Philosophy forum

[vincubus]

as much as people like having the last word

Lol!! of course i have an ego. we all do. no sense denying that you too have your ego. otherwise, you wouldnt post a single letter on any forum.

this is where practical philosophy comes into play. hobbes (again) mentioned that we all seek power, just at different levels. he (or she) who gets the last word can be seen as the person who seeks a higher power orbit

 

[manifold]

I really don't know why people seem to be so dead set against a philosophy forum. When I first joined I looked for one too and was surprised to see it pigeon holed under religion. And it's not like this place doesn't runneth over with superfluous forums. I mean do we really need separate forums for Congress, Media, Stock Market, Economy (seems those two could be combined). And what about not only a Middle East forum, but separate forums for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? I'd make more use of a philosophy forum than all those put together. But that's just me. And I know my voice doesn't count when it comes to board decisions but if it did, I would vote for a philosophy forum.

 

[vincubus]

I really don't know why people seem to be so dead set against a philosophy forum. When I first joined I looked for one too and was surprised to see it pigeon holed under religion. And it's not like this place doesn't runneth over with superfluous forums. I mean do we really need separate forums for Congress, Media, Stock Market, Economy (seems those two could be combined). And what about not only a Middle East forum, but separate forums for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? I'd make more use of a philosophy forum than all those put together. But that's just me. And I know my voice doesn't count when it comes to board decisions but if it did, I would vote for a philosophy forum.

i am curious.

1) intake

2) exhaust

3) mixing

4) an asian discussing orgami

5) none of the above

6) all of the above (parallel universes?)

 

[manifold]

I really don't know why people seem to be so dead set against a philosophy forum. When I first joined I looked for one too and was surprised to see it pigeon holed under religion. And it's not like this place doesn't runneth over with superfluous forums. I mean do we really need separate forums for Congress, Media, Stock Market, Economy (seems those two could be combined). And what about not only a Middle East forum, but separate forums for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? I'd make more use of a philosophy forum than all those put together. But that's just me. And I know my voice doesn't count when it comes to board decisions but if it did, I would vote for a philosophy forum.

i am curious.

1) intake

2) exhaust

3) mixing

4) an asian discussing orgami

5) none of the above

6) all of the above (parallel universes?)

And then some...

 

[Intense]

I think that it's time to cut bait, and try an old favorite fishing hole.

Moral absolutism

Moral absolutism is the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences.
According to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism is often contrasted with moral relativism.

1 As a basis of morality
Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, the death penalty, or childhood female genital mutilation to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

2 Moral absolutism and religion
Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself.

3 Moral absolutism and free will
Semi-religious arguments for moral absolutism have to do with the relationship between free will, choice, and morals. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting (i.e., if all moral choices and moral behavior are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality), though this would depend on whether free choice is required for an action to be 'moral'. If we believe in free will, it stands to reason that the universe allows moral behavior. From this, some believe this feature is integral to the universe's reason for being. A softer, more theological, line of reasoning is that God may 'need' to permit us to have choices, but leaves the concerns of those choices (and their consequences) up to the people making them. In this case, moral absolutism is a subjective decision (i.e., free will must, by definition, include the freedom to choose what is moral).

These views are generally not accepted by those who deny free will. Some, in fact, deny free will and still accept moral absolutism—and argue that these two beliefs are inextricably tied.

A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the 'absolute' morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called 'absolute'. So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are, making them by definition unknowable.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant was a promoter of moral absolutism.

Moral Absolutism Free Morals Absolute Morality Nature Theory

 

[manifold]

I don't subscribe to the concept of moral absolutism. In fact it seems rather ludicrous to me.

Since it is impossible to remove subjectivity from any determination of the "absolutes," morality is by defintion not absolute.

 

[Intense]

Thinking in terms of electricity, I see God as The Source, and Transmitter of origin. We as Individuals, first receive, then store, rectify, develop, pass on, share, sell, conditionally, unconditionally, in the physical Universe. We apply to specific and unique circumstance. We reason, discover, envision, invent, develop, each according to our nature, both good and bad, with both known and unknown consequences. I think that when we are in harmony with the source, we have an acute sense that gives us the ability, to develop, preserve, maintain, positive development and growth, that helps us recognize and develop our reason for being. Suggesting that for every one of us, our primary relationship and responsibility is to the source, first as Individual beings, second as members of society. To me, from my very limited and jaded perspective, this theory serves as a Moral Absolute.

The Source, not being able to define without applying false limits, I'll just name "God". Every situation being unique, having similar and dissimilar characteristics to others, would by reason have a unique remedy, where remedy is required. The focus of the remedy is focused on the factors of the situation, it's effectivness by measure and degree. NY generically applied. Justice is without partiality, lets stop confusing partiality with sight. Justice is not blind. Blind Justice is an oxymoron.

 

[manifold]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

 

[Intense]

I don't subscribe to the concept of moral absolutism. In fact it seems rather ludicrous to me.

Since it is impossible to remove subjectivity from any determination of the "absolutes," morality is by defintion not absolute.

I see source and application as sn equation. Source is limitless, application in relation to circumstance needs to justify and balance out, to measure and degree.

 

[Intense]

I don't see it as bullshit, I generally use it as a tool to test relevance, and motive, and structure, and generally who benefits from what. It is an argument I would use in discussion against Arbitrary Court Decision, or poorly thought out Law, showing evidence of collateral damage or casualty, or unintended consequence, or corruption. Just trying to stimulate conversation though. So what works for you?

 

[vincubus]

I think that it's time to cut bait, and try an old favorite fishing hole.

[/url]

chewy stuff

i myself dont accept moral absolutes, if that means something unbending. i consider morals to be doing "right", an expression of what we value, and the attempt to uphold justice. justice is the more elusive of the three, although plato in the republic deals with that. i will look into the theory of justice. thanks.

moral absolutes streamline our lives as it removes doubt over a course of action. however, i think many of us, despite that, wrestle with questions of what is right. since this is true, i cannot see morals as an absolute, but more the notion of absolute morals as a rough baseline around which we hub our decisions (if the preceding is the definition of absolute, then i woiuld have to accept moral absolutes). consider that in many diverse cultures, many of the same things are considered to be "wrong", which argues for a genetic moral base that some could take to be "god" or from a god. but i wonder if they are considered "wrong" because those acts would erode social cohesion only?

referring to kohlbergs morality exercise, there are two choices; one that upholds the state and one that upholds the individual. one choice violates a law, both legal and natural, against theft of the property of another person, and the second choice violates no legal right, but will end a life. i think many of us would value a life over property, and so the moral thing seems to be to steal to save a life. every action has intent and perception, and the intent must be understood first in order to determine if an act is moral or not.

the above is unsatisfactory and incomplete. but i am of the opinion i will always be unresolved on this. i hope that will be the case anyhow.

curious; what are your thoughts re kohlbergs morality exercise?

 

[The Illusion]

I think that it's time to cut bait, and try an old favorite fishing hole.

Moral absolutism

Moral absolutism is the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences.
According to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism is often contrasted with moral relativism.

1 As a basis of morality
Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, the death penalty, or childhood female genital mutilation to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

2 Moral absolutism and religion
Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself.

3 Moral absolutism and free will
Semi-religious arguments for moral absolutism have to do with the relationship between free will, choice, and morals. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting (i.e., if all moral choices and moral behavior are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality), though this would depend on whether free choice is required for an action to be 'moral'. If we believe in free will, it stands to reason that the universe allows moral behavior. From this, some believe this feature is integral to the universe's reason for being. A softer, more theological, line of reasoning is that God may 'need' to permit us to have choices, but leaves the concerns of those choices (and their consequences) up to the people making them. In this case, moral absolutism is a subjective decision (i.e., free will must, by definition, include the freedom to choose what is moral).

These views are generally not accepted by those who deny free will. Some, in fact, deny free will and still accept moral absolutism—and argue that these two beliefs are inextricably tied.

A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the 'absolute' morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called 'absolute'. So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are, making them by definition unknowable.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant was a promoter of moral absolutism.

Moral Absolutism Free Morals Absolute Morality Nature Theory

We do not, in fact, need such an absolute morality in order to live good, meaningful lives.

No more than we need to make or acquire an “absolute” set of traffic laws before we may safely travel on our roads and highways. If the British want to drive on the left side of their roads instead of the right side and it works for them, fine. Any American who goes to Britain and insists on driving his or her own way because it’s the “absolutely” right one is going to learn just how silly this is in a hurry.

Read More Here: What’s The Deal With “Absolute” Morality? | AnAtheist.Net

Absolute morality only exists as an excuse. This is showing that those we believe in absolute morality cannot think for themselves. They are incapable of living a meaningful, life filled with integrity. If things are absolute, then there would be no war, there would be no killing in self defense...there would be no torture going on of foreigners...etc. Absolute morality only contributes itself to where its needed when an excuse is imminent.

I dont think that human nature has anything to do with absolute morality. Human nature is to survive. If there is a time to kill, there is a time to kill - but with reason. There is no ingrained gene that has absolute morality just because God says so. It is a learned behavior that people learn from as they grow up from their surroundings and the people in those surroundings. Morality is decided upon as we grow. The psychology of morality suggests that some people are okay with murder and others are not. It says that we have all "become" accustomed to a certain string of behaviors that are either right or wrong. It is an individual decision. Absolute morality cannot play into this because it is circumstantial.

This is not an attack on you, Intense. It is just my personal beliefs regarding absolute morality.

Jamie

 

[JBeukema]

it is not gunny's forum or board but he is the administartor [sic].

There's a second admin, but (s)he never posts.

 

[JBeukema]

Moral absolutes, or indeed even any actual moral values beyond the subjective instinct and complex, have never been demonstrated to exist, nor has the Abrahamic religion in any form ever had any morality whatsoever.

 

[manifold]

Moral absolutes, or indeed even any actual moral values beyond the subjective instinct and complex, have never been demonstrated to exist, nor has the Abrahamic religion in any form ever had any morality whatsoever.

You couldn't just state your view of the topic at hand and leave it at that could you? You just HAD to bash religion too didn't you?

Dillholes like you are the reason why philosophy gets unecessarily joined at the hip with theology. Nitwit.

 

[Intense]

I still see the Source as absolute, in spite of me refusing to speak for or limit God in any other way. I see the application of what we do as relative to perception and circumstance. in relation to choosing between Individual and Society, I truly believe that if you choose society, you loose both. Locke, and Madison, and Thoreau all recognized that Communion with God Through Conscience is paramount, and takes preference over all other obligations. Beware any State which seeks to harm or squash that, it is Tyranny by any name. Why is it so important to some to control every aspect of another's life? There are those that would do what is morally right whether it is written out in law or not. There are those that would do what is morally right, in spite of bad law. Vin, I'm sort of playing the mad hatter right now but I promise to Kohlberg more later. I must also confess that I am currently influenced by one of the writings of my favorite Atheist. Ayn Rand. So in the spirit of Equality 7-2527, We will catch you later. Talk about future shock, God save us from ourselves.

 

[The Illusion]

I still see the Source as absolute, in spite of me refusing to speak for or limit God in any other way. I see the application of what we do as relative to perception and circumstance. in relation to choosing between Individual and Society, I truly believe that if you choose society, you loose both. Locke, and Madison, and Thoreau all recognized that Communion with God Through Conscience is paramount, and takes preference over all other obligations. Beware any State which seeks to harm or squash that, it is Tyranny by any name. Why is it so important to some to control every aspect of another's life? There are those that would do what is morally right whether it is written out in law or not. There are those that would do what is morally right, in spite of bad law. Vin, I'm sort of playing the mad hatter right now but I promise to Kohlberg more later. I must also confess that I am currently influenced by one of the writings of my favorite Atheist. Ayn Rand. So in the spirit of Equality 7-2527, We will catch you later. Talk about future shock, God save us from ourselves.

I want to elaborate a bit more on this but I and Vin have to get to work. We'll be back in a few hours. Thanks for the topic tho.. Its nice to talk to people without all the bickering. Its alright to agree to disagree once in a while Have a great day

Jamie

 

[JBeukema]

Theology: The claim to study that which you say cannot be studied in order to understand that which you define as incomprehensible by man.


Reference to religion begins in Intense's post and I have bashed nothing,. All I have done is state fact. Either refute or be silent.

 

[JBeukema]

I still see the Source as absolute

What 'source'? Demonstrate.

 

[manifold]

All I have done is state fact. Either refute or be silent.

Abrahamic religion in any form has never had any morality whatsoever is a FACT?

bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Doubly ironic since you said this directly after acknowledging that morality isn't absolute.

Damn you're a friggin retard.