a normal man, they should not kill you because they will be hurt by doing so, and it is their nature to avoid pain.

Does Nietzschee check your spelling, too? Again, where does Nietzsche praise goodness?

Your entire contribution to this debate has been spurious argumentation.

Enlighten me to the spurious. IS this the best you can argue? You disagree, therefore it is spurious? Now, now, professor Nitchy would be ashamed of the lameness of your finger pointing.

You have been extremely derisive and insulting to Avatar, Tyler and JamesR.

Boo hoo...Avatar, tyler or James are any of you offended? If so, then let me know and I won't call you names. Xev, do you think you are so Super and Uber that you need to patronize these folks and defend them? They can let me know if they are upset with the words and we can decide whether or not to continue conversing.

it is wrong for such a person.

Enlighten me as to a) Where Nietszche was interested creating a moral good in people rather than just a description of a Will to Power and B) when Nitchy was channeled into your body preventing you from using your own thoughts?

Also because it is illegal, and will result in punishment.

Illegal can be made legal if there is no absolute morality which underlies the prohibition.

There are no moral absolutes.

Moral absolute: It is always wrong to rape a child. If you disagree then you argue that it is not always wrong. Do you hear the lengths that you and the others go to deny the possibility an absolute? To hide from the thought? What do you lose when the absolute is admitted? Are you adamant that God cannot exist? It is because all it takes is one absolute to sneak up and sit in your brain stem and cause a stroke of faith. Derrida is the name of the frame around the bust of Nietszche...both lived in a Christ-haunted skull, seeking to destroy that which loves without end.

Love Incarnate whispers of Joy in the ears of all...and no force on earth can fills their ears with dirt fast enough to escape the aspirations of divine love...

I make no claim other than that when I swam in a sea of non absolutes, I kept finding them. I tried to push them away...but they were always there shimmering. How can an absolute lead to a freedom? Don't absolutes enslave? No, if it is inherently absolutely wrong for me to kill you, then the converse is true...it is absolutely wrong for you to kill me. If we adhere to these absolutes, we both have life. If either one of us violates the absolute and murders the other, the absolute is not diminished, it is violated, and death is the result. Is it so diminishing of freedom to say, 'Thou shalt not kill' and state that this applies to everyone as an absolute.

Let's further clarify. Are all of you saying that there are absolutely no absolutes?

Have fun with that one, poopy pants! Oh, sorry, you do not like such mean words...
hippo

 

[Xev]

hippo:

Itchy Nietzche rejected goodness and restraint and reason and morality and faith and love. Maybe in another thread you can show us where Nietzche thought goodness meant anything of substance?

A: You're babbling. Itchy Nietzsche? WTF?

B:Ah, no. Nietzsche accepted passion, which includes love. As for goodness, you'd have to define goodness before I can answer that. Morality, again, his thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways his ways. And faith, well, God is dead and all, so duh.

Power of the government is the yoke that many Western countries, France, and the States, tried to reign in and under subservience to the absolute goods, certain inalienable rights[?] which were endowed by a Creator. Power of the states was to be held in check...by forceful removal of power hungry leaders, if necessary. What is your point.

Correct. They based government on axioms - self evident truths. These truths are not proven, but we have the power to act as if they are.

Does Nietzschee check your spelling, too?

I find it inexpressibly hilarious that you critisize my spelling in a sentance that contains the word "Nietzschee".

Who in the world is "Nietzschee"? Is that like what Friedrich Nietzsche's girlfriends cried out in the throes of orgasm?

I think something along the lines of "Friedrich*. Friedrich. FRIEDRICH ohhhhhh Friedriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiccccccchhhhhhhhh......" was more likely the case.

(Well, you know, God is dead, so that rules out any theistic references )

Damn, now I'm fantasizing.

Again, where does Nietzsche praise goodness?

This is rather hard to explain to one such as you. He praised a goodness that you would find - repugnent.

Enlighten me as to a) Where Nietszche was interested creating a moral good in people rather than just a description of a Will to Power and B) when Nitchy was channeled into your body preventing you from using your own thoughts?

His Will to Power is more or less the same as a moral good, although he rejects traditional morality.

B: Who is Nitchy and what on earth are you talking about?

Illegal can be made legal if there is no absolute morality which underlies the prohibition.

*Claps*

Wow, you must have an IQ of 160 to have figured that out. I'm impressed.

Moral absolute: It is always wrong to rape a child. If you disagree then you argue that it is not always wrong. Do you hear the lengths that you and the others go to deny the possibility an absolute? To hide from the thought? What do you lose when the absolute is admitted? Are you adamant that God cannot exist?

I've never seen a moral absolute. I've never seen any evidence for their existance. I doubt their existance, yet cannot rule it out.

As with God. I doubt His existance, but cannot rule it out.

As for your "absolute", I doubt that such things as absolute "right" and "wrong" exist, thus your question is more or less meaningless.

It is because all it takes is one absolute to sneak up and sit in your brain stem and cause a stroke of faith. Derrida is the name of the frame around the bust of Nietszche...both lived in a Christ-haunted skull, seeking to destroy that which loves without end.

Wow. It would really suck to have 2000 year-dead Jews haunting your skull.

But seriously, who is trying to destroy what??!

Love Incarnate whispers of Joy in the ears of all...and no force on earth can fills their ears with dirt fast enough to escape the aspirations of divine love...

What?!

Dude, you sound like what would happen if NIN started writing Christian rock**. Not cool.

Let's further clarify. Are all of you saying that there are absolutely no absolutes?

Nope. I'm saying that I doubt the existance of absolutes, because I have never seen any evidence that they exist.

Have fun with that one, poopy pants! Oh, sorry, you do not like such mean words...

"Poopy pants" ?! Wow, I don't think I've heard that since kindergarten.

As for mean words, be as mean as you like. In fact, I prefer "mean" people to thin-skinned people.


*"Friedrich" is a sexy name.

**Perish the thought, oh perish the thought.

Edit to add:

You know, Friedrich was damn sexy. He's got that academic and, slightly Germanic look to him. Rrrrrrwl.

 

[James R]

hippo,

What you are trying to do here is to impose your own moral system on everybody else. I'm sure you're claiming that <b>your</b> morality is absolute, rather than some other morality. I wonder why that is?

<i>Again, child-rape is absolutely wrong at all times and
places. If you disagree, then you have a misguided conscience or intellect.</i>

If morality was <b>really</b> absolute, I wouldn't need guidance, would I? I'd just automatically <b>know</b> what's wrong and right.

<i>Perhaps you fear the absolute because it points towards a creator, a theistic singularity and wellspring of all life and goodness?</i>

No, not at all. You're assuming that I am against the idea of a creator etc. You're also assuming that the absolute necessarily points that way, which it may not.

<i>If we create a system based on utilitarianism, we can easily construct a third reich, a Soviet Union - you name it and no one, with your baseless moral system can ultimately complain that it violates any moral system of consequence.</i>

Wrong. A utilitarian system is a moral system of consequence. It doesn't advocate "every man for himself", as you seem to imply. You should find out more about it, since you seem to have a shallow understanding at the moment.

<i>Might makes right. The utilitarian claim is to eliminate the complainers or punish them or pay them off into a 'useful' state of being.</i>

This shows no understanding of utilitarianism.

<i>true good is a good that is adhered too even when it is difficult.</i>

That's a judgment based on your own moral system.

<i>A man who inherited slaves may have been enlightened to the violation of humanity and demanded laws to end slavery and freed his slaves. This is not good economically, devasted the economy locally and put himself at risk for revenge or prosecution. The [hypothetical] slave owner's decision is a good that was based on something which you deny.</i>

I don't deny that the slave owner makes decisions based on what he believes is right and good - the same as the rest of us.

<i>You may not condone or support [oppression] internal to your personal system, but you condone it externally or allow it.</i>

Far from it. I am stridently against such things, although my power to prevent all oppression is as limited as yours.

<i>If your system is personal, then anyone else can impose theirs</i>

That is a matter of politics, not morality.

<i>step # two they come for you and you have no argument against it except for girlie slaps and statements of, 'this violates my personal moral system.'</i>

That is a question of relative bargaining power, not morality.

<i>...you may as well resign yourself to never arguing your moral
system and accept whatever is done in society.</i>

No. I think it is my moral duty to speak up against what I perceive to be injustices. Not on the basis that my moral system is absolute, but on the basis that it is superior to some other systems.

<i>Would you ever allow child-rape in your moral system?</i>

No, but my power to prevent it is a completely different question from whether I consider it to be wrong or not, and whether that view is absolute or not.

<i>You confuse what is prohibited with what people are doing.</i>

No. <b>You</b> confuse what you believe to be right or wrong with what "people" believe to be right or wrong. Their values need not coincide with yours.

<i>You are naive to think people do not do things because they are wrong.</i>

It's very simple: If a person truly believes that something is morally wrong, he or she will not do it. To do so would be to be untrue to one's self. If people do things which <b>you</b> consider morally wrong, it is because <b>they</b> think those things are justifiable in some way.

<i>A person may know it is wrong to steal, but do so anyway.</i>

No. I've already covered that.

<i>There are many people who violate moral systems and they do so with full conscience.</i>

Yes, but not <b>their own</b> moral systems. They mya well violate <b>your</b> moral system, but that's a different thing.

<i>From a legal standpoint under Western law, the full consent to violate a 'moral code' is one of the tests for prosecution.</i>

No. In this case, the moral code is not an issue. It's the legal code.

<i>So every rape and murder is done because of a personal moral system. Is "I do what I want and I want to rape children" a moral system?</i>

Yes. Not a very good one, in my opinion, but it is one.

<i>Are you saying that your personal system is better that the former system?</i>

Yes.

<i>If you are then you are treading on grounds of absolutism</i>

No. Given any two systems, I can comparing them by some standard of measure (in this case my own standard). My point is that there is no absolute standard of measure you can point to for comparison of moral systems. In order to compare, you need to start with a moral system you're using to make the judgment of "good" or "bad". Start with nothing and there's no way to determine good or bad.

<i>So then the thief who thinks it is right to steal from you is equally valid in his thievery.</i>

Not according to <b>my</b> chosen moral system. Compared in the absence of a moral system, yes, it is equally valid.

<i>You cannot say it is wrong or that you do not like it that he steals your stuff.</i>

Why not? I have a moral system.

<i>Most of the western world has a law based on English common law and that goes backwards in history. Many legal systems Safeguard certain 'rights' against consensus, to prevent majority [consensus] from performing and justifying oppression.</i>

No. The law is a consensus. If the majority do not agree with it, sooner or later it is changed.

<i>No, it takes a relatively few to enact this...</i>

You keep confusing questions of political power with questions of morality. They are two different things.

<i>Nazism just as legitimate? Must be...</i>

People didn't like the Nazi system, so they got rid of it. Their morality was different to the Nazi morality. If everybody had agreed with that system, it would still be in place today.

 

[hippo]

unanchored

XEV

Nietzsche accepted passion, which includes love. As for goodness, you'd have to define goodness before I can answer that. Morality, again, his thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways his ways. And faith, well, God is dead and all, so duh.

N defined things however he wished and left them floating. Passion includesz love? He debased love into a meaningless emotional state that was equivalent to hate. N was no lifter of love. God may have been born into the world and murdered, but He rose from the dead. This scares you? You prefer the insanity of Mr. N?

Correct. They based government on axioms - self evident truths. These truths are not proven, but we have the power to act as if they are.

Hmm..self evident sounds like they are referencing absolutes which exist independent of governments who try to oppress them.

I find it inexpressibly hilarious that you critisize my spelling in a sentance that contains the word "Nietzschee".

Sorry...I do not criticize spelling...in posting I am the worst and I make tons of mistakes. I am trying to lighten things up by pointing out that all of us can end up using other writers, philosophers and religious figures over and above our own cogitations. I would truly be a hypocritical ass to slam the spelling. Just being silly...

This is rather hard to explain to one such as you. He praised a goodness that you would find - repugnent.

That is pretty presumptious. Nitch's statements that what is good and bad in one era become bad in good in another, the fluid nature of morality is what you are putting on a pedestal. This is the thinking that sent the Nazi's into ecstacies of power. So N. would think that Child-rape is good? Must be at some point, to him and ilk. This is a corruption of mind and soul.

His Will to Power is more or less the same as a moral good, although he rejects traditional morality.

And if traditional morality says that child-rape is wrong he rejected this sense? You too? Nitchy? I gave the madman a nickname...

Wow, you must have an IQ of 160 to have figured that out. I'm impressed.

duhhhhh...wow you use sarcasm like a lip balm...can you teach me? You are such a Superman figure.

I've never seen a moral absolute. I've never seen any evidence for their existance. I doubt their existance, yet cannot rule it out. As with God. I doubt His existance, but cannot rule it out. As for your "absolute", I doubt that such things as absolute "right" and "wrong" exist, thus your question is more or less meaningless.

Then you support child-rape as a viable option to perform when you feel like it. Nice world you live in. Hey can you see the air? No..I guess it doesn't exist. Can you see a vacuum? When it is dark, is nothing there? At least you do not rule out God...there is hope that your conscience will wake up your intellect. Maybe your humour will lighten up too.

Wow. It would really suck to have 2000 year-dead Jews haunting your skull. But seriously, who is trying to destroy what??!

So a hundred year old insane German is preferable? Read your N. closer...what was he trying to destroy.

What?! Dude, you sound like what would happen if NIN started writing Christian rock**. Not cool.

Maybe I am Trent? What do you care. Aren't all opinions equally valid. You wax poetic in your own way..I in mine. You may think it is crap, but I am trying to put into words some thoughts that do not always follow the course, "If we look at the derivative of moral structures as an adjunt to societal constraint and pressures which are delivered for consumption by the purveyors of teh correct modals of...' You prefer that?

Nope. I'm saying that I doubt the existance of absolutes, because I have never seen any evidence that they exist.

I imagine you are not absolutely sure you exist. You cannot see the backside of your eyeballs either...perhaps you are hollow because you cannot see inside yourself...

"Poopy pants" ?! Wow, I don't think I've heard that since kindergarten. As for mean words, be as mean as you like. In fact, I prefer "mean" people to thin-skinned people.

Watch the Naked Gun movies and Leslie Nielsen. It is a reference to the silliness of the movie. Who is being thin skinned...geez....

*"Friedrich" is a sexy name.

**Perish the thought, oh perish the thought.

Edit to add:

You know, Friedrich was damn sexy. He's got that academic and, slightly Germanic look to him. Rrrrrrwl.

Hmmm...upon closer look...he does look to be the ladies man. Dress him up in black and get him robot dancing and the girls begin to faint.

cheers,
hippo

 

[hippo]

and now for something somewhat different

James

What you are trying to do here is to impose your own moral system on everybody else. I'm sure you're claiming that your morality is absolute, rather than some other morality. I wonder why that is?

No...what I claim is based on taking one henious act, child-rape, and saying that the prohibition of this act is based on the act being an absolute moral wrong. This Moral Wrong exists whether we want it to or not. I adhere to the Moral Absolute which prohibits this. The fact that is is a Moral Wrong independent of myself creates a series of responsibilities. 1. That I do not commit this act, 2. That I attempt to prevent this act from being performed and 3. Attempting to convince people who are inable to concieve that this act is absolutely wrong, that they should rethink their position. I am not claiming that my personal morality is absolute by my own doing...this interpretation is you transposing your way of thinking upon my way of thinking. My claim is that without an absolute which exists independent of all people, then no morality really matters. The 'smarty pants' of society need to continually test claims of absolutes to ensure people are not trying to foist personal moralities as absolutes. Take a caste system moral system as an example of human imposed moral system which degrades certain elements of society. It works...everyone has a defined place, but it is a hideously oppressive human originated moral system.

If morality was really absolute, I wouldn't need guidance, would I? I'd just automatically know what's wrong and right.

Isn't this how you know that child rape is wrong? that is one way of looking at it. As a human[ah..so self-evident] you know the human tendency to backslide in behavior...a true and good friend or parent chides you when you do something wrong. This sort of guidance many times takes the form of, 'You know better than to do that.' This is a vague sense of how a conscience may know, but needs guidance.

You're also assuming that the absolute necessarily points that way, which it may not.

For a consistent creator which is a focal point of an absolute good, absolutes point the way. Without absolutes, the creator pointed to become paled in comparison, a chaotic life force which has no personal love interest in us...at best maybe a sick thrill at seeing our futile attempts at building monumnets to our puny lives.

Wrong. A utilitarian system is a moral system of consequence. It doesn't advocate "every man for himself", as you seem to imply. You should find out more about it, since you seem to have a shallow understanding at the moment.

It depends on your flavor of utilitarianism. If you are talking about Ayn Rand's egoism and a utilitarianism built upon the individual it is one flavor...If you mean the 'proper' utilitarianism of Mills & Bentham, then you've the foundation of an economic morality of benevolence. I extrapolate the 'benevolence' the 'I know what is best for the people' to cover Marxism and Naziism, perhaps not fundamentally, but there is a similar claimed motive. If you do not like the association, it is so noted.

This shows no understanding of utilitarianism.

As a free-thinker, I elaborated upon the theories arena. Are you saying I have absolutely no understanding of utilitarianism or a mental ability to build constructs that link ideas together? Perhaps you do not understand the progression of ideas and development.

hippo - true good is a good that is adhered too even when it is difficult.
James -That's a judgment based on your own moral system.

No, it is a judgement based on the absolute system

Far from it. I am stridently against such things, although my power to prevent all oppression is as limited as yours.

How can you be against it if someone argues that it is in societies utilitarian interest to have slavery as a means of satisfying the needs of the people? How can you argue against another person's or group's 'personal moral stance' that slavery is good [or child-rape for that matter.]?

That is a matter of politics, not morality.

Not quite; It is a matter of morality imposed by politics. If you cannot argue that your 'personal morality' is moer 'right' then the other side gets their way and there can be no appeal to conscience or right and wrong.

That is a question of relative bargaining power, not morality.

Aha, but at the base of this is whether a morality has any power beyond an individual's opinion. What is the root of a bargaining power? It may be power itself, which ebbs and flows, or it can be an absolute. An absolute moral can defy the oppressor, the opinion cannot stand unless it is backed by the absolute.

No. I think it is my moral duty to speak up against what I perceive to be injustices. Not on the basis that my moral system is absolute, but on the basis that it is superior to some other systems

How can there be any injustices...by what absolute standard can you say that what you consider injustices are injustices and not just opinions? Why is you moral code superior? By your own words you have said that within another person's moral framework, they have the correct Moral Framework. This means someone who is diametrically opposed can have an equally 'superior' system rendering your claim to superiority null and void. Superior denotes a heirarchy of closeness to an absolute.

No, but my power to prevent it is a completely different question from whether I consider it to be wrong or not, and whether that view is absolute or not.

It is good to know that at least within your personal moral system that child-rape is absolutely wrong.

No. You confuse what you believe to be right or wrong with what "people" believe to be right or wrong. Their values need not coincide with yours.

On issues of child-rape, all systems better coincide with the absolute prohibition wrong which exists. I abide by this absolute and I would demand that other do too. These are not the words. I continue to state that child-rape is wrong, independent of my personal adherence to this absolute. This touches a raw nerve in you and you must claim that my claim is rooted in a personal opinion that could be right or wrong. This is where you tread on the dangerous ground of denying an absolute prohibition and letting the evil act gain a loophole to be performed, as long as someone thinks it is a good act or meaningful, or not wrong.

It's very simple: If a person truly believes that something is morally wrong, he or she will not do it. To do so would
be to be untrue to one's self. If people do things which you consider morally wrong, it is because they think those things are justifiable in some way

This flies in the face of the statements of criminals who have commited horrible acts. When younger, I myself have done things that I know were wrong...there was no excuse.

No. I've already covered that.

You made a statement, but it is not correct. I have know criminals/theives, who do it because they want to. They know it is wrong, but they have chosen to perform this act. If experience is the best teacher and my experience is that thieves has stated their personal violation of their moral framework they say exists then how can you deny that people do things they want? Are you holding your opinion as superior to experience?

Yes, but not their own moral systems. They mya well violate your moral system, but that's a different thing.

Redundant answer [mine] but here it goes. I KNOW people who know it is wrong...they still do it...perform theft.

No. In this case, the moral code is not an issue. It's the legal code.

Maybe it goes into a deep tangent, but the history of the legal code is steeped in moral code basis. But I will shut my trap on this one.I would hope you would call an code which adheres to a child-rape OK policy to be an immoral code. Your blanded out equivalence of moral codes is disturbing.

hippo: Are you saying that your personal system is better that the former system?
James - Yes.

But in reality it cannot be better, because there is no standard to go by.

No. Given any two systems, I can comparing them by some standard of measure (in this case my own standard). My point is that there is no absolute standard of measure you can point to for comparison of moral systems. In order to compare, you need to start with a moral system you're using to make the judgment of "good" or "bad". Start with nothing and there's no way to determine good or bad.

Compare with a standard...but it is your standard, so the standard isn't a standard of any consequence. It has no basis outside your own private world.

Not according to my chosen moral system. Compared in the absence of a moral system, yes, it is equally valid.

But since your moral standard only matters to you, the thief's equally valid moral system is equally acceptable..and can trump yours if there is more than one thief. If they sneakily chloroform you and you do not know they took it, then your moral system has no consequence.

Why not? I have a moral system.

Your moral system only applies to you. You have no right to impose your personal morality on another, unless you adhere it to another moral system.

No. The law is a consensus. If the majority do not agree with it, sooner or later it is changed.

The law is not a consensus in every circumstance. The law many times prevents a consensus from creating a law which oppresses the minority.

You keep confusing questions of political power with questions of morality. They are two different things.

You bring up politically created moral systems based on consensus saying --

You can only create such a framework with the backing of a large number of people

My response is that large number of people are NOT needed. This is a response to your claim that a moral consensus takes enactment by majority. You are attempting to confuse the statement that there are absolute moral wrongs which exist regardless of whether people adhere to the prohibition or not. You want to define adherence to the prohibition as proof that the prohibition is a political consensus. This is your attempt to water down the idea that child-rape is absolutely wrong for everyone at all times.

People didn't like the Nazi system, so they got rid of it. Their morality was different to the Nazi morality. If everybody had agreed with that system, it would still be in place today.

People didn't like it? Who..., the majority? So the only reason it was that people vaguely disagreed with it? Do you see the weakness in this stance. The Nazis should not have been tried at Nuremberg then...they could say in defense, 'I was only acting within my own moral framework which said Jews are animals and can be used and killed.' If their moral framework was valid, then they are not guilty of committing any crime, any moral wrong and in fact should be celebrated for following their moral system! So to add another absolute which you dare not shout in denial in the streets of Israel - It is absolutely wrong to imprison and kill the Jews. Are you saying that it is OK for people other than yourself to kill Jews if they think it is OK?

hippo

 

[Xev]

hippo:

N defined things however he wished and left them floating. Passion includesz love? He debased love into a meaningless emotional state that was equivalent to hate. N was no lifter of love.

He thought of love as an emotional state, correct. Love IS an emotional state. You want evidence that Freddy "believed in" love?

Whoever extolleth him as a God of love, doth not think highly enough of love itself. Did not that God want also to be judge? But the loving one loveth irrespective of reward and requital. -Z

Basically, Freddy thought of love as something that would lead one towards the ubermensh:

Many short follies- that is called love by you. And your marriage
putteth an end to many short follies, with one long stupidity.
Your love to woman, and woman's love to man- ah, would that it
were sympathy for suffering and veiled deities! But generally two
animals alight on one another.
But even your best love is only an enraptured simile and a painful ardour. It is a torch to light you to loftier paths.
Beyond yourselves shall ye love some day! Then learn first of all to love. And on that account ye had to drink the bitter cup of your love.

And, he is quite right.

He wasn't really a "Chicken Soup for the Ubermensch's Soul" sort of guy.

God may have been born into the world and murdered, but He rose from the dead. This scares you? You prefer the insanity of Mr. N?

Scares me? No. Should it?

Hmm..self evident sounds like they are referencing absolutes which exist independent of governments who try to oppress them.

That's a good way of putting it, and on par with my idea of geometric axioms.

That is pretty presumptious. Nitch's statements that what is good and bad in one era become bad in good in another, the fluid nature of morality is what you are putting on a pedestal. This is the thinking that sent the Nazi's into ecstacies of power. So N. would think that Child-rape is good? Must be at some point, to him and ilk. This is a corruption of mind and soul.

I don't think that Freddy believed in an absolute good or bad, I think he was trying to move beyond such traditional conceptions.

In fact, I think that going beyond good and evil was sort of the points of one of his books - it was even called "Beyond Good and Evil"

But I doubt that Neitzsche would think of child rape as good. In fact, since it would corrupt the will to power, it would likely be bad, to him. Of course, one can't really use the labels of "good" and "bad".....

And if traditional morality says that child-rape is wrong

That's a big "if".

Read your N. closer...what was he trying to destroy.

Not so much destroy as reject. Freddy saw the utility in traditional morality - keeps the slaves in line.

However, the master - who is close to, but must not be confused with - the ubermensch - makes his own morals.

And yes, it is rather frightening. Luckily, such "masters" are rare, and can of course be destroyed by others - uuuugh, this is hard to explain. Basically, a higher man, who is like our master, is capable of both good and evil, destruction and creation. Knowing this:

Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws. -Z

Maybe I am Trent? What do you care.

Just teasing, sorry. You seemed the acerbic sort who could take a bit of teasing. Guess not.

I'll be all sweet and nice now.*

I imagine you are not absolutely sure you exist. You cannot see the backside of your eyeballs either...perhaps you are hollow because you cannot see inside yourself...

Oh, no I am. Cognito, ergo sum and all that.

Hmmm...upon closer look...he does look to be the ladies man. Dress him up in black and get him robot dancing and the girls begin to faint.

Damn right.


*Me, be "sweet and nice"? I think there will be peace in the mid-east before that happens. But nonetheless I'll try to be a bit less acerbic.

 

[James R]

hippo,

You are still missing my main point, which is that to judge a system, whether it be political, moral, economic or whatever, as "good" or "evil" presupposes a system of morals by which the judgement is made. The very concepts "good" and "evil" are moral concepts. We both seem to implicitly agree on this point. Where we disagree is that you claim that there is, essentially, a god-given absolute moral system which existed prior to any human being, which all human decisions must be judged against. Take the humans away, you say, and that system would still apply. I say that moral systems are human constructions, not god-given. Different humans choose different systems.

Having said that, many human moral systems share certain features. There are good reasons why there is general consensus in human societies that child rape (to take your example) is evil. Those reasons, however, are not due to the existence of your mythical absolute morality. Rather, they are due to evolutionary factors, combined with factors relating to the development of stable human societies.

To your commments...

<i>what I claim is based on taking one henious act, child-rape, and saying that the prohibition of this act is based on the act being an absolute moral wrong. This Moral Wrong exists whether we want it to or not.</i>

I say that this prohibition is a construct of society. There have been, throughout history, groups of people who have committed systematic child rape. Obviously, they did not accept that such a thing was evil. Nobody considers themselves to be evil. They justify their own actions to themselves by means of a moral framework which differs from your present one.

<i>My claim is that without an absolute which exists independent of all people, then no morality really matters.</i>

That's wrong. People have always fought for what they believe is right. It may not matter in an objective sense, but it certainly matters a great deal to the people who are doing the fighting.

<i>Take a caste system moral system as an example of human imposed moral system which degrades certain elements of society. It works...everyone has a defined place, but it is a hideously oppressive human originated moral system.</i>

Your conclusion that this system is "hideously oppressive" once again presumes a pre-existing moral system by which you judge. I say again that you judge this based on <b>your</b> moral system, not an absolute moral system.

<i>As a human[ah..so self-evident] you know the human tendency to backslide in behavior...a true and good friend or parent chides you when you do something wrong. This sort of guidance many times takes the form of, 'You know better than to do that.'</i>

This backsliding you talk of is always in the judgment of others. If a parent or friend rebukes me for doing wrong, it is no more than that parent or friend judging me according to their own, relative, moral system.

<i>How can you be against it if someone argues that it is in societies utilitarian interest to have slavery as a means of satisfying the needs of the people?</i>

Utilitarianism, to summarise it rather simplistically, is "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". Under such a system, slavery is only "good" if it creates greater net happiness. That happiness must take into account both the happiness of the slave owner and the slave.

<i>How can you argue against another person's or group's 'personal moral stance' that slavery is good [or child-rape for that matter.]?</i>

I can only do so on the basis of my own moral system. I can put a utilitarian argument. I can put a "do unto others..." argument. I can put many other arguments, all of which presuppose some criterion for judging good and evil. But any such argument I make is infinitely better than simply saying "That's wrong. It just is, for no particular reason I can articulate. Everybody just knows it." How is that going to convince anybody? If everybody already believed that slavery was wrong, who would agree to own slaves? In fact, if you look at history, slave owners traditionally believed on many different grounds that owning slaves was quite justifiable.

<i>What is the root of a bargaining power? It may be power itself, which ebbs and flows, or it can be an absolute.</i>

It's often threat of force or other negative outcome.

<i>...by what absolute standard can you say that what you consider injustices are injustices and not just opinions?</i>

An injustice is no more than a moral opinion.

<i>Why is you moral code superior?</i>

Superior to what? Give me a system to compare with and I might mount an argument as to why I think it's better or worse. You, on the other hand, just wave vaguely and say "Absolute morality is unquestionable and needs no justification." Which system is more logically defensible?

<i>By your own words you have said that within another person's moral framework, they have the correct Moral Framework.</i>

Yes, according to them.

<i>This means someone who is diametrically opposed can have an equally 'superior' system rendering your claim to superiority null and void.</i>

Only as far as they are concerned.

<i>Superior denotes a heirarchy of closeness to an absolute.</i>

No, it denotes a heirarchy of opinion.

<i>It is good to know that at least within your personal moral system that child-rape is absolutely wrong.</i>

Not absolutely wrong. Just wrong.

<i>On issues of child-rape, all systems better coincide with the absolute prohibition wrong which exists.</i>

Why? As soon as you start saying "ought" you are making a moral judgment. Again, I say that this particular judgment is based not on an absolute moral system, but simply on <b>your</b> preferred moral system.

<i>I continue to state that child-rape is wrong, independent of my personal adherence to this absolute.</i>

Perhaps, then, you can give me an example of an activity which you believe is morally wrong but which you nevertheless participate in regularly? Or something which is morally good but which you yourself never practice (despite being able to).

Now, having done that, please tell me why you go against this absolute moral imperative. Does that make you evil?

<i>When younger, I myself have done things that I know were wrong...there was no excuse.</i>

Why did you do them, knowing they were wrong?

<i>Maybe it goes into a deep tangent, but the history of the legal code is steeped in moral code basis.</i>

I agree with that. I just disagree that the basis of a legal system is in a moral absolute. Such a thing doesn't exist.

<i>Your blanded out equivalence of moral codes is disturbing.</i>

I hope I've made it clear that I do not consider all moral codes to be equivalent. I have a preferred moral system, just as you do, and I judge the actions of others according to that. My whole point is that there <b>is</b> no "objective" standard to judge an action "good" or "evil". The process is necessarily subjective.

<i>Your moral system only applies to you. You have no right to impose your personal morality on another, unless you adhere it to another moral system.</i>

If there were only two people in the world, each with different views on things, how would a system of law be arrived at, do you think? I can think of two ways:
1. The system is mutually agreed.
2. The system is imposed on one person by the other.

Bring in a third person to start a society. What happens now? In case (1), the third person must either agree to abide by the pre-established legal system, or try to convince the lawmakers that their pre-established system is wrong in some way. In case (2), the third person must choose a side - either team up with the person imposing the system, or work with the other person to overthrow the oppressor.

Where does the question of "rights" come into this? Why the need for an absolute system? Where does that fit in? How can you show that the absolute system even exists? All I see is three people who come to a power balance of some kind.

<i>People didn't like [the Nazi system]? Who..., the majority?</i>

Yes. The allied powers, for example.

<i>So to add another absolute which you dare not shout in denial in the streets of Israel - It is absolutely wrong to imprison and kill the Jews. Are you saying that it is OK for people other than yourself to kill Jews if they think it is OK?</i>

<b>I'm</b> not saying it is ok. The Nazi's certainly were (some of them, at least).

 

[hippo]

well that's not how I took it

Xev,

Just teasing, sorry. You seemed the acerbic sort who could take a bit of teasing. Guess not. I'll be all sweet and nice now.*

No no no...no sweet and nice, unless that is who you are...I took the teasing with a laugh...thought your statement quite funny. I did not mean my response to be taken as 'thin-skinned,' so say whatever comes to mind. Klizduplorf, for example.

Love IS an emotional state.

False love is emotional...if all love were emotion, then it is very fleeting and not of substance.

He wasn't really a "Chicken Soup for the Ubermensch's Soul" sort of guy

Maybe this title should go with a book...go for it. Freddy the Nitch may have waxed poetic on love, but he spent more time waxing his will to power as the goal which is beyond good and evil.

But I doubt that Neitzsche would think of child rape as good. In fact, since it would corrupt the will to power, it would likely be bad, to him. Of course, one can't really use the labels of "good" and "bad".....

And the avoidance of labels is the great whitewash to point all actions towards the will to power. If good or evil get in the way, then make them fit your purposes. This turns into a nasty room of behavior possibilities.

Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

And Hitler and ilk are good examples. They defined a good, the slaughter of Jews, and used their claws in service of good. FN would have no laugh, since they were not weaklings. Again, this is the end result of his philosophy of power.[

ciao,
hippo

 

[hippo]

abs of steel

James:

Rather, they are due to evolutionary factors, combined with factors relating to the development of stable human societies. .

Baal loved child sacrifice and so did many Latin American deities. The claim that evolutionary factors drove this 'morality' of human sacrifice does not work. These societies seemed to continually crumble as they perfected their 'evolutionarily driven morality' to greater and greater mandates of sacrifice.

I say that this prohibition is a construct of society. There have been, throughout history, groups of people who have committed systematic child rape. Obviously, they did not accept that such a thing was evil. Nobody considers themselves to be evil. They justify their own actions to themselves by means of a moral framework which differs from your present one.

Good buildings are constructed from blueprints based on sound building principles. You adhere to the underlying, pre-existing fundamental laws of physics and your construct is sound. If you stray from these fundamentals your building is in danger of collapse.

That's wrong. People have always fought for what they believe is right. It may not matter in an objective sense, but it certainly matters a great deal to the people who are doing the fighting.

A hair split, but most of history is about people fighting for what the person in power has deemed worthy of a fight. Prophets and philosophers of wisdom in every society in history have as a minority attempted to sway the rulers and people towards an more enduring truth.

Your conclusion that this system is "hideously oppressive" once again presumes a pre-existing moral system by which you judge. I say again that you judge this based on your moral system, not an absolute moral system.

And I say that all humans are equally worthy as a simple fact that they were born. We could take your method of saying every single person's morality is equally important. This great equallizer would then invalidate any externally imposed personal morality. Also, any component of an external personal morality which oppressed, enslaved or denigrated an internal personal morality would be rendered invalid. Carry this through thouroughly and you end up with some core overlapping moralities which are both internal standards for personal behaviors[do's and don'ts] and protection from components of external systems of behavior. We now have a similar base of morality, a golden rule of protection, a sense of right and wrong that is not consensus, but necessity of conformity for a society to equally treat each other equally. Then the question of morality and its source becomes rooted in the existential..from whence does my claim to equality come? Why should I demand to be treated as equally worthy to a king or have to accept that I am equal to a crazy streeet beggar? Why should I demand that another not steal my stuff or that I may not steal another's stuff be. Though a consensus forms against the thief or child-rapists, the root of the consensus is based on the individual's adherence to a personal morality which is the correct one. You have an absolute based on inherent human dignity of mutual [including self] demands of goodness. Granted my simple delineation may look more Confucian, but it partakes of the arena of 'Why shouldn't I or you do this or that' and 'Why should I or you do this or that.' My conclusion is that this core root and wellspring of shoulds and shouldn'ts is rooted in a God. Even if you reject the God part, I would think you would see that your personal morality must have a commonality, a honest person's common conclusion that theft or child-rape is wrong and that the prohibitions are universal. The rest of your arguments are rooted in a denial that a consensus is proof of absolute, then try to de-absolutify the rightness of the demands of an existential conspiracy of morality by necessity becoming rooted in a commonality, whether purely for the good of society [Confucianism] or an individual's need to know what others should not do to him and by elaboration what he should not do to others. I suspect you will not be able to go beyond personal decisions are the root of morality, but then if there is contradiction with another's, I say that the slicing demands must give way to something more than compromise in many cases.
YOu seem to keep painting my statements as rooted in a consensus, yet I continually state that it is individually rooted morality which is important in this discussion.

An injustice is no more than a moral opinion.

Theft, child-rape and slaughter of the Jews is just an opinion? Comeon now, that is spineless. Can't you at least argue any morality based on the fundamental dignity of a human being?

Superior to what? Give me a system to compare with and I might mount an argument as to why I think it's better or worse. You, on the other hand, just wave vaguely and say "Absolute morality is unquestionable and needs no justification." Which system is more logically defensible?

You define a system your opinion based morality is superior too. I have never waved my hand vaguely and said 'Absolute morality is unquestionable and needs no justifications'.. from what statements have you concluded this? I have said that there is a rooted goodness and badness which exists, that there is are absolutes. I have tried to illustrate, as best I can, that a morality based on opinion means nothing, that Child-rape prohibition is an absolute and that consensus is not the defense of this absolute. If there is any vague hand waving it is your poo-pooing of absolutes as meaningless. Conversely, I could say your denial there are any absolutes is sounding like an absolute is mere moral opinion and that if I can show the results of an absolute adherence to a morality to be superior, then your persoanl morality is lacking.
Which system is better: Moral system #1 - Child-rape is absolute wrong and there can never be an excuse for it Moral system #2 Child-rape is wrong in my personal morality, but it is not absolutely wrong. You might have a system in which it is morally OK.
Which system is societally preferable,...anybody, anybody?

The whys of this go into the individual human's link to something greater, an awareness of good and evil.

Yes, according to them.

And I say, using the horrific example of child rape, that their personal Moral Framework is flawed...they have made an allowance for something, which you cannot condemn except that it is different than yours.

No, it denotes a heirarchy of opinion.

Opinion denotes equality... there can be no hierarchy of opinion unless the opinion begins to touch on the absolute.

Not absolutely wrong. Just wrong.

Wrong 1] always, 2] sometimes or 3 ]never? My guess is that you reject 3, since wrong and never wrong are contradictory - #2 may seem tricky, but you seem to be a decent sort and consider wrong things to be avoided at all costs and would despise the act, so that leaves ]3 always wrong. Always = absolute. See how painless it is to accept that you believe in absolutes. After you are done fuming...why is it impossible for you to have absolutes in your own personal framework? Isn't it absolutely true that 1 = 1?

Perhaps, then, you can give me an example of an activity which you believe is morally wrong but which you nevertheless participate in regularly? Or something which is morally good but which you yourself never practice (despite being able to).

Why should regularly participation be important. I gave example of persoanlly knowing that theivery is wrong but I did it anyway...not as a regular habit. I wanted something and I stole it. I did not justify it, I let my personal desire to perform an act rule the day, but this did not invalidate the immorality of the act. Whether transgressions of a moral absolute make one evil is anotehr discussion...For someone to commit evil and be evil are two seperate ideas.

1. The system is mutually agreed.
2. The system is imposed on one person by the other.

You argue from societally created moralities and then the implementation of said morality. My argument is that there are some absolutes which people adhere to or they do not. How they implement enforcement or discuss agreement is a separate issue.

Where does the question of "rights" come into this? Why the need for an absolute system? Where does that fit in? How can you show that the absolute system even exists? All I see is three people who come to a power balance of some kind.

Questions of rights, as stated above, enter in immediately as to what limits can one person put upon another. Absolutes are the root of the demand that one day oppression and theft and child-theft remains wrong from one day to the next. It fits in that if there are no absolutes, then one day I befriend you we eat a meal and that is OK and the next day I break in your house, steal you food and rape your children and that is OK because there is no absolute provision against this act. An absolute system exists in the same order that many things we adhere to and believe though we do not see. Physicist believe that there are consistent, unchangeable laws which govern the intereaction of physical systems...that these systems are consistent throughout the universe. You can show formulas and a few examples, but the underlying 'thing' of this system is not the same as a recipe book.
Power balance of three people is a matter of politics...politics may or may not reflect the underlying morality of its participants.

I'm not saying it is ok. The Nazi's certainly were (some of them, at least).

So it was OK to the Nazis...so should I abandon my sense that they were absolutely wrong and say your opinion of morality were different and equally as valid? How do you convince me that your opinion is any better than theirs?

hippo

 

[James R]

hippo,

Reading your last post it seems that our underlying disagreement may be about the foundation of a moral system. I say that moral systems are human constructs. You seem to be saying that a moral system is something handed down from on high by God. If that is the case, it is not surprising you are claiming morality is absolute and unquestionable. On the other hand, if I am correct then there can be no final arbiter of what is morally right and wrong, since no human being is intrinsically morally superior to any other. God solves that problem for you because a God is, by definition, morally superior to all human beings.

<i>Baal loved child sacrifice and so did many Latin American deities. The claim that evolutionary factors drove this 'morality' of human sacrifice does not work.</i>

That's true. Evolutionary factors are not the only factors, as I said before. Social factors are also involved.

<i>... I say that all humans are equally worthy as a simple fact that they were born.</i>

As soon as you mention worthiness, you are making a moral statement. That statement is based on your moral beliefs, not on an absolute. Alternatively, if you want to use equality of all people as a starting point then it is an <b>assumption</b> you make, essentially based on nothing. It is justified <i>post hoc</i> by the results that the derived morality produces.

<i>We could take your method of saying every single person's morality is equally important.</i>

I didn't say that.

<i>...Then the question of morality and its source becomes rooted in the existential..from whence does my claim to equality come? Why should I demand to be treated as equally worthy to a king or have to accept that I am equal to a crazy streeet beggar?</i>

You can only make demands based on such an assumption from a position of power. If the moral consensus is the same as yours, people will agree with you. If it isn't, perhaps you can enforce it, or perhaps you can't.

<i>Though a consensus forms against the thief or child-rapists, the root of the consensus is based on the individual's adherence to a personal morality which is the correct one.</i>

There is no "correct one". That would imply an absolute. Other than that, I agree with this statement.

<i>Even if you reject the God part, I would think you would see that your personal morality must have a commonality, a honest person's common conclusion that theft or child-rape is wrong...</i>

Yes.

<i>...and that the prohibitions are universal.</i>

No!

<i>The rest of your arguments are rooted in a denial that a consensus is proof of absolute, then try to de-absolutify the rightness of the demands of an existential conspiracy of morality by necessity becoming rooted in a commonality, whether purely for the good of society [Confucianism] or an individual's need to know what others should not do to him and by elaboration what he should not do to others. I suspect you will not be able to go beyond personal decisions are the root of morality, but then if there is contradiction with another's, I say that the slicing demands must give way to something more than compromise in many cases.</i>

This seems to be a reasonable summary of our respective positions.

<i>Theft, child-rape and slaughter of the Jews is just an opinion? Comeon now, that is spineless. Can't you at least argue any morality based on the fundamental dignity of a human being?</i>

Yes, but then I'm arguing from a pre-existing moral framework, not from any absolute.

<i>I have tried to illustrate, as best I can, that a morality based on opinion means nothing...</i>

You misunderstand my argument if you think that's what I'm claiming.

<i>If there is any vague hand waving it is your poo-pooing of absolutes as meaningless.</i>

Ok. Show me a moral absolute, which everybody, without exception, adheres to all the time. Then I'll believe that such a thing can exist.

<i>Which system is better: Moral system #1 - Child-rape is absolute wrong and there can never be an excuse for it Moral system #2 Child-rape is wrong in my personal morality, but it is not absolutely wrong.</i>

Again, as soon as you ask about "better" or "worse" you imply a scale by which you judge such things. In any case, I see no operational difference between 1 and 2.

<i>The whys of this go into the individual human's link to something greater, an awareness of good and evil.</i>

I'm not sure that humans have an innate awareness of good and evil.

<i>Wrong 1] always, 2] sometimes or 3 ]never?</i>

Most of the time. I could probably think of a convoluted situation in which the preferred moral course would be to rape a child or kill a person or whatever.

<i>I wanted something and I stole it. I did not justify it, I let my personal desire to perform an act rule the day, but this did not invalidate the immorality of the act.</i>

You must have justified it to yourself somehow.

<i>So it was OK to the Nazis...so should I abandon my sense that they were absolutely wrong and say your opinion of morality were different and equally as valid? How do you convince me that your opinion is any better than theirs?</i>

In the ways I mentioned before. I can argue on utilitarian grounds. I can argue on the basis of "do unto others as you would have done unto you". There are lots of ways I could attempt to convince you that my moral system is more workable than the Nazis. But there's no guarantee I <b>would</b> convince you - just as people failed to convince the Nazis themselves.

 

[Xev]

Re: well that's not how I took it

No no no...no sweet and nice, unless that is who you are...I took the teasing with a laugh...thought your statement quite funny. I did not mean my response to be taken as 'thin-skinned,' so say whatever comes to mind. Klizduplorf, for example.

Shupulwupl.

False love is emotional...if all love were emotion, then it is very fleeting and not of substance.

Correct. Love is very fleeting.

Maybe this title should go with a book...go for it. Freddy the Nitch may have waxed poetic on love, but he spent more time waxing his will to power as the goal which is beyond good and evil. And the avoidance of labels is the great whitewash to point all actions towards the will to power. If good or evil get in the way, then make them fit your purposes. This turns into a nasty room of behavior possibilities.And Hitler and ilk are good examples. They defined a good, the slaughter of Jews, and used their claws in service of good. FN would have no laugh, since they were not weaklings. Again, this is the end result of his philosophy of power.

Actually, Hitler was quite the untermensch.

Also, Nietzsche felt that the acetic was a more powerfull person than the barbarian - that is, somone who conquers himself is better off than somone who conquers others.