Welcome to Gaia! ::

stealthmongoose

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!


Ethics and the "moral truth" of which we speak are one and the same thing. If you are going to apply a system of ethics, you take that it is appropriate to do so. That it is true you should use such an ethical system.

You speak of how you think that something is personally right, of that ethics should be used, yet you fail to realise that this means that you are accepting what was referred earlier as "moral truth." That there is a truth of what action we are obligated to perform and not to perform. When you instate a system of ethics you take it is the case, it is the truth, that people should behave in a certain way and dismiss other ways of acting. You demand that people behave a certain why and not another way because of the truth of the given ethical system.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


All right, assuming for the sake of discussion that there is a higher moral code that governs the universe, can you give me an example of what would be right or wrong? Just to give us an example to work with.

How am I implying that it is morally wrong to be in error about something? You're assuming something I never said.


Let's go with a nice one that is close to everyone survival. It is moral that for you to eat enough to live.

Because you are implying that there is something wrong with treating natural disasters and diseases like punishments. Why is it a problem if this is done?


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol
Craja's avatar

Hygienic Lunatic

6,200 Points
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Hygienic 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol
Are you implying that you can't possibly be incorrect?
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

Before anyone discusses with The Willow of Darkness, take the time to read about morality.
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

TrueLore
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol
Are you implying that you can't possibly be incorrect?


Being wrong feels like being right.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

TrueLore
vwytche


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol
Are you implying that you can't possibly be incorrect?
Presumably, the argument would be that an individual knows themselves best, and is thus the best authority on the content of their worldview.

Of course, that assumes quite a lot about the individual that contradicts what many psychologists and philosophers might note about the mind and human nature.
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
Quote:
Wrong, whereas you can DEMONSTRATE that something is green or round by presenting that which is green or round and comparing it something that is not green or round, you cannot demonstrate that something is good or bad by comparing it to something that is not good or bad.


Why not? What's the difference?

Quote:
Can you identify who is being Good and who is being bad? What's your foundation for it?


I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.


Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
TrueLore
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol
Are you implying that you can't possibly be incorrect?


No one is above being incorrect, however about one's own beliefs, thoughts and ideas each individual is generally commonly acceepted as the ultmate authority. I've heard of a lot of, "Trust me, I'm a stranger on the internet" arguments, but, "Trust me, I know you better than you do"?

Uh yeah, can't really have any reaction to that one other than... eek rofl .
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


Why not? What's the difference?



I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.


Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


So, if a mother deprives herself during a famine in order to let her children have more food than that would be morally wrong?

I think it is mistaken to personify a storm or flood. It is incorrect to think that a tornado hit house and missed your neighber's b/c it was after you. But I don't see it as a moral issue. People that do this are just wrong about something. Making a mistake isn't morally wrong. How can one breach their morals accidently?


In that circumstance, yes. It would be different if the moral constant was something else though.

That is a incorrect. You do see it as a moral issue. You are arguing that one should not do something. If there is nothing wrong with making the mistake, if it is not true that not should not occur, why should we even care about it being made(and you have clearly indicated that you care about it being made)?

The issue is that you aren't realising what constitutes your moral positions.


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


Why not? What's the difference?



I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.


Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.


That doesn't work. If ethical axioms do not have substance, then the cannot be legitimately used to demand action from people. If what you state is true, for you to place any ethical system in place is erroneous and based on a lie, as it is not justified that such a system of ethics be applied. If you throw out that ethical/moral conceptions express are truth, you throw them out as legitimate ideas altogether.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!


Ethics and the "moral truth" of which we speak are one and the same thing. If you are going to apply a system of ethics, you take that it is appropriate to do so. That it is true you should use such an ethical system.

You speak of how you think that something is personally right, of that ethics should be used, yet you fail to realise that this means that you are accepting what was referred earlier as "moral truth." That there is a truth of what action we are obligated to perform and not to perform. When you instate a system of ethics you take it is the case, it is the truth, that people should behave in a certain way and dismiss other ways of acting. You demand that people behave a certain why and not another way because of the truth of the given ethical system.
Not in the way me and my opponent are arguing the matter.

His definitions of morality seems to hinge on a binary axiom of right and wrong that he has not mentioned a source for aside from my assertions of what he should base it off of (Suffering, hardship, etc.) and as such he has failed to provide a source for his morality other than "right and wrong".

The assertion I am making is that his partisanship of morality leads to a subjective viewpoint that if not explored is less founded because it does not validate itself. Why is something wrong? Is it wrong because it causes suffering? Because it goes against the king's orders? Because it's illegal? These ideas are worth exploring and are a much better definition of right and wrong than simply 'right' and 'wrong'.

I as a person can accept something personally and see my lack of knowledge in applying it. I personally accept the idea that torture is wrong because i rarely find cases in which it can be accepted.

Even in such cases, the 'moral truth' is not the truth if it is not universal, since truths are by their very nature universal. My opponent's example of a 'moral truth' in torture being wrong is eliminated in it's content by the application of torture to commit what some, if not most, perceive to be a 'greater good' (saving a family with the information extracted from one tortured person for example). I am not arguing that this greater good exists (in fact, i think it's a piss poor excuse to pretend to know what's right for the world) but assuming to know it on an axiom and a shifting set of ideals that is neither universal nor true or very well founded it seems makes me want to explore the idea in all of it's parts. Ethics are much the same way, where you feel a certain way and either think or do not think that this way should be applied to others. Vis a vis "I like chocolate" leads to "Maybe other people like chocolate" but does NOT EVER become "Chocolate is delicious to everyone!" <<<<This would imply a nontruth (get what i'm saying?)

First, you're trying to tie in ethical ideas with morality, then you try and assert them as 'true', when they are in fact very subjective and differentiate on culture and other societal variables including economic success and other such things.

From this point you actually start pretending to represent my views. Logically speaking, True and should do not follow each other and still make sense. If it is true that torture does not get applied to do good things, then it is not a matter of should or should not, there would be no alternative one way or another if the morals being asserted were 'true'. As such, they are just morals, and at best, ethics, which are still subjective to an extent. I do not demand or imply truth upon the way anything should act towards anyone, i present the outcomes and the effects of such actions and do not label them as right or wrong.

For example, you can say 'killing is wrong' and propose that as a moral truth (not far from what was proposed by my opponent in the torture scenario) and label it as wrong for everyone all the time and there is no excuse for ever doing it. At least, that's the idea i get from the assertion of moral truth.

Then someone kills in self defense after being assaulted and potentially raped. Someone else kills a thief stealing their medication. Someone commits suicide after living in solitary confinement for several years. Someone else kills their patient because it was their wish to not live in a coma.

All of these acts are wrong. No excuse. Axiom et axiom.

Ethics is a little more accurate, but not by much:

By ethics, i see that if i were being assaulted and potentially raped, it would be good ti dispatch my oppressor as quickly as possible. By ethics, i realize that medication when i take it feels relatively important in maintaining my bodily health, so i can understand someone committing bodily harm to a person who stole it from them. By ethics i don't have to say the person who committed suicide was right or wrong since i can look at how i would potentially feel sitting in a locked room for many years and no human contact and see that perhaps no dichotomy fits that act. By ethics, i can look at a person without labeling them good or evil for something as simple as giving another person the peace they wish for just by seeing the amount of suffering they are going through and realize that i would not want to go on living hooked up to a machine either!

This does not make ethics, morality, or anything else with that much subjectivity true or universal, and CERTAINLY not in the way my opponent is presenting it; "Good/Bad" "Innocent/Guilty" etc.

The only truth to morality is that it is thought about, and if that's the case i'll stick with calling it morality.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


Now your whole argument has boiled down to you trying to tell me what I believe. You don't see the problem with that?


No, I also told you why you are mistaken.

There is no problem with it. Lot of people reason badly with regards to morality and fail to realise the positions they hold.


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games