Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rubiksnoob wrote:I suggest that we cease our debate here. We have both presented our views on the topic in a very thorough manner, and there is not much more we can do besides arguing the same points over and over.

The basis for our debate seems to be rooted in a very fundamental difference: You seem to hold an anthropocentric worldview, whereas I hold a firmly biocentric stance. We are not going to convince each other of anything. I respect your difference of opinion however and respect you for defending it. Until we meet again good sir.

As you wish, you may choose to reply or not, and that's your right, but I will still respond to your post. Darn right we hold different world views, and it's highly unlikely that's going to change. I respect your opinion as well, even though I disagree with it highly. I like to think I live life by the phrase: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But ta ta for now.

Now...final refutations.

Deer have nowhere near the level of complexity that is found in dolphin societies and social bonds. And there is also the manner in which the dolphins are killed that makes the drive hunts abhorrent.

I showed you a way that the death of deer is potentially just as painful and tortuous as the death for the dolphins, and you've ignored that argument, only repeating that it is bad without pausing to justify or explain why its bad by refuting me. Moreover, while you've demonstrated that dolphins potentially show familial traits and ties, how do we know deer don't? Deer do show parental care for their young, is that not evidence of a social relationship between deer?

ChrisWWII wrote:
Now...final refutations.

Deer have nowhere near the level of complexity that is found in dolphin societies and social bonds. And there is also the manner in which the dolphins are killed that makes the drive hunts abhorrent.

I showed you a way that the death of deer is potentially just as painful and tortuous as the death for the dolphins, and you've ignored that argument, only repeating that it is bad without pausing to justify or explain why its bad by refuting me. Moreover, while you've demonstrated that dolphins potentially show familial traits and ties, how do we know deer don't? Deer do show parental care for their young, is that not evidence of a social relationship between deer?

ahhhhh. . must . . resist urge. . to respond. . GARGHHJGHJGDOHFASDNVJVJBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLSDFJJO!

Gailbraithe wrote:I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.

ChrisWWII wrote:Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there?

What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text. Either you are making a deliberate effort to misunderstand me or you have very poor reading comprehension skills. Then again, since you think all books are propaganda, and refuse to read propaganda, perhaps your reading skills just aren't very developed?

As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Specifically they are predicated on the premise that God exists and communicates moral teachings to man through prophets. This claim can never be verified, so the truth value of any moral statement made by these religions is always "Maybe?"

I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it. Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.

Monster Rain wrote:What's crazy is that G-Baby doesn't understand that Jews and Muslims also think that their morality is irrefutable. He doesn't hold a monopoly on the belief that his moral code is the correct one.

I do understand that many Jews and Muslims (and Christians) believe their morality is irrefutable. There is no reasonable way you could deduce from my comment that I do not understand this.

My personal belief is that moral reasoning is fundamentally similar to mathematical reasoning, and that moral problems can be solved just as mathematical problems are solved. That once one understands the fundamentals of moral reasoning, then all moral quandaries can be solved with relative ease. I also believe that operating in a truly moral capacity at all times is impossible for most people, and that moral action is often not pragmatic action. Finally I believe that most people are sloppy and irrational when discussing morality, and that they say things that display a gross misunderstanding of what morality is.

For example, one often hears people expressing the opinion that they have a moral code they live by, that they recognize other people live by their own codes, and that they think every individuals moral code is personal. But this displays a failure to comprehend the concept of morals, which must always be universal. Any moral system that is not universal is not a moral system, it is something else.

What is meant by universal? That it applies to all actors at all times. For example, a system o morals that claims that an act is immoral if performed by a citizen of America but not immoral if performed by a citizen of Japan is a fundamentally flawed moral system. A moral system must be tested always against a hypothetical rational actor that has no identifying characteristics -- neither nationality, gender, sex, orientation, ideology or religion. If your moral system cannot handle a question phrase as "Would a good person do X?" then your moral system does not work. It fails the first and most obvious test of a moral system, it lacks universality.

The moral system I subscribe to is based on two apparent facts:
1) All persons are objectively equal.
2) All persons capable of suffering or dieing desire to not suffer or die without their express consent.

The first fact is completely irrefutable. No person can claim knowledge of a system of objective valuation, thus any claim that any person is of greater value than any other person must necessarily be based on a subjective system of valuation. Thus objectively all persons have null value. Since null = null, it follows inescapably that all persons are objectively equal.

The second fact appears to be irrefutable, but if someone would like to claim otherwise -- that is assert that they desire to suffer and die without express consent -- then I invite you to come to Seattle and say it while standing on my porch. I have a gun, we can test your commitment to that claim quite easily.

Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.

Here is a question which I think breaks the concept of a universal moral code, and I will use your format.

Would a good person KILL? Not murder kill.

If the answer is: Yes then that is saying that it is alright to kill and thus moral to murder, which is quite obviously an immoral action

If the answer is: No then it says that there is no chance when killing is justified, even if it is done to save your own life, which is also obviously not correct.

Any moral system has to be able to be flexible, and must recognize the existence of extenuating circumstances, and other loopholes. It must be flexible. Almost the entire world has recognized this, and that's why we have trial by jury among other t hings. If our moral system was a simple wall that one side is moral the other side is not, we would not need a trial by jury. We would just need a judge to say: you did x, and you are hereby sentenced to x. And there would be no complaints. However, the jury enables us to be flexible, and to allow there to be a sense of debate over whether or not extenuating circumstance exist that would either reduce the punishment, or acquit all together.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.

ChrisWWII wrote:Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there?

What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text. Either you are making a deliberate effort to misunderstand me or you have very poor reading comprehension skills. Then again, since you think all books are propaganda, and refuse to read propaganda, perhaps your reading skills just aren't very developed?

As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.

And they could say the same thing about yours.

Who's right?

ChrisWWII wrote:Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.

It's entirely possible there is one. There's an entire school of thought devoted to finding it. I just doubt any human being will ever find it

Then again Gail doesn't really seem to know what morality is, but that doesn't surprise me. As is typical for him he's attached his own opinion of morality to the concept to the exclusion of all other views. Universality is a school of thought on morality and perfectly valid one depending on what you're trying to achieve, but it isn't the only line of thought and being universal is hardly a requirement for a moral code.

What he seems to be trying to say is that too him a morality that can't be universally applied is flawed. He's just for some reason muddled down on the idea that if a moral system can't be universally applied and is flawed then it isn't a moral system at all, which is silly. A flawed moral code is still a moral code, of course I'd argue all moral codes have flaws when you look at them from outside that code. When you're inside it and subscribe to it obviously makes perfect sense to you

LordofHats:

Have to agree with you. It is possible there is one, I suppose. But if humans can never discover or acheive it then it functionally doesn't exist, no?

Exactly...that comment about how the entire world should follow his morality system is what really kills me still. I happen to not believe in the universality of any moral code, but that's just me. Anyone can think differently, and I don't judge them as wrong for it. Hell, I'd guess that on most issues most peoples moral code would be quite similar if not the same. It's only on fringe issues like this where they begin to disagree with each other.

Totally agreed....Most moral codes appear perfect from inside, but once you go out? THEN you start noticing the inconsistencies.

Totally agreed....Most moral codes appear perfect from inside, but once you go out? THEN you start noticing the inconsistencies.

I wouldn't say perfect. They suit the needs of the individual or group in question. But moral codes are built to define proper behavior. They're social constructs. A moral code that doesn't address a given situation doesn't address it because the situation never came up. If it comes up the code is either expanded to included or changed to adapt to a new view on right and wrong. Likewise sometimes people within a moral code find fault in it, and try to address their concerns by changing it, replacing it, etc etc. Societies evolve and likewise their moral codes evolve to fit their needs.

When you take someone with one moral code built for their needs and have them observe the moral code built for the needs of another, it's easy for them to look at it and think "WTF? They're doing it wrong!" This doesn't make one right or one wrong they could easily both be wrong or even both be right depending on how you view morality and its role in the world and to people.

For example, the past two paragraphs are looking at morality in a historical context, defining morality as the standards by which societies and groups determined right and wrong within themselves. There are other ways, like Gail's, the view morality. There are multiple ways to approach any given problem. Some work better than others depending on what you want to achieve.

LordofHats wrote:
I wouldn't say perfect. They suit the needs of the individual or group in question. But moral codes are built to define proper behavior. They're social constructs. A moral code that doesn't address a given situation doesn't address it because the situation never came up. If it comes up the code is either expanded to included or changed to adapt to a new view on right and wrong. Likewise sometimes people within a moral code find fault in it, and try to address their concerns by changing it, replacing it, etc etc. Societies evolve and likewise their moral codes evolve to fit their needs.

When you take someone with one moral code built for their needs and have them observe the moral code built for the needs of another, it's easy for them to look at it and think "WTF? They're doing it wrong!" This doesn't make one right or one wrong they could easily both be wrong or even both be right depending on how you view morality and its role in the world and to people.

Well, that's what I was going for. Each person personalizes and specializes their moral code according to their own point of view, self tailoring it as they need. To them they know what the true moral path is, while from the outside someone could say that they're acting immoral.

Of course, such a conflict would usually occur on the outskirts of morality. I'm perfectly willing to be that most people's moral code would agree on most things. Killing, stealing, etc. is generally wrong, and that most people wouldn't notice such inconsistencies within others moral code until we get to something like this debate. THEN things get serious.

ChrisWWII wrote:Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.

If you firmly believe it is not possible to have a universal moral code, then you do follow any moral code and are either a nihilist, ammoral, or morally bankrupt. Given your comments so far in this thread, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply very confused and have no idea what you're saying.

Here is a question which I think breaks the concept of a universal moral code, and I will use your format.

Would a good person KILL? Not murder kill.

If the answer is: Yes then that is saying that it is alright to kill and thus moral to murder, which is quite obviously an immoral action

If the answer is: No then it says that there is no chance when killing is justified, even if it is done to save your own life, which is also obviously not correct.

Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.

Any moral system has to be able to be flexible, and must recognize the existence of extenuating circumstances, and other loopholes. It must be flexible. Almost the entire world has recognized this, and that's why we have trial by jury among other t hings. If our moral system was a simple wall that one side is moral the other side is not, we would not need a trial by jury. We would just need a judge to say: you did x, and you are hereby sentenced to x. And there would be no complaints. However, the jury enables us to be flexible, and to allow there to be a sense of debate over whether or not extenuating circumstance exist that would either reduce the punishment, or acquit all together.

None of these claims make sense or are true. We do not have trials by jury because of a need for "moral flexibility," we have juries in order to determine whether or not the accused is guilty. I'm afraid you really don't understand how juries work at all. Extenuating circumstances are not considered by juries, they are considered by the law itself.

Also, you seem to not understand the difference between law and morality.

Monster Rain wrote:

As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.

And they could say the same thing about yours.

Who's right?

I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.

LordofHats wrote:Then again Gail doesn't really seem to know what morality is, but that doesn't surprise me. As is typical for him he's attached his own opinion of morality to the concept to the exclusion of all other views. Universality is a school of thought on morality and perfectly valid one depending on what you're trying to achieve, but it isn't the only line of thought and being universal is hardly a requirement for a moral code.

It's a requirement for a valid moral code, which are the only kind worth considering. A moral code that is not universal will inevitablely be flawed.

What he seems to be trying to say is that too him a morality that can't be universally applied is flawed. He's just for some reason muddled down on the idea that if a moral system can't be universally applied and is flawed then it isn't a moral system at all, which is silly. A flawed moral code is still a moral code, of course I'd argue all moral codes have flaws when you look at them from outside that code. When you're inside it and subscribe to it obviously makes perfect sense to you

No, you're being silly. Imagine I build a machine that is intended to allow me to fly like a bird. A flying contraption. I build the contraption and attempt to launch off the ground. This happens:




According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right. The failure to realize an idea is not the same thing as the successful realization of an idea. So a flawed moral code is not a moral code anymore than a failed flying contraption is an airplane. A flawed moral code is a failure. It's not a moral code, it's wrong. It was an attempt at a moral code/flying contraption, but it's failure to conform to the necessary properties of a moral code/achieve sustained flight means it was a failed attempt.

Gailbraithe wrote:It's a requirement for a valid moral code, which are the only kind worth considering. A moral code that is not universal will inevitablely be flawed.

It's still a moral code.

According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.

Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.

That's somewhat of a false analogy. A better analogy for this subject: "I built and flying machine (the USS Morality ) and it flies. But once it hits 3000 feet it explodes for some reason... I should probably figure out why and fix that. " Being flawed does not imply failure, or that something isn't what it is. A flawed flying machine can still fly. A flawed person doesn't cease to be a person (unless we count death as a flaw and even then we still grant rights to corpses in a sense).

You seem to be a universalist and believe there is universal moral code that is correct. Which is fine. But then that leaves the question of what are the countless moral codes that span throughout history if they're not moral codes? Did the Aztecs not have a moral code? Of course they did. To us it just seems horribly twisted and baffling, and it probably is , But it worked for them in the time they lived until times changed and their moral code became more detrimental than beneficial (The Spanish didn't help). Moral codes in a historical sense are built to suit the needs of the people that subscribe to them. If the moral code no longer works then it is either abandoned and replaced (A process that usually happens over time) or the society that uses it or adapts n the wrong way collapses entirely (moral failings are often a contributing factor the decline of nations).

You're definition of morality is a definition used by a particular school of thought on the subject. Broadly universality is not needed for something to be a morality.

ChrisWWII wrote:You bring up a good point with the Aztecs. Now, I would think they'd be attacked as immoral, but back then who know? Not that there are any of them left to ask, mind you. They were all wiped out by Spaniard who firmly believed that the Catholic moral system was the only true one in existence. (Yes I know that wasn't the only reason, but its the reason relevant to this debate.) Just like our friend G-baby here.

I´ll just come to the thread to point out that Cortes was not alone and that a bunch of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies tired of being the target of the Aztec´s moral system with their own moral systems that apparently didn´t condone wide spread human sacrifice were very happy to help defeating the Aztec Triple Alliance. (so you point still stands other than there were more moral codes involved)

M.

Galibraithe - Given that you claim your moral code is perfect, and that you value all life as equal, provide a morally correct solution to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Edit: If I've misunderstood your personal moral code, please correct me; I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but you claiming to believe any moral code is perfect grates me.

I do not have a universal moral code, and I firmly believe that all moral codes require some degree of flexibility in them. This does not make me amoral, morally bankrupt or anything else. I am perfectly clear on what I'm saying, thank you very much. I'm saying that a moral code require flexibility and thus can not be 100% universal.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.

Just because a bunch of people agree with you, even a major religous figure, does not make you right. I don't believe it's ALWAYS morally wrong to kill. What about my example situation? You see someone charging you with a knife, obviously intent on killing you. You have a gun. What are you to do? Close your eyes and let him murder you? Or do you defend yourself and shoot the attacker, potenitally killing him? To me this type of situation is why a universal moral code is completely impossible. There will always be a situation that defies the rules, and makes it difficult to establish whether or not the action was immoral.

None of these claims make sense or are true. We do not have trials by jury because of a need for "moral flexibility," we have juries in order to determine whether or not the accused is guilty. I'm afraid you really don't understand how juries work at all. Extenuating circumstances are not considered by juries, they are considered by the law itself.

I'll give you that I mispoke. What I meant to say is that PART OF a juries duty is not only to determine guilt, but also to give a suggestion of punishment. This is an example of moral flexibility in action. And I am not confused between the law and morality, I just believe that the law tries to follow morality as much as possible, and as such is flexible. It can bend slightly to account for extenuating circumstances.

I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.

So what if they can't prove the source of their moral code exists? Why does that make you automatically right...and why can't you take it seriously? The last 5 of the 10 COmmandments central to the Abrahamic religions all seem to be tenets of a moral code that most humans on the planet would agree to. Is this somehow not allowable because they're based on the words of an unprovable entity? What is your moral code based on, what G-baby thinks is right and wrong? In that case what right do you have to apply your judgment on every action commited by every human at every time? What gives you that right?

According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right. The failure to realize an idea is not the same thing as the successful realization of an idea. So a flawed moral code is not a moral code anymore than a failed flying contraption is an airplane. A flawed moral code is a failure. It's not a moral code, it's wrong. It was an attempt at a moral code/flying contraption, but it's failure to conform to the necessary properties of a moral code/achieve sustained flight means it was a failed attempt.

a) All the flying machines in the video you posted are still flying machines. They're just really really bad flying machines, but flying machines nonetheless.
b) So, your logic is that if a moral code is not universal then it is flawed, and if it is flawed it is wrong. I'm sorry, I can't accept EITHER of those premises. A code can't apply to anyone due to different cultural backgrounds and a host of other factors. Outside the killing in self defense example provided above, allow me to provide a different (slightly sillier) example.

Suppose a universal moral code goes like this: Would a good person steal a hat? A: No.
Now, let's say we have a human from a hypothetical culture where it is the greatest compliment in the entire universe to steal someones hat. If someone steals your hat in this culture then it is a sign of such utmost respect and love that it would warm even the coldest man's heart. This man comes to your nation, and....steals your hat. Now to him, he's paying you a great GREAT compliment and showing great respect to you. But your inflexible moral code has no leeway for a situation like this, and thus this person is immoral and evil.

...That doesn't really make sense to me, and in a flexible non-universal moral system the cultural background would be an extenuating circumstance, and you could turn to man and be thankful for the compliment. (And probably explain to him the cultural differences as well. Just in case he runs into a universal moralist who prosecutes him for his attempted act of kindness.)

Miguelsan wrote:
I´ll just come to the thread to point out that Cortes was not alone and that a bunch of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies tired of being the target of the Aztec´s moral system with their own moral systems that apparently didn´t condone wide spread human sacrifice were very happy to help defeating the Aztec Triple Alliance. (so you point still stands other than there were more moral codes involved)

Yep, and I just didn't factor in the other natives. Glad you agree the point stands though.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.

And they could say the same thing about yours.

Who's right?

I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.

They still have a moral code, whether or not the God they believe it came from can be demonstrated to exist.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it. Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.

So you don't believe your way is the only right way, you just believe that...your way is the only right way?

And if you say that your way is the only right way, then you fundamentally believe that everyone else is wrong because they believe in something different.
You may add further reasoning, but the point stands that their belief is not compatible with your own, so therefore they must be wrong.

I'd like to introduce you to the colour Gray, it usually sits between black and white, y'know...the middle ground?

LordofHats wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.

Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.

A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.

That's somewhat of a false analogy.

It's not an analogy. I was demonstrating a logical principle, the law of contradiction. That failure is by definition not success because failure is defined as the absence of success, thus a thing that fails to be what it is intended to be is not what it intends to be, as if it were what it was intended to be then it would be a success, and that is a logical paradox. Thus the reasoning is wrong, and it is not reasonable to continue to argue as if the point were true.

You seem to be a universalist and believe there is universal moral code that is correct. Which is fine. But then that leaves the question of what are the countless moral codes that span throughout history if they're not moral codes?

Taboos.

Did the Aztecs not have a moral code? Of course they did. To us it just seems horribly twisted and baffling, and it probably is , But it worked for them in the time they lived until times changed and their moral code became more detrimental than beneficial (The Spanish didn't help). Moral codes in a historical sense are built to suit the needs of the people that subscribe to them. If the moral code no longer works then it is either abandoned and replaced (A process that usually happens over time) or the society that uses it or adapts n the wrong way collapses entirely (moral failings are often a contributing factor the decline of nations).

I don't know anything of substance about the Aztecs, and have no idea how developed their society was. My understanding is that they lived under a religious authority and were motivated by superstition. In which case they would not have a moral code, they would have taboos. Taboos are arbitrary rules and customs of pre-rational societies. Only a society that has discovered reason can have a rational moral code, and an irrational moral code is arbitrary and mutable (as you note), thus flawed, thus not actually a moral code. It is taboos.

You're definition of morality is a definition used by a particular school of thought on the subject. Broadly universality is not needed for something to be a morality.

Correct, I subscribe to Kantian humanism. It is the standard basis for almost all modern law in the West, the foundation of human rights, the default ethical system of the European Union and the United Nations, etc. As for universality's necessity: It is if you intend for the word morality to mean anything, then it must be universal. A non-universal system of morals will inevitably be arbitrary -- whomever the moral system does not apply to, there can be no rational reason to exclude them because of the quality of objective equality that all persons have.

Gailbraithe wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.

Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.

A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.
.

the law of contradiction is a mathematical concept that only applies when you can only judge things through true/false values. It ceases to function as a concept once you have a scale of values or more results then only true or false.

My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?

Gailbraithe wrote:
What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text.

No, that's pretty much what you said. I very much doubt that Jews and Muslims consider the premises on which their faiths are based to be untestable, which means that the foundation of your rejection of them is based on a fundamental disagreement regarding what you believe to be true. I know you want to believe that philosophy is like math, but it really isn't. Theoretical mathematics can reach a given set of conclusions because the fundamental elements that constitute it are all equivalent by abstract necessity. This same property is not present in philosophy, where the initial premises (analogous to real numbers) are always up for debate and consideration.

Gailbraithe wrote:
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Specifically they are predicated on the premise that God exists and communicates moral teachings to man through prophets.

See, you would be hard pressed to find uniform agreement on that particular topic. Moreover, even if you could, to predicate an argument on an untestable premise is not sufficient to invalidate the argument. If it were, then the physical sciences would be in an awfully uncomfortable position, and so would the utilitarian philosophy of which you are an exponent.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it.Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.

No, sorry. If you claim that, in order to believe in a moral philosophy, you must also believe that it is the only correct moral philosophy, then your first statement is impossible unless you fulfill any of the three criteria you outline in consequence.

Gailbraithe wrote:
It fails the first and most obvious test of a moral system, it lacks universality.

Why is that the first and most obvious test of a moral system?

I mean, you may not consider that to be an earth-shattering claim, but I assure you that many people who do philosophy for a living would disagree.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The first fact is completely irrefutable. No person can claim knowledge of a system of objective valuation, thus any claim that any person is of greater value than any other person must necessarily be based on a subjective system of valuation. Thus objectively all persons have null value. Since null = null, it follows inescapably that all persons are objectively equal.

It also follows that all persons are irrelevant on an objective level, which leaves us to wonder why we're talking about objectivity at all. To even reach the level of objective consideration you must first subjectively conclude that persons are worth considering at all, and that such consideration is one of objective merit. This is where ethical theory comes in.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The second fact appears to be irrefutable, but if someone would like to claim otherwise -- that is assert that they desire to suffer and die without express consent -- then I invite you to come to Seattle and say it while standing on my porch. I have a gun, we can test your commitment to that claim quite easily.

It does not follow from the idea that someone might feel that people desire to suffer and die without their express consent, that the person holding that belief must himself desire to suffer and die without his express consent.

Gitzbitah wrote:My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?

^This

I'd like to know what exactly Galbraithe would have us all live by, since he's apparently the only one with a true moral code in the world. Additionally, care to refute me, my good sir, or shall I consider your silence a concession?

Gitzbitah wrote:My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?

don't be a dick

del'Vhar wrote:Galibraithe - Given that you claim your moral code is perfect, and that you value all life as equal, provide a morally correct solution to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Edit: If I've misunderstood your personal moral code, please correct me; I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but you claiming to believe any moral code is perfect grates me.

I'm actually not claiming that one moral code is perfect. I'm claiming that there is such a thing as morality, that it is universal, and that it can be understood through the use of the faculty of reason. I'm also not claiming it's my moral code. It's no one's moral code, it's simply morality.

I would only say that it is perfect in the same sense that math is perfect. I am not even claiming that I have a perfect understanding of morality -- my moral reasoning may not be perfect, and I may arrive at a wrong conclusion. But I have gotten math problems wrong, and no one would claim that I got those problems wrong because math is imperfect, but rather because my understanding or application of math is imperfect.

For example, sitting here kind of stoned on a Wednesday night, I can't figure out the answer to the Trolley problem. But I'm certain there is a right answer, just as I'm certain there are right answers to equations my housemate is always writing on his whiteboard (he's going for his masters in mathmatics), but damned if I know what those answers are.

youbedead wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?

don't be a dick

Works for me....though somehow I expected his moral code to be somewhat more....complex than that.

Gilbraithe wrote:
For example, sitting here kind of stoned on a Wednesday night, I can't figure out the answer to the Trolley problem. But I'm certain there is a right answer, just as I'm certain there are right answers to equations my housemate is always writing on his whiteboard (he's going for his masters in mathmatics), but damned if I know what those answers are.

Really? That...that doesn't seem to go along with your early claim that all true proper universal moral codes should be answerable by the question. "Would a good man do X?" Now...with the trolley problem would a good man pull the lever? Push the fat man onto the tracks? Do any of those? From your previous statements, it seems that there should be a clear easy answer available to us. If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.

ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.

You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.

In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.

You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.

In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.

....Conceded. I'm honestly out of my depth at this point. I've never studied morality or ethics in depth, and thus am just going off my gut feeling with my posts.

ChrisWWII wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.

You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.

In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.

....Conceded. I'm honestly out of my depth at this point. I've never studied morality or ethics in depth, and thus am just going off my gut feeling with my posts.

Which funnily enough is what most morality and ethics is based on

ChrisWWII wrote:I do not have a universal moral code, and I firmly believe that all moral codes require some degree of flexibility in them. This does not make me amoral, morally bankrupt or anything else. I am perfectly clear on what I'm saying, thank you very much. I'm saying that a moral code require flexibility and thus can not be 100% universal.

It's perfectly clear that you have no idea what you're saying.

Gailbraithe wrote:Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.

Just because a bunch of people agree with you, even a major religous figure, does not make you right. I don't believe it's ALWAYS morally wrong to kill. What about my example situation? You see someone charging you with a knife, obviously intent on killing you. You have a gun. What are you to do? Close your eyes and let him murder you? Or do you defend yourself and shoot the attacker, potenitally killing him? To me this type of situation is why a universal moral code is completely impossible. There will always be a situation that defies the rules, and makes it difficult to establish whether or not the action was immoral.

I point the gun at him and tell him to stop, if that is feasible. If it is not, I shoot him. But let's be clear: I do not shoot him because that is the moral thing to do. I shoot him because I have a very strong desire to not be stabbed to death, and my desire to not be stabbed to death is a lot stronger than my desire to be moral.

Killing a person is immoral. This situation does not "defy the rules." You simply do not want to accept the conclusion. You want morality to be flexible so that you can feel that its sometimes okay to kill someone else. But its never okay to kill someone. Sometimes its necessary, and sometimes its legally sanctioned, but it is always a wrong.

I'll give you that I mispoke. What I meant to say is that PART OF a juries duty is not only to determine guilt, but also to give a suggestion of punishment. This is an example of moral flexibility in action. And I am not confused between the law and morality, I just believe that the law tries to follow morality as much as possible, and as such is flexible. It can bend slightly to account for extenuating circumstances.

Juries do not give suggestions of punishment. Punishment is decided by the judge. Juries are triers of fact. The jury's sole responsibility is to hear the facts of the case and decided if the law the defendant is accused of was in fact broken by the defendant.

So what if they can't prove the source of their moral code exists? Why does that make you automatically right...and why can't you take it seriously?

It doesn't make me right, and I never said that it did. It makes them wrong.

The reason it is relevant that they can't prove the source of their moral code exists is because I can say "There is a being named Nutlicker Divine. He is invisible, intangible, omnipresent, and responsible for everything you like. He says it is immoral to wear shoes on both feet, unless both shoes are open-toed." and that statement carries the exact same weight as any of their statements.

The last 5 of the 10 COmmandments central to the Abrahamic religions all seem to be tenets of a moral code that most humans on the planet would agree to.

Most religions get a lot of things right. But just because you shouldn't kill people, and it says you shouldn't kill people in the Ten Commandments doesn't make Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality correct. For example, there is no rational reason one should not wear blended fabrics, but the Bible says it's an abomination to God. So that's kind of arbitrary, yeah?

What is your moral code based on, what G-baby thinks is right and wrong?

No Chrissy-poo, what "G-baby" thinks is right and wrong is based on his moral reasoning, and his moral code is comprised of those principles he thinks are right. Moral reasoning is how one determines what is right and what is wrong. I'm sorry this is all so clearly way over your head.

And my moral reasoning starts from two principles:
1) Every person is equal.
2) Everything that knows suffering desires not to suffer.

But often I like to keep it simple and just use Kant's original formulations:
1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
3) Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

In that case what right do you have to apply your judgment on every action commited by every human at every time? What gives you that right?

I don't have any right to apply my judgments, if that means taking action to punish people for immoral acts. But I have every right to make moral judgments. I can think, therefore I will think. No one has any right to stop me from thinking.

b) So, your logic is that if a moral code is not universal then it is flawed, and if it is flawed it is wrong. I'm sorry, I can't accept EITHER of those premises. A code can't apply to anyone due to different cultural backgrounds and a host of other factors. Outside the killing in self defense example provided above, allow me to provide a different (slightly sillier) example.

It doesn't matter if you accept them, those premises are true.

Suppose a universal moral code goes like this: Would a good person steal a hat? A: No.
Now, let's say we have a human from a hypothetical culture where it is the greatest compliment in the entire universe to steal someones hat. If someone steals your hat in this culture then it is a sign of such utmost respect and love that it would warm even the coldest man's heart. This man comes to your nation, and....steals your hat. Now to him, he's paying you a great GREAT compliment and showing great respect to you. But your inflexible moral code has no leeway for a situation like this, and thus this person is immoral and evil.

...That doesn't really make sense to me, and in a flexible non-universal moral system the cultural background would be an extenuating circumstance, and you could turn to man and be thankful for the compliment. (And probably explain to him the cultural differences as well. Just in case he runs into a universal moralist who prosecutes him for his attempted act of kindness.)

Of course it doesn't make sense. But all you've demonstrated is that it possible for you to make up a nonsensical universal moral code that makes no sense given a ludicrous set of circumstances. And this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. The real problem here is that the man never stole my hat. He engaged in a custom for showing respect from his country. I, being a Westerner, might perceive his act as stealing my hat, but it is not the perception of the act that determines its moral quality. It is the intent of the act.

The man in your example is not operating under the maxim "One should steal other people's hats." but rather the maxim "One should acknowledge feelings of loving respect through appropriate gestures." And since this maxim, following from the categorical imperative, is good, then this man's action was good.

@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no?

I would certainly say yes, and there isn't anything in particular that prevents the creation of some sort of consistently applicable category by which those sorts of things could be discerned. Indeed, that's pretty much the purpose of Kant's categorical imperative.

Dogma, whenever you post I either have to bring a thesuarus or a link to Wiki.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Is this a leadership test or armour saves?

Armor saves, it would be an insane success if it was a morale check.

Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)

My Posts = 1 Picture and a few unhelpful comments
Dogma's post = A fething essay
Please give the guy with the Platypus more credit.

Alright then. Ahem. =Clears throat. dogma, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM AND SMITER OF HERETICS and Emperors Faithful are right.

Better?

Much.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Hmm... is the surfer infringing on the sharks right to eat surfers... or is the shark infringing on the surfers right to not be eaten?

I'd have to say the latter, as I firmly believe human rights trump animal rights. Of course that's just me, and not the absolute moral truth for the world. But I do have to agree with you....Totally out of our depth here. Dogma, may I ask, are you studying this subject area for a college degree? You certainly seem to be very knowledgeable and well read on philosophy and ethics.

1) I didn't post that
2) In that posistion morals and ethics go out the fething window. As a surfer I am wondering whether I should try to catch this wave or thow my lot in with the next one. I would also be keeping all hands and legs inside the vehichle at all times.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.

Define "okay." You can commit immoral acts whenever you want. If the law wherever you are is in concordance with morality regarding whatever immoral thing you've and you are caught engaging in that act, then you may suffer a punishment. But there is no inherent penalty for doing something immoral, at least not as far as anyone can prove. There doesn't not appear to be any means by which Cosmic Justice is fulfilled.

The point of the gun and the knife is that we often do what is pragmatic, not what is moral.

But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:

A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.

Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.

But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.

If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?

The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.

Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?

The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.

Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?

Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.

Who is justified now?

Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.

Who is justified now?

Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.

Who is justified now?

If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)

That's not fair. The question put to me only concerned Muslims and Jews. I didn't exclude Christians originally because I was afraid, but because Christians weren't part of the question asked. And I didn't add them in later because I suddenly found courage, I added them in because I don't like Christians and think mostly they have cabbages for heads.