Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Amelia]

Quote:

Well if this is the extent of your intelligence then it might seem like it worked.

Richard, this was an uncalled for statement. Both you and Icabod etal were having an awesome debate. Why the slur? I would like to see an apology given to ichabod. There are rules about besmurching another members character.

Amelia

[melvin mccarty]

But the other guy had just said "a comprehensibly SILLY statement" Is there a difference there? ...mel

[there buster]

I addressed his statement, not his character, intelligence, or motives.

So let me ask you, is there a difference between "You said something foolish" and "You are a fool?"

the other guy

[Woody]

Quote:

Well if this is the extent of your intelligence then it might seem like it worked.

Richard, this was an uncalled for statement. Both you and Icabod etal were having an awesome debate. Why the slur? I would like to see an apology given to ichabod. There are rules about besmurching another members character.

Amelia

Okay. I don't mean to offend anyone. But I have a serious question regarding the rules as follows:

"If you feel that a member is flouting the rules, don't take it public and post on the board. Take it to the PM. Every member can be contacted through PMs."

I know the rules are not in effect yet. And I do not mean to be disrespectful to Amelia. But this is a good example of the concerns I have for the rules. Under the above rule ... is the discussion quoted from Amelia and also by others in this thread ... allowed under the new rules?

Just a question ... ???

[there buster]

No one has a problem with the discusiion. It is the ad hominem attack that is wrong.

[Bravus]

Amelia is an administator, and although she didn't specifically note that she was acting in that capacity, she was. That is a different thing from what you're talking about, Redwood.

[melvin mccarty]

Yep there is a difference. The one lands you on the carpet and the other lets you get away with it!! LOL....mel

[Bravus]

Um, yeah, in the same way that pulling bad drivers over to reprimand them as an ordinary citizen gets you in a world of trouble but the police 'get away with it'.

[Woody]

Amelia is an administator, and although she didn't specifically note that she was acting in that capacity, she was. That is a different thing from what you're talking about, Redwood.

Amelia is not identified in any from or fashion as being an Administrator. She did not identify herself as being in that capacity either. This is the issue. Are a group of moderators able to parade around disobeying the rules undercover?

I will propose a new rule:

Redwood Rule #1 When a moderator or administrator wants to exert authority .... they should be required to identify themselves and their position and state that they are acting in that position.

[Amelia]

Red, look next to my name. There is a little flag with the letter A on it. That identifies me as an administrator.

To all. Sorry I did not state I was acting as an admin. Don't worry there wont be any future problems with that.

Quote:

Yep there is a difference. The one lands you on the carpet and the other lets you get away with it!! LOL....mel

The way I see it...everyone wants to get away with everything until they are the party hurt. Then they want rules. Now we have rules and no one wants them. Again, until they are the party hurt. ANyone want to know how many times I've been hurt????

Oh, and take this back to topic or create another thread about the rules.

Signing off

Amelia

[melvin mccarty]

Now I understand! I have ben so confused cause Red's name is in red and I thot he was an administrator. Turns out he doesn't know his name is in red cause he is color blind and he is just an ordinary joe like me. Thanx for clearing that up Red. hehehe.....mel

[cardw]

Quote:

Well if this is the extent of your intelligence

You, sir, will apologize for this breach of common courtesy, or I will not be responsible for the consequences.

Well, I think you are missing the operative word IF.

The point I was making was that if one were not very intelligent then the simplified analysis might make sense. This was a general reference, not a specific reference to ichabod even though I used the word you. I can see how one might miss the generalized reference.

I could take offense of ichabods simplified presentation of my views, but its a waste of time and frankly I'm not offended.

So maybe we can move on without further threats of "consequences"

[cardw]

Quote:

That's where I would disagree with you. Please don't chalk the following example up to oversimplification, because it is fairly simple issue here. The issue at stake is authority. And I hope that you won't disagree with me on that. Authority constitutes authorship. AUTHOR has authority over his works to change them, to modify or rework the creation however he likes. There's nothing immoral about that.

Well, to recognize authority one has to have an authority one can see and communicate with rather clearly. I don't think the god of the Bible qualifies for that. We have to establish that there is actually an author of this moral code. Basically this creates a circular reasoning situation, that on the surface appears reasonable only because it requires a few more steps to get back around.

Also, you are basically making up rules about what authorship means and the rights of authorship. Basically my position is the only meaning anything has is the meaning WE give to it.

Quote:

Again, you are running wall with your original premise here. For you to pick and choose via reason a "better" method... is to assume a "superior method"... thus assume a superior morality. Can you see the clash with your original assertion "no one can have a claim to superior morality". Term better would constitute superiority. Can you clarify your solution that would fit your original statement better? I don't see how it is any different than deriving from reason that there is God and 10 commandments constitute a "better", or superior method.

You simply make an illogical claim that because God does not exist and because He "breaks His own rules" thus His morality is not "superior". Again, because of A ... must be B fallacy.

Well, I still think you are misunderstanding my statement. If we assume a goal then we can establish whether something is better or worse in attaining that goal. I am not debating whether the goal is better or not. I have stated all along that the goals are subjective. Your goals for morality are subjective and so are mine. No one can claim superiority until we establish a goal for morality.

All I have to do to determine your goal for morality is to ask you why we need morality. As soon as you make a specific claim for goals of morality then we can observe and reason what would be the best way to accomplish that goal in terms of moral guides.

My goal for morality is to reduce suffering for the greatest amount of people. It is entirely subjective on my part and the only force that I am willing to bring to the table is the force of empathy and verbal persuasion.

Now what has been happening is that ichabod or yourself will take the most simple form of my goals and trot out how it doesn't work. For example when I reference a method that appeals to a collective agreement then ichabod trots well Hitler had a collective agreement. Well Hitler didn't reduce suffering, so we can have more than one criteria. This ignores that one can alter the goals or add goals to cover more situations and refine this collective process of developing moral guides. And you or ichabod can continue to present situations that wouldn't work and we can continue to alter the criteria to further refine this moral process.

This is why I said, that if one isn't very intelligent then these single criteria moral processes would seem to make sense. This was more a reference to ichabod presenting me as not very intelligent in that I would be unable to refine my criteria to exclude Hitler.

Quote:

You simply make an illogical claim that because God does not exist and because He "breaks His own rules" thus His morality is not "superior". Again, because of A ... must be B fallacy.

Well, actually its more of an emotional argument. If we apply these characteristics to say a leading pastor of a major church who condemns people for being gay and practicing a gay lifestyle and we find out that he is not only practicing said lifestyle, he is taking a whole lot of drugs, we might have a different take on the inconsistent behavior. He was the author of his sermons and so from your point of view, he could alter them to fit his needs.

Now I know you feel that God has a different standard than humans, but one has to establish God directly before any moral claims can be made from this God's authority. It basically becomes a shell game where morality is the pea and it keeps hiding under different shells called authority, the "tao", or my inability to claim superiority.

You might want to demonstrate how you can claim superiority other than my inability to do so.

[cardw]

I addressed his statement, not his character, intelligence, or motives.

So let me ask you, is there a difference between "You said something foolish" and "You are a fool?"

the other guy

I want to make it clear that I am NOT asking for an apology.

I would like to point out that there is a difference between silly and comprehensibly silly.

The first could be construed as a statement of fact. The second appears to me to be an exaggeration. I don't know of anything that I could say as a point of fact to be comprehensively silly or literally covers ever aspect of silliness there is.

I think you can tell the difference and it would help if you would stop using plausible deniability. To me, it comes across as dishonest.

[Tom Wetmore]

...I would like to point out that there is a difference between silly and comprehensibly silly.

The first could be construed as a statement of fact. The second appears to me to be an exaggeration. I don't know of anything that I could say as a point of fact to be comprehensively silly or literally covers ever aspect of silliness there is.

I think you can tell the difference...

The difference appears to me to be that there is a distinct lack of comprehension of the meaning of the actual words used. I won't attempt a comprehensive explanation here but I think the following may help...

The first word used above is comprehensibly which is defined as "capable of being comprehended or understood; intelligible."

The second word that you have used and defined just above is comprehensively which is defined as "of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive."

Two very different words being used as if they are the same results in comprehensible confusion, but in order for the confusion to be comprehensive much more evidence would be needed.

If I may, and at the risk of also putting words in his mouth, Ichabod perhaps merely intended the first word to describe what had been said as "understandably silly" suggesting that the silliness was obvious and easily understood to be silly. It appears that even as you have mistakenly used these distinct terms interchangeably, so might he. Although, by the evidence of the volume of the posts to which he was responding, comprehensive may have been intended as more apropos...

Is that explanation comprehensible even though it is not comprehensive?

Tom

[cardw]

Quote:

The difference appears to me to be that there is a distinct lack of comprehension of the meaning of the actual words used. I won't attempt a comprehensive explanation here but I think the following may help...

The first word used above is comprehensibly which is defined as "capable of being comprehended or understood; intelligible."

The second word that you have used and defined just above is comprehensively which is defined as "of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive."

Two very different words being used as if they are the same results in comprehensible confusion, but in order for the confusion to be comprehensive much more evidence would be needed.

Tom, this is one of the cleverest responses I have read in a long time. LOL

Maybe you can clear up for me what the consequences are that ichabod isn't going to be responsible for.

I think, though, when we look at the original statement by ichabod he did post comprehensively silly rather than comprehensibly. I think the confusion came because I copy and pasted Melvin rather than ichabod directly.

Here is ichabods quote...

Quote:

A comprehensively silly statement. All human beings are selfish and willful. We would prefer morality did not exist, so there would be no effective way of opposing our will. Your system does just that. "If everyone agrees" then there is nothing to stand in our way.

[Amelia]

Back to topic please.

Admin

[cardw]

Back to topic please.

Admin

Ok,

Maybe if those of you who are defending the idea of a god based external moral reference could answer a few questions, we might come closer to being on the same page.

Why be moral?

What is the purpose of morality?

What are the specific guidelines of this external moral reference?

[there buster]

Quote:

From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. . . . The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved . . . . are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked. The Innovator will not take the first alternative, for practical principles known to all men by Reason are simply the Tao which he has set out to supersede. He is more likely to give up the quest for a 'rational' core and to hunt for some other ground even more 'basic' and 'realistic'.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Tom, this is one of the cleverest responses I have read in a long time. LOL

Maybe you can clear up for me what the consequences are that ichabod isn't going to be responsible for.

I think, though, when we look at the original statement by ichabod he did post comprehensively silly rather than comprehensibly. I think the confusion came because I copy and pasted Melvin rather than ichabod directly.

:smile: I try and sometimes succeed...

And yes, I was aware which word was originally used by Ichabod... as may be deduced from my last paragraph, but confusion is no respecter of persons.

It seems all things considered that confusion really does turn reductio ad absurdum on its head...

See first signature quote just below...

[Neil D]

and I love it...! TU

[cardw]

Well, quoting C.S. Lewis doesn't tell me what YOU believe to be true. If I respond to C.S. Lewis then you will pull out the 'I don't know what you believe" schtick.

I will address his statement anyway...

Quote:

From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn.

This is what I have been saying. The beginning point is preference, desire, want, etc. These are all subjectively motivated, NOT rationally.

Quote:

This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. . . .

Or it can come from I or we WANT to preserve society.

Quote:

We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved . . . . are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked.

Again, this what I have been saying. The beginning point is preference, desire, want, etc. These are all subjectively motivated, NOT rationally. Once you have a preference set then one can compare methods of achieving these preferences to see which is better.

Quote:

The Innovator will not take the first alternative, for practical principles known to all men by Reason are simply the Tao which he has set out to supersede. He is more likely to give up the quest for a 'rational' core and to hunt for some other ground even more 'basic' and 'realistic'.

Well, if C.S Lewis, in mentioning the Tao, means a moral reference given by God, then we are simply using definition and semantics. Just because one claims a Tao exists doesn't tell us anything about its source or what it is. And if we don't know what the Tao is, then we have no way to determine if it can be superseded.

So many points you make seem to assume that a lack of proof means that God did it.

There is a reason you won't answer the questions I put forth. The reason is as soon as you answer them, it becomes apparent that you are in exactly the same position as everyone else when it comes to claiming superiority for this myth of external referenced morality.

So, again I ask YOU, to answer these questions...

Why be moral?

What is the purpose of morality?

What are the specific guidelines of this external moral reference?

[fccool]

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

You can not derive the above without an external reference. I don't think anyone would argue that for the simple reason of how we acquire knowledge. Even as you learn language you have to trust that the person who is teaching you got it right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that we all can get together and decide (based on our collective goals) what is good and what is bad? Can you have an idea of good and bad absent of some set standard? In some societies is not immoral to eat people. They got together and decided that it is not. What is it to make them believe that it is immoral without first of all a sense of external morality that exists outside of the scope of their understanding of good and bad?

What you are talking about is kind of going the way of pluralism... or not? Thousand flies can not possibly be wrong... type of thing. If you are not, then how do are you determined for such view of morality to work without tyranny of enforcement.

You may allude to God being a tyrant who enforces his morality with an iron fist, but I don't see Him breaking down your door if you don't pay the dues (if he does exist). I can certainly see a pluralist State derived morality doing just that, and at times even justifying it by means of "religiously derived" morality. And these people make the same claim that you do... that the goal is the happiness for everyone... even the ones who are suffering. How do you reconcile your idea with what is already happening in the world?

Without God, how would you determine a man to be a moral being? The basis of Christian thought is that God embedded these ideas in depth of our minds from birth. If there is no God, and men are just higher order of animals indeed, how do we determine the standards of right and wrong without any set standard? The standard becomes a force. If I am bigger, then I can impose my standard because it's more practical for me. Yet, does it make it moral? If I can kill other people to get on top... I'd do it, because it's more practical and thus is good for me. What would stop me, but the opposing force of the majority or someone else's "bigger gun"?

And in the end you end up with a State in place of God. A state that dictates what's best for you from moment of your conception, and that will not let you opt out of the "social contract" for your own "benetif" and benefit of the masses. If you believe in inherent goodness of men... then why do we need the state? Why do we need forceful imposition of right and wrong as determined by the majority?

You tell me that I employ circular mentality, yet how is yours not circular? You are saying that we can derive morality based on our collective goals, yet what happens to people who don't agree? If I don't agree that killing is wrong, then you need to prove to me that your morality is somehow superior. If you disagree that it is not superior then you would simply justify my actions. If you agree that yours is superior, then you ruin your premise of collective goal and shift towards pluralism.

Your view assumes that all people would want the same thing absent any religious concepts. Am I right? If I'm wrong, how do you deal with defiant ones, and what moral high ground would you apply to condemn their views and actions?

[Bravus]

The word 'external' is being bandied about quite a lot in this thread, in a way that I think is confusing. Do we mean:

1. external to the individual

2. external to the microsociety constituted by the individual's upbringing

3. external to the broader society (e.g. western society, Confucian society, Athenian society, plebian or partician Roman society, Arab society and so on)

4. external to humanity as a whole

I think a lot of times 1 is being conflated with 4 in ways that are confusing.

[Bravus]

fccool, if God embedded the ideas of what is moral in the minds of all mankind from before birth, then how do cannibal societies, to take your example, arise? The claim that morality is universal because it's innate can be contradicted by examples of societies throughout history and geography that, cumulatively, take as moral every precept that we would take as immoral and vice versa.