Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Woody]

Okay. I apologize

I also apologise

Does that cover all nations ?

[Neil D]

Good...Apology is accepted....now don't you feel better.....

[Woody]

Now ... I invite all of you who are sick and tired of niceness ... to go on over to the Pirate Forum where we can duke it out.

[Neil D]

Aye Aye, Sir....and be prepared to be boarded and yer treasure confiscated, ye scum sucking bilge rat...

Oh, excuse me, Redwood...I appologise for that remark...I will see you in the next forum...

[Woody]

Apologizes accepted. But don't forget ... ye be an older scum bag bilge rat than me be. Now off with ye ... and get ye off to that Pirate ship.

Now ... back to the regularly scheduled fights about the word 'ought'.

I apologize for Neil if there was any disruption to your fun.

[cardw]

Evidently ichabod deleted his post or had it deleted for him or something else. Maybe this is a result of these irresponsible consequences he keeps talking about.

Anyway, I would like to respond to a couple of points to stumble our way through all the smoke and mirrors.

If "ought" is not subjective, how is it objective?

Answer this with points of logic and reason. Don't give us how an alternative fails to prove its subjectivity. Subjective is the default.

Quote:

The reason I don't answer your questions is because your arguments do not rise to the level of error.

Smoke and mirrors dude. You don't have any rational basis to answer the questions because these are subjectively determined. And if they are subjectively determined, no one has an argument or rational framework to present. And until you present one, it will continue to be subjective.

Here are the questions for your reference in case you actually have a rational basis to answer them.

Why be moral?

What is the purpose of morality?

What are the specific guidelines of this external moral reference?

Quote:

They are simply naked assertions, repeated over and over. The number of logical fallacies in your arguments renders them incoherent.

You have no argument unless you can produce what you claim exists. That is basic reasoning. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. You have made a naked assertion that an external morality exists and you hide behind NOT answering anything. You don't present the guidelines of this morality or what its purpose is. So as far as anyone is concerned it doesn't exist based on any information you have been willing to provide.

[guibox]

Somebody put some clothes on that assertion! There should be no nakedness on this forum!!

[Neil D]

Somebody put some clothes on that assertion! There should be no nakedness on this forum!!

What!? There's a naked picture here???? Where is it? I ..uh...wanna see? ..uh for medical purposes...Yeah, that's it...for medical purposes...[i'm a Respiratory therapist.]...

[Guibox- You and I are going to get along j u u u s t fine! TU ]

[there buster]

Let us take an excursion into cardw's "moral preferences."

"The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls adhere to moral preferences, men who do not fear to call morally dispreferred behavior by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to moral preferences as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for moral preferences though the heavens fall."

Lewis described the outcome of such 'morals' precisely.

"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

[Neil D]

Let us take an excursion into cardw's "moral preferences."

"The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls adhere to moral preferences, men who do not fear to call morally dispreferred behavior by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to moral preferences as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for moral preferences though the heavens fall."

Lewis described the outcome of such 'morals' precisely.

"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

Since I am the one named that you are replying to, I have to decline this discussion with you....on principles..[AKA 'moral preferences']

the reason is not because I am not willing, but because you want to talk about another person, specifically Richard [AKA cardw], of which, I simply do not understand why you do not ask him....

Since I do not know his mind, I have no inclination to talk about him...Because to do so is known as gossip. On general principle, i refuse to engage in gossip. Althought I will, on occassion dip my big toe into those waters from time to time, and promptly, with regularity get it smashed, this time I simply refuse to do so...

So, on principal, you will have to ask Richard yourself...

[cardw]

Quote:

Let us take an excursion into cardw's "moral preferences."

Why don't you engage in the dialog? This is just more smoke and mirrors. Your fuzzy position collapses when it gets to specifics. All you have is some type of loose quoting going on with no specifics. You have these grand claims of the support of all the great thinkers and C.S. Lewis, but you demonstrate no logical connection because you don't answer any questions.

As far as anyone is concerned you don't actually have a position.

Its like you're playing checkers when the game is chess.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Let us take an excursion into cardw's "moral preferences."

Why don't you engage in the dialog? This is just more smoke and mirrors. Your fuzzy position collapses when it gets to specifics. All you have is some type of loose quoting going on with no specifics. You have these grand claims of the support of all the great thinkers and C.S. Lewis, but you demonstrate no logical connection because you don't answer any questions.

As far as anyone is concerned you don't actually have a position.

Its like you're playing checkers when the game is chess.

Hey, Richard...do you mind if I ask what the questions were?

Now, I admit to being lazy, and don't want to go thru all the pages of this thread just to find two or three questions...and for the last couple of pages, I havent been paying attention to your discorse per sae....I am just curious what your questions were....Don't know if I can answer them....I will be honest, and say that I don't have all the answers because sometimes I don't need to know to the Nth degree....I do know how to ask questions though....And if one doesn't ask questions, how will one learn?

[Woody]

Somebody put some clothes on that assertion! There should be no nakedness on this forum!!

[Neil D]

Micah 1:8 "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked"

]

guibox,

please, um...don't be too upset with my friend, Redwood...He gets pretty excitable when it comes to rules and nakedness..... [looking this way and that] [wispering] especially the nakedness....

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Micah 1:8 "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked"

]

guibox,

please, um...don't be too upset with my friend, Redwood...He gets pretty excitable when it comes to rules and nakedness..... [looking this way and that] [wispering] especially the nakedness....

A wailing and howling I go ...

(in the buff)

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Micah 1:8 "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked"

]

guibox,

please, um...don't be too upset with my friend, Redwood...He gets pretty excitable when it comes to rules and nakedness..... [looking this way and that] [wispering] especially the nakedness....

BTW ... I wish the rules would go naked and we could put an end to all this wailing and howling.

[cardw]

Quote:

Hey, Richard...do you mind if I ask what the questions were?

Why be moral?

What is the purpose of morality?

What are the specific guidelines of this external moral reference?

Neil, these questions are designed specifically for ichabod's claims of an external morality. Other than the nebulous "Tao" I don't know what his basis is for morality. So, I don't want to make any statements about his beliefs until I understand exactly what they are.

My guess is that he won't be forthcoming with specifics.

[Neil D]

Why be moral?

hmmmm...I would say it's because I am responsible to Someone...As I understand Him in this world, my actions have consequences....I also understand from Him that there are other forces in this world out for my destruction and/or useage of me to destroy His works.. By staying close to Him, I can, if i listen carefully, avoid those things...

What is the purpose of morality?

Again, due to my being responsible to Someone, my supposition is that He has given instructions to thrive...so as to not only avoid the pitfalls that opposition forces have laid out for me, but to increase my happiness with others...

What are the specific guidelines of this external moral reference?

Well, those guidelines have to be specific for all stages of growth...so, I would say that the golden Rule, ie do unto others as you would have them due unto you...the specific guidelins are pretty much relational ..so.. specifics are given as examples and are not exclusively literal...ie 10 Commandments.....

Neil, these questions are designed specifically for ichabod's claims of an external morality. Other than the nebulous "Tao" I don't know what his basis is for morality. So, I don't want to make any statements about his beliefs until I understand exactly what they are.

Well, I ain't gonna speak for him either...I can only say what I think...Is that fair enough?

My guess is that he won't be forthcoming with specifics. My guess is that he will do one of 2 things...either he will come back or he wont...If he comes back, he will try to improve upon my answers...to which he is totally welcomed to if he feels up to it. If he doesnt, well...I am sorry, but you get little ol' me....

[there buster]

Quote:

Your fuzzy position collapses when it gets to specifics.

After demonstrating the bankruptcy of your position, that's hilarious!

You shouldn't make the mistake of concluding that, because you refuse to understand something, it must be 'fuzzy.'

[olger]

Cardw...

[Bravus]

Nice, olger. 'In quietness and in confidence shall be thy strength'. (not necessarily what you were saying, but what I got from it - maybe you were more along the lines of 'hook, line and sinker')

[Bravus]

I think part of the problem is that Richard's questions are utilitarian, and one of ichabod's points is that morality can't be. So there's no real way from within ichabod's position to address those questions, and they are not 'real' moral questions in a sense.

(apologies if I've put words in anyone's mouth - no doubt I'll regret interposing myself, but it's an attempt to translate to avoid the on-going lobbing of barbs that doesn't seem to be moving us forward)

So to ask 'Why be moral?' is to miss the point. Ichabod is stating that morality is something external to us, to which we can come or not, but it will exist nonetheless. The 'ought' exists independently of any utilitarian reasons to support it.

This thread actually links across to the 'Truth' thread. The question is 'does there exist an eternal, external, objective truth?' The same question applies here, but with 'morality' substituted for the last word.

There are (I think) at least three possible positions on this question:

1. Yes there does, and we have direct access to it

2. Yes there does, but we have only indirect access to it

3. No there doesn't - all truths are temporally and spatially bound, internal and subjective

Now, much of the rub comes from (what I take to be) the fact that it is impossible empirically to distinguish between various very strong forms of 2 and either 1 or 3. That is, if we think that the degree of mediation is huge, and our access extremely indirect, then there may as well not exist an objective truth at all, because we have no hope of approaching it. We may as well behave as though all truths are subjective. On the other hand, if we think the degree of mediation is small, and our level of access is quite direct, this is very close to 1, and objective truth is fairly accessible, with a few minor areas to be cleared up.

Hope this is useful for some of you to read - it was useful for me to write.

[olger]

Thanks. If we are but collections of matter, there is no morality.

[olger]

Nice, olger. 'In quietness and in confidence shall be thy strength'. (not necessarily what you were saying, but what I got from it - maybe you were more along the lines of 'hook, line and sinker')

He enjoys coming here because the fish bite.

`og

[there buster]

Quote:

Why don't you engage in the dialog? . . .You have these grand claims of the support of all the great thinkers and C.S. Lewis, but you demonstrate no logical connection because you don't answer any questions.

Quote:

Those who understand the spirit of the Tao and who have been led by that spirit can modify it in directions which that spirit itself demands. Only they can know what those directions are. The outsider knows nothing about the matter. His attempts at alteration, as we have seen, contradict themselves. So far from being able to harmonize discrepancies in its letter by penetration to its spirit, he merely snatches at some one precept, on which the accidents of time and place happen to have riveted his attention, and then rides it to death—for no reason that he can give. From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao. This is what Confucius meant when he said 'With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel'.5 This is why Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics: to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.6 He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed. This is why it was also said 'This people that knoweth not the Law is accursed'7 and 'He that believeth not shall be damned'.8 An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else. In particular instances it may, no doubt, be a matter of some delicacy to decide where the legitimate internal criticism ends and the fatal external kind begins. But wherever any precept of traditional morality is simply challenged to produce its credentials, as though the burden of proof lay on it, we have taken the wrong position. The legitimate reformer endeavours to show that the precept in question conflicts with some precept which its defenders allow to be more fundamental, or that it does not really embody the judgement of value it professes to embody. The direct frontal attack 'Why?'—'What good does it do?'—'Who said so?' is never permissible; not because it is harsh or offensive but because no values at all can justify themselves on that level. If you persist in that kind of trial you will destroy all values, and so destroy the bases of your own criticism as well as the thing criticized. You must not hold a pistol to the head of the Tao. Nor must we postpone obedience to a precept until its credentials have been examined. Only those who are practising the Tao will understand it. It is the well-nurtured man, the cuor gentil, and he alone, who can recognize Reason when it comes.9 It is Paul, the Pharisee, the man 'perfect as touching the Law' who learns where and how that Law was deficient.10 In order to avoid misunderstanding, I may add that though I myself am a Theist, and indeed a Christian, I am not here attempting any indirect argument for Theism. I am simply arguing that if we are to have values at all we must accept the ultimate platitudes of Practical Reason as having absolute validity: that any attempt, having become sceptical about these, to reintroduce value lower down on some supposedly more 'realistic' basis, is doomed. Whether this position implies a supernatural origin for the Tao is a question I am not here concerned with. Emphasis mine

'With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel'.5 This is why Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics: to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.6 He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed.