Ontology of Morality

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

But what is the punchline? What is the point of this? Say what you want to say man! 

The point is the discussion.  I submitted a topic to a message board solely for the sake of discussion, which is a typical goal for many message board threads. The topic is of intrinsic interest to me, and likely to many others if they’re being honest.  I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything and I don’t care to tie it to anything external.  It’s interesting to me to hear from others what they believe regarding the topic and the reasons why, and to discuss/debate their reasoning.   

Edited October 17, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Rimbo 26,038]

Just now, axiom of foundation said:

The point is the discussion.  I submitted a topic to a message board solely for the sake of discussion, which is a typical goal for many message board threads. The topic is of intrinsic interest to me, and likely to many others if they’re being honest.  I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything and I don’t care to tie it to anything external.  It’s interesting to me to hear from others what they believe regarding the topic and the reasons why, and to discuss/debate their reasoning.   

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I don't believe for a minute that you are being honest about this.

[Nicole44 22,072]

3 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

The point is the discussion.  I submitted a topic to a message board solely for the sake of discussion, which is a typical goal for many message board threads. The topic is of intrinsic interest to me, and likely to many others if they’re being honest.  I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything and I don’t care to tie it to anything external.  It’s interesting to me to hear from others what they believe regarding the topic and the reasons why, and to discuss/debate their reasoning.   

And that’s cool if it’s all that it is. But there is usually an end game.  Choose your destructor type of deal. The thing is most people live by a code of do no harm. Yes we are out for ourselves and our loved ones but most of us go by this. If you’re just doing this poll to say, “I see certain types of people doing these things and therefore they are bad people,” is flawed. Most of the whole world knows rape and murder is wrong. That’s not the issue. It just feels like a set up to disparage people of a different culture and or race. Or at least how it’s coming across. @Rimbo is one of my very good friends and if he feels like this is bs it probably is. He’s genius smart. It just feels like you’re using a poll to say something outside of the CR. Jmo. My bad if I’m wrong.

[Rimbo 26,038]

46 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

The point is the discussion.  I submitted a topic to a message board solely for the sake of discussion, which is a typical goal for many message board threads. The topic is of intrinsic interest to me, and likely to many others if they’re being honest.  I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything and I don’t care to tie it to anything external.  It’s interesting to me to hear from others what they believe regarding the topic and the reasons why, and to discuss/debate their reasoning.   

Look man ...

None of this shit is as simple as any of these claims. Reality is complex. Philosophy gives those who learn it a shared language for describing small pieces of the whole, a shorthand. But all philosophies break down before the sum of all reality.

It's all so much bigger than we can possibly imagine...

Sometimes we have to just sit back and take the beating we're getting because some day, the bully will give up and move on. Then we piece it all back together and find joy somehow again.

Therapy is useful. Getting over hang-ups and hatred is critical. Find meaning it what is really important, and the rest can go fuck itself. I'm not living the life I wanted to live, but I like this life a lot better than I would've liked that one.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,346]

8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Because religions are a human invention, not God's? Pretty easily explained. Next question...

But don't most religions believe their God is their creator, the creator of humans?

[SydneyCarton 48,147]

34 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

But don't most religions believe their God is their creator, the creator of humans?

What if the god we’ve invented forced us to rape a boy to save the rest of the universe? Is it moral then? Gosh this is so complicated!

[Homercles 10,206]

If there was ever a time wherein I wished @MrPhlegm and @CHAD BRISCOE produced an offspring solely for my amusement here, it’s right now for this thread.  

[bernorange 8,363]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

But don't most religions believe their God is their creator, the creator of humans?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

[Herbie Hancock 7,370]

If there was ever a time wherein I wished [mention=35]MrPhlegm[/mention] and [mention=3717]CHAD BRISCOE[/mention] produced an offspring solely for my amusement here, it’s right now for this thread.  

They did. And they named it Randolph Duke.

['stache 21,828]

28 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

They did. And they named it Randolph Duke.

At least when Randy long-catted a thread with big words, he had a point--Fuck aggy. This guys just likes big word diatribes to feel like the smartest guy on Surly, which is like an able-bodied person dominating a wheelchair basketball game. 

[Rimbo 26,038]

3 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

But don't most religions believe their God is their creator, the creator of humans?

You realize both can be true, right?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, Herbie Hancock said:

They did. And they named it Randolph Duke.

[Guest]

On 10/16/2023 at 1:44 PM, Wally Fairway said:

You have given 1 example of something that you call objectively immoral - and yet there are times in history that rape has been one of the tools of war. All the way back to Genghis Khan, who I have read that genetic testing says that 1-200 are descendants. While I find it abhorrent, as I do murder, slavery, etc., I believe that cultural/religious influences determine "normal"

Normal and moral are different things, though.  Aren’t there examples of things in our culture that are considered normal that are also immoral?  
 

On 10/16/2023 at 1:47 PM, 'stache said:

I'd submit an even more complicated example, arranged marriages. The parties involved have no say, the women in particular, but are expected to generate children. The "consent" in those situations is pretty tough to determine. 

It might be complicated, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a right or wrong to it.  Many situations are morally complicated. 
 

19 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Getting over hang-ups and hatred is critical. 

Agreed 

[ClubWhatever 12,154]

Speaking of religion this guy is the anti-dangersnax.  

[shadow_operative 15,932]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:32 PM, Dbeasy said:

The only thing this thread does is invoke the thought “who’s the giant windbag full of shit?”

yeah for real. hey @axiom of foundation-

[Wally Fairway 5,571]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Normal and moral are different things, though.  Aren’t there examples of things in our culture that are considered normal that are also immoral?  
 

You may have misjudged the room; this is Surly, not a confesional

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

You may have misjudged the room; this is Surly, not a confesional

You posted a three paragraph argument for moral relativism in this thread. 

[Nivek 16,961]

On 10/17/2023 at 6:50 AM, SydneyCarton said:

What if the god we’ve invented forced us to rape a boy to save the rest of the universe? Is it moral then? Gosh this is so complicated!

If god didn't want us to rape, he never would have made us hard.  

Edited October 18, 2023 by Nivek

[Nivek 16,961]

On 10/17/2023 at 12:06 AM, axiom of foundation said:

  It’s interesting to me to hear from others what they believe regarding the topic and the reasons why, and to discuss/debate their reasoning.   

What is the morality and objective truth of what one defines as interesting?  oh wait... its....

[Guest]

 

I've modified the first question to hopefully address the very serious and clearly explained concerns:

A.  There is at least one moral rule that applies universally to humans

B.  A is not true

C.  Neither A or B are true

D.  Both A and B are true

E.  I believe either A or B is true but I'm not aware of it so this thread is propaganda 

F.  This question is a false hexachotomy 

[Guest]

On 10/16/2023 at 3:25 PM, BrickHorn said:

For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings. Only humans (and maybe some higher mammals) have morals. Morality is a behavioral trait: we do certain things, refrain from other things, and react when others do or don’t do things. Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of moral objectivism.  Objectivity is not equivalent to being independent of human beings.  Here is the definition linked above:

"Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

 

On 10/16/2023 at 3:41 PM, BrickHorn said:

No. There is no basis for determining objective moral truth in my view.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology.  Whether we can determine moral truths and whether they are objective are different questions.  Whether something is the case and whether we have a system or basis to determine if it is true are not the same.  There are infinite mathematical facts that we do not have a basis to determine. 

 

On 10/16/2023 at 3:41 PM, BrickHorn said:

There are moral systems that exist and, because they all result from running the same process under similar enough circumstances, they share common features. 

On 10/16/2023 at 4:28 PM, BrickHorn said:

I used “universal” in a far more limited sense. It’s limited to the set of moral systems we observe. It isn’t universal in some metaphysical sense, as if the entire cosmos is filled with uniform morality rules. It’s just that the overwhelming majority of human cultures generally agree on the same basic principles. So the idea that morality differs culture to culture and is thus “relative” in that sense just doesn’t play out in fact… even though it’s also not objective. 

As mentioned above, you are giving arguments for moral objectivism similar to Chomsky's arguments on the video I linked in post three.  Here is an excerpt from the transcript; notice his claims for human morality are based in biology and not metaphysics, and he views the question as a scientific one.  This was the main topic I hoped to discuss with the thread, which is why I posted it early on.  Any thoughts on it? 

NC :The concept of moral relativism ranges over a broad spectrum.  There is a form of relativism which is totally uncontroversial.  Of course it’s true.   There are ethical norms that very widely over space and time.  That’s just an observation of fact; nobody denies that.  Similarly, every other aspect of humans varies quite widely.  For example, human visual systems vary quite widely in the way the function, depending on early experience… Every biological system, and I assume we are biological organisms - so our moral values, ethical systems, are also biological systems. Every one of them can vary, quite widely depending on experience depending on experience, that’s not controversial…  There is a tendency to move from the uncontroversial concept of moral relativism to a concept that is in fact incoherent, and that’s to say that moral values can range indefinitely.   That belief which is held is literally incoherent. It’s based on the assumption that moral values reflect culture, but that then raises the next question. How does a person acquire his or her culture? You don’t get it by taking a pill.  You acquire your culture by observing a rather limited number of the behaviors and actions, and from those constructing somehow in your mind of the set of attitudes and beliefs that constitute your culture.  But that is very much like a learning language, or like developing a visual system… it’s a matter of making a great leap from scattered data to some outcome.  And that leap is made the same way by all individuals given a reality fixed experience, and its only possible if you have an extensive built in innate structure - just as you can develop a human rather than an insect visual system, but only if it’s guided by genetic instructions, very specific ones.  The same is true of the acquisition of language … the acquisition of a culture and hence acquisition of moral values.  But that means that the most extreme form of moral relativism is actually committed to the belief in universal values, namely, those that set the frame from which this tremendous leap from scattered data to a complex relatively fixed system to take place. That’s why the extreme version of moral relativism, which is common… is simply incoherent. If you adopt that position you are committed to far reaching universal values and their existence. 

… even if you're the most extreme moral relativist you are presupposing universal moral values. And those can be discovered. In fact in recent years there's even empirical work trying to investigate them across cultures with children and so on. So it's basically a scientific question. And we have good reason to expect that there's going to be an answer. And part of the reason is almost just logic - you can't acquire a culture without having a rich, built-in array of constraints that allow the leap from scattered data to whatever it is that you acquire. I mean that's virtually logic. And I think a look at our own history gives good illustrations.
 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

[BrickHorn 18,262]

18 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of moral objectivism.  Objectivity is not equivalent to being independent of human beings.  Here is the definition linked above:

"Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

Your definitions are fucked and you’re reading them wrong. 

 

[Wally Fairway 5,571]

On 10/16/2023 at 11:07 PM, Rimbo said:

 

.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Wally Fairway
NM wrong thread

[Guest]

3 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Your definitions are fucked and you’re reading them wrong. 

 

The definitions that I have copy & pasted and linked?  You don't give any definitions and your response here is backed with nothing.  What you do say is obviously wrong, such as "For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings.... Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source."  This represents a misunderstanding of moral objectivism.  You are conflating it with certain types of moral realism.  

You also do not seem to know what "universal" means within this subject.  It doesn't mean metaphysical or that it permeates the entire universe. Here is what it does mean:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals'"... Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist... Noam Chomsky states: "if we adopt the principle of universality:  if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."

[Nivek 16,961]

 
I've modified the first question to hopefully address the very serious and clearly explained concerns:
A.  There is at least one moral rule that applies universally to humans
B.  A is not true
C.  Neither A or B are true
D.  Both A and B are true
E.  I believe either A or B is true but I'm not aware of it so this thread is propaganda 
F.  This question is a false hexachotomy 

[CHAD BRISCOE 372]

On 10/17/2023 at 7:03 AM, Homercles said:

If there was ever a time wherein I wished @MrPhlegm and @CHAD BRISCOE produced an offspring solely for my amusement here, it’s right now for this thread.  

no turn out the Child was not Mine

[Harrison Stafford 3,335]

[bernorange 8,363]

I poop, therefore I am?

['stache 21,828]

[Wally Fairway 5,571]

What is this pussy ass Guest shit? And when did that happen

 

[Gatorubet 30,285]

On 10/19/2023 at 9:09 PM, Guest said:

 

I've modified the first question to hopefully address the very serious and clearly explained concerns:

A.  There is at least one moral rule that applies universally to humans

B.  A is not true

C.  Neither A or B are true

D.  Both A and B are true

E.  I believe either A or B is true but I'm not aware of it so this thread is propaganda 

F.  This question is a false hexachotomy 

[Gatorubet 30,285]

On 10/21/2023 at 2:39 PM, Guest said:

... even if you're the most extreme moral relativist you are presupposing universal moral values. And those can be discovered. In fact in recent years there's even empirical work trying to investigate them across cultures with children and so on. So it's basically a scientific question.
 

In recent years, scientists go to Turkey to find the Ark, and other so-called “scientists” roam around trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot or the Yeti.

People who employ science to investigate bullshit do not turn the bullshit into science merely because of the inquiry.

[WhatTheBuck 28,795]

Is this a thread by the guy who doesn’t know what an axiom is?