Define Morality

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Now that you're addressing the issue, you're sounding pretty clear. You're also sounding pretty inconsistent with moral relativism.

I'm glad you've taken up this line of inquiry, Thomas, and I'm somewhat surprised that Max is actually responding to you. As you might have noticed, he stopped responding to my posts. I've learned, from past encounters on this board, that when Max is boxed into a logical corner, he runs and hides. He has done it to me, and I expect that he will sooner or later do it to you too.

You entertain a lot...never met a better runner in A2K then you.
Your only interest is to put others on the spot, and normally with trivial and linear logical games.
Vain and superficial are your signature water mark...
Rarely do you have an opinion that goes or risks any further then a few sparse words saying almost nothing. You are afraid of the ridicule like a child is afraid of the dark. Of course you are without knowing the top of the ridicule for the very exact reason you try to avoid it.
Live long and prosper Joe ! Wink

1 Reply

Maybe we should all just defy morality, instead of trying to define it. Sounds easier.

1 Reply

This one goes for happy monkeys like me !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You got that wrong Joe. I have no moral obligation to respond to your posts. I am here for my own entertainment... whether you or I "win" the discussion (whatever "winning" means on a public Internet forum or whether that is even possible) doesn't matter at all.

I respond to Thomas because his posts are thoughtful and intelligent. In addition Thomas is always respectful even when we disagree... he is very good at having an intellectual discussion without making it personal. I respect that. Thomas challenges me in a way that I find very interesting and enjoyable and challenging (even when I feel strongly he is wrong).

When you write posts that are challenge me intellectually in a way that I find enjoyable, I will always respond. We are all here for our own enjoyment. If you say something that makes me think in a new way... that is an added bonus.

If you are here to "win" an internet argument, then you aren't really clear on the concept.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You got that wrong Joe. I have no moral obligation to respond to your posts.

Even when you respond to me, you're responding to someone else's post. Nevertheless, I didn't say that you had a moral obligation to respond to me. Given your position that morality doesn't exist, it would have been odd indeed for me to suggest that you had a moral obligation to respond. After all, you don't have a moral obligation to do anything -- at least according to you.

Granted, you claim to have a moral code that you obey. But even the most cursory examination reveals your moral code to be nothing more than personal preference. For instance, you prefer a society where no one murders anyone else, and you then exalt that preference into a moral obligation not to murder. Don't, however, delude yourself: it's still just a personal preference. If, tomorrow, you decide that you are entitled to a personal exception from the "nobody gets to murder anyone else" rule, there's nothing that would stop you from adopting it -- certainly not any kind of objective moral code.

And that's why you're having such obvious difficulty answering Thomas's hypothetical. You dislike child marriage, but you've already boxed yourself into a position where you're supposed to respect other cultures' moral codes, so you can't, in any kind of consistent manner, claim that child marriage in a society that permits such marriages is immoral. On a visceral level, you dislike it, but because of your moral relativism, you can't say that it's immoral for that society. Yet there's no dilemma here. Since your morality resides on the visceral level, you needn't ask "what is my obligation here?" but only "what does my gut tell me?"

maxdancona wrote:

If you are here to "win" an internet argument, then you aren't really clear on the concept.

Rest assured, I'm not here to win any arguments. That would be too easy.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Let at least get my points correct. You can't make an intelligent debate on my points unless you actually understand what my points are.

1) I am saying that morality is a social construct. This is quite a bit different than a personal preference. I don't believe I have never said that morality is a "personal preference", you made this up.

2) I have never said that I have no moral obligation to do anything. Again, these are your words, not mine (sometimes it seems like you are arguing with yourself rather than with me).

As a member of a modern western society I have the same moral obligation that you do. This has nothing to do with preference, it has to do with the morals that were instilled in me since birth and that allow me to live a productive fulfilling life.

You invented all this stuff about preference (I don't believe I have ever used the word). If you want to discuss this with me... it would be helpful if you don't put words in my mouth.

3) I am not having any difficulty with Thomas' hypothetical. If I have such a difficulty I am sure that Thomas and I can work it out.

It is enjoyable to work things out with Thomas since he argues intelligently. He listens to the actual points being made and responds to them rather than making up his own points.

There has been at least two times where Thomas has changed my way of thinking, and I appreciate it. He didn't do this by declaring his superiority. He did this by making his point and leaving it up to me whether I took it or not.

How about you and I have an intelligent conversation Joe, instead of this cockfighting which isn't really fun. If you don't think having an intelligent conversation with me is possible, then we really shouldn't bother.

This bullshit about backing someone into a corner in an internet debate is really laughable.

1 Reply

@FBM,

There is nothing particularly difficult about morality. If there was we wouldn't have any. What we have from it is what it suits us.

1 Reply

0 Replies

See this one in the least if no other.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Thank you for your kind words, Max. So how does your judgment that child marriages are immoral coexist with your moral relativism and your respect for Yemeni morality being different from your American morality? And remember, I'm asking you about child marriages in Yemen, not child marriages in America.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1) I am saying that morality is a social construct. This is quite a bit different than a personal preference. I don't believe I have never said that morality is a "personal preference", you made this up.

I understand that you view morality as a social construct. What I'm saying is that there's very little practical difference between a social construct and a personal preference. In effect, you're saying that you prefer your version of western morals because everyone you know does too. Your social construct is just personal preference writ large. That you've adopted "western morality" is less about what's right and wrong and more about your lack of imagination.

maxdancona wrote:

2) I have never said that I have no moral obligation to do anything. Again, these are your words, not mine (sometimes it seems like you are arguing with yourself rather than with me).

I agree: those words are mine. But then I never said that they were yours. What I'm arguing is that your position leads ineluctably to the conclusion that you have no moral obligations. That's because your "morality" is merely personal preference. You have just as much obligation to refrain from murdering someone as you have to enjoy ice cream. Both may suit your tastes, but you're not obliged to do either one.

maxdancona wrote:

As a member of a modern western society I have the same moral obligation that you do.

As I have pointed out before, you most certainly do not.

maxdancona wrote:

You invented all this stuff about preference (I don't believe I have ever used the word). If you want to discuss this with me... it would be helpful if you don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm describing your position in an accurate way that makes you uncomfortable.

maxdancona wrote:

There has been at least two times where Thomas has changed my way of thinking, and I appreciate it. He didn't do this by declaring his superiority. He did this by making his point and leaving it up to me whether I took it or not.

I've never declared my superiority here. That you think I have is, I'll accept, a testament to the logical force of my ideas.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Thank you for your kind words, Max. So how does your judgment that child marriages are immoral coexist with your moral relativism and your respect for Yemeni morality being different from your American morality? And remember, I'm asking you about child marriages in Yemen, not child marriages in America.

A better question would be why do they exist in Yemen ? Its not an oddity is it ?
If even oddities have reasons common behaviour must have stronger reasons...
So why ? We could ask just the same about many examples in History, like slavery for instance...why did it exist and why, for most part, it doesn't today ? What changed ? The will of the majority ? For no reason ? Was it social consciousness that progressed ? Was it the overall parameters ?
Could it be different with the exact same set of conditions ?

Or is it that you don't believe in good reasons for reality unfolding as it does ?
Do you think magic is the explanation ? That things happen sort like, geee I don't know, cause they pop out of thin air ? Is that it ? Is that the basis on which you can condemn children marriages in Yemen ? Can you really prove that in case you condemn them you do it out of an impartial pov ? How do you know ? Worse, How are you sure ?

...I would love a reason coming from you on that regard...

Righteousness is indeed a very dangerous tool...

0 Replies

A better more encompassing question on categorical justification would be, if people do have inalienable rights why do they naturally fail all the time ? Why are they so hard to enforce ? Twisting nature is a tricky business...

0 Replies

The only reason why I won't speak about the tragic human condition is because to have one we would need to be FULLY aware of it.
And thankfully we aren't.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

You seem to be implying that you can't make a moral judgement without believing in an absolute Truth. That simply isn't true.

My sense of morality is the same as your sense of morality in any practical sense. I have the make the same moral judgements that you make and have the same visceral reaction. This is because you and I are politically progressive members of a modern Western society.

The only difference between you, me and Joe is that we have three different views on where morality comes from. I believe it is a social construct, you believe it comes for a Utilitarian principle of the greatest happiness, and Joe hasn't really specified where morality comes from. I wish he would explain it...

Where you believe morality comes from has no bearing on how it is practiced.

Are you trying to argue that having a respect for moral differences between cultures means you can't be a moral person yourself?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas, I am not sure if this is new territory or not (it feels we have been here before, but maybe this is a different take).

It seems to me that Utilitarianism has more trouble with the child marriage question than moral relativism does.

If child marriages lead to greater happiness, then you would consider them moral, right? All I would have to do is prove that the increase of general happiness in society due to child marriage was enough to balance the loss of happiness to the brides and it would become moral.

That doesn't satisfy me very much.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If child marriages lead to greater happiness, then you would consider them moral, right?

I would. But there are compelling reasons to think that they don't, certainly not if you account for the suffering of the child.

maxdancona wrote:

All I would have to do is prove that the increase of general happiness in society due to child marriage was enough to balance the loss of happiness to the brides and it would become moral.

You say "all I would have to do. . ." as if this were an easy task. It is anything but that.

0 Replies

So this debate will keep on the mock-up stage indefinitely for convenience...
Job is done I am out.

0 Replies

Define Morality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know