Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

1…456810

Comments

  • #212
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Then perhaps you can explain your post to me. What has "a common universal system of morality" or lack of got to do with our understanding of electricity, gravity and atomic forces? (All of which are incomplete, btw.)
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which is why everyone shares a common universal system of morality, just like electricity, gravity and atomic forces.

    Oh wait, no we don't. ;)


  • #213
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Then perhaps you can explain your post to me. What has "a common universal system of morality" or lack of got to do with our understanding of electricity, gravity and atomic forces? (All of which are incomplete, btw.)

    Sure. 1 (incomplete) theory of electricity, 40,000 religions.

    So how is it clear to all of us that there is an objective moral standard and that none of us are moral nilihilists really which is what lmaopml was asserting.


  • #214
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sure. 1 (incomplete) theory of electricity, 40,000 religions.

    So how is it clear to all of us that there is an objective moral standard and that none of us are moral nilihilists really which is what lmaopml was asserting.

    OK, But it seems to me that are making a category error. The theory of electricity isn't analogous to religions. All religions don't pretend to be describing the same reality (that is the point of having different religions and world-views like atheism), whereas the theory of electricity is describing one facet of the universe. We may have a single theory of X but it should also be noted that such a theory is comprised of complementary and opposed hypothesise and theories. For example, the multiple versions of the multi-verse hypothesis.

    Instead of looking for differences, I think that it would be more profitable to look at what we both believe about the world. Namely that there is a thing called objective truth. For example, the statement "objective truth exists" is either true or false. Similarly, the statement "I exist" is either true or it is false. So, given that we both acknowledge there are different opinions of what truth is and yet both of us hold to absolute truths - why do you then apply a different standard to morals?


  • #215
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK, But it seems to me that are making a category error. The theory of electricity isn't analogous to religions. All religions don't pretend to be describing the same reality (that is the point of having different religions and world-views like atheism), whereas the theory of electricity is describing one facet of the universe.

    Most religions (not all by the majority) claim to accurately represent the objective standard of the universe when it comes to issues such as morality.

    You cannot have multiple religions describing multiple objective standards of morality while recognizing the validity of the others. By definition there is only one objective standard of morality.

    Or to put it another way they all assert the others are wrong when they are describing the same thing.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    We may have a single theory of X but it should also be noted that such a theory is comprised of complementary and opposed hypothesise and theories. For example, the multiple versions of the multi-verse hypothesis.

    By theory of electricity I do not mean theory of everything. The theory of electricity encompasses the working of electrons and how they move. It is one of the most established and universally accepted theories in existences.

    I've no problem with the idea that the wider theories of physics are incomplete. The point is there aren't 40,000 different ideas on how your light bulb works.

    If there was it would be perfectly reasonably to say in actuality we don't have a clue how a light bulb works.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Instead of looking for differences, I think that it would be more profitable to look at what we both believe about the world. Namely that there is a thing called objective truth. For example, the statement "objective truth exists" is either true or false. Similarly, the statement "I exist" is either true or it is false. So, given that we both acknowledge there are different opinions of what truth is and yet both of us hold to absolute truths - why do you then apply a different standard to morals?

    Because I see no evidence that morals related to anything other than human opinion (and plenty of evidence that this is all they related to)

    I put morals on the same level as what is the "best" ice cream flavour, who is the "best" comedian, ie statements that have no meaning divorced from opinion. Saying Lee Mac is the best comedian alive is in fact a meaningless statement. What is actually being said is that in the opinion of the people we asked Lee Mac is considered their favourite comedian based on what ever criteria they were using at the time to rank comedians.

    Talking of morals divorced from the opinions of those who hold the positions is, to my mind, a presupposition failure


  • #216
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Can you give me examples of the great nihilist civilizations and what they contributed to history?

    Moral nihilism is not a moral system defining how civilizations should "contribute to history". It is a statement about what moral systems are. We maintain that moral rules, whether they are those of the Roman empire, or secular Sweden, or theocratic Iran, are human constructs, no more or less real than the real number system, or Euclidean geometry. It is either true or false.

    Similarly, the notion that moral nihilists cannot engage in debate about moral principles is not only wrong, but also wholly irrelevant when it comes to the veracity of moral nihilism.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Moral nihilism is not a moral system defining how civilizations should "contribute to history". It is a statement about what moral systems are.

    No that is a no then? No societies with moral nihilism at it's core ever contributed anything in the total history of civilization.
    We maintain that moral rules, whether they are those of the Roman empire, or secular Sweden, or theocratic Iran, are human constructs, no more or less real than the real number system, or Euclidean geometry. It is either true or false.

    In other words all knowledge and all values are human constructs. A very difficult argument to oppose since of the difficulty in falsifying it. I state this because I have spent a number of years bothered by the pernicious influence of constructivism. Particularly in the history and philosophy of science and how it had affected science education.

    This guy has a good take on it:
    http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/92_docs/Matthews.HTM
    I wish to rescue good constructivist pedagogy from the deficient theory that parented it.
    ...
    What can it mean to say that a statement, a collection of words, corresponds to a material state of affairs? ...Correspondence theories are based upon an important realist intuition, but beyond this they are incoherent. Pleasingly this does not affect our claims to knowledge.
    ...
    Von Glasersfeld says ...[that] we cannot see reality, we only have our sensations to reflect upon, and so we are never able to judge correspondence between our ideas and the world (a restatement of Berkeley’s argument). He sometimes replaces correspondence with pragmatism, and in other places with coherence among experience. This leads him, and Noddings for instance, to speak of constructivism as being post-epistemological. His original subject-observing-an-object formulation does lead to an impasse, and one appreciates why he wants to abandon epistemology. My suggestion is that this is a case of old, unpalatable, empiricist wine in a new bottle; there are other non-empiricist, objectivist wines which allow epistemological imbibing to proceed with interest, enjoyment and profit.



    It is difficult but not impossible to oppose. Having laboured at it and delved into iot for over ten years I still find it difficult. One way to deal with the sociological version of it is to ask what such a philosophy has contributed. In the case of nihilism it has not created anything for society. Has it?
    Similarly, the notion that moral nihilists cannot engage in debate about moral principles is not only wrong, but also wholly irrelevant when it comes to the veracity of moral nihilism.

    So given you believe there are not such things as right and wrong do you believe that sex between a child and an adult isn't always wrong?

    Also you are saying "There are no absolute truths apart from the truth of this statement" and I think the self reference in that statement implies an inconsistency or an ever repeating loop.


  • #218
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    No that is a no then? No societies with moral nihilism at it's core ever contributed anything in the total history of civilization.

    If moral nihilism is correct all societies have moral nihilism at their core.
    ISAW wrote: »
    In the case of nihilism it has not created anything for society. Has it?

    It is a statement about the nature of morality. How would it create anything?

    What has moral objectivism created? (not moral objectivists, but actual moral objectivism)


  • #219
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    No that is a no then? No societies with moral nihilism at it's core ever contributed anything in the total history of civilization.

    Moral nihilism is not a moral system, so how could a society have it "at its core"? No society has Lenz's law at its core eiter.

    In other words all knowledge and all values are human constructs.<snip>

    No. Moral nihilism says nothing about all knowledge. It says all moral systems, like all mathematical systems, are human constructs.
    So given you believe there are not such things as right and wrong do you believe that sex between a child and an adult isn't always wrong?

    I believe the statement "Sex between a child and an adult is wrong." is a constructed principle, not reflected in any natural law. But it is a rule I would always follow, and always impose on others.
    Also you are saying "There are no absolute truths apart from the truth of this statement" and I think the self reference in that statement implies an inconsistency or an ever repeating loop.

    Moral nihilism does not say this. Metaphysical nihilism does not say this either. I can construct plenty of true statements. All tautologies are true statements, for example.


  • #220
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If moral nihilism is correct all societies have moral nihilism at their core.

    Thisa isnt a true statement. If god does not exist societies do not have atheism at their core do they? All the societies that promulgated atheism as a core value for society quickly piled u the bodies and they all disappeared and didn't contribute to the history of civilization. So no a belief in something even if that thing does not exist does not mean an alternative philosophy is preferable. Although belief in something can also be misused or result in people doing wrong.
    It is a statement about the nature of morality. How would it create anything?

    Atheism is a statement about the non existence of god. Atheistic societies created mayhem.
    What has moral objectivism created? (not moral objectivists, but actual moral objectivism)

    Moral objectivists.


  • #221
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Moral nihilism is not a moral system, so how could a society have it "at its core"? No society has Lenz's law at its core eiter.

    It is a philosophy that ther are no morals. such a philosophy could be promoted as a central belief on which society should be built. Just like atheism could be promoted as a central belief. I think anywhere where it was resulted in murder. similarly chaos wold result out of a society without any belief in morals.
    No. Moral nihilism says nothing about all knowledge. It says all moral systems, like all mathematical systems, are human constructs.

    You are suggesting that human values are reducable like mathematics. Mathematics can be regarded as an extension of logic. But morality is meta scientific. By that I mean science can't decide based on science whether genetic experiments or use of nuclear weapons are right or wrong.

    Let me put it on its head. If you believe these things are human constructs what is a "human"? Again I suggest this will lead to a contradiction or a "chicken and egg" endless loop.
    I believe the statement "Sex between a child and an adult is wrong." is a constructed principle, not reflected in any natural law.

    Wait a minute! You believe "laws of nature" exist? But not moral standards? So what are these non moral laws of nature? Are you saying that moral standards can't be arrived at using them? Therefore you are left with science is not sufficient to derive morality. given that you assert "there is no morality". But you can't conclude that based on sicence which you already admit is insufficient to describe the domain of human values.

    But getting back to the point you believe ""Sex between a child and an adult is wrong" is not always true or meaningless.

    I should distinguish between "veracity" and "valid" as in logically true or it describes what it claims to describe.

    How can you use "veracity" with respect to morals is you claim moral truth isn't valid?
    But it is a rule I would always follow, and always impose on others.

    But you just happen to believe it and if someone else believes otherwise you think you have a right to impose your belief on others? You also admit no such right exists because your "rule" in your opinion is meaningless when generalised to soceity.
    Moral nihilism does not say this. Metaphysical nihilism does not say this either. I can construct plenty of true statements. All tautologies are true statements, for example.

    You say "moral rules, are human constructs" therefore (unless human constructs always agree that something is always right or wrong) they are not absolute.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    It is a philosophy that ther are no morals. such a philosophy could be promoted as a central belief on which society should be built. Just like atheism could be promoted as a central belief. I think anywhere where it was resulted in murder. similarly chaos wold result out of a society without any belief in morals.

    This line of argument can be instantly dismissed, as it has been explained to you before that the reality of moral nihilism is in no way related to "contribution to civilization". Just as the atrocities carried out by Christians is not an argument against Christianity. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa, for example, periodically slaughters villages and assimilates children into its war machine. They are moral realist Christians doing "God's work". Does this mean moral realism is therefore wrong?
    You are suggesting that human values are reducable like mathematics. Mathematics can be regarded as an extension of logic. But morality is meta scientific. By that I mean science can't decide based on science whether genetic experiments or use of nuclear weapons are right or wrong.

    Let me put it on its head. If you believe these things are human constructs what is a "human"? Again I suggest this will lead to a contradiction or a "chicken and egg" endless loop.

    Mathematics is also "meta-scientific".

    Also:Human
    Wait a minute! You believe "laws of nature" exist? But not moral standards? So what are these non moral laws of nature? Are you saying that moral standards can't be arrived at using them? Therefore you are left with science is not sufficient to derive morality. given that you assert "there is no morality". But you can't conclude that based on sicence which you already admit is insufficient to describe the domain of human values.

    By "Laws of nature" I mean the behaviour and patterns of nature codified into sets of relations. I am saying morality, unlike the behaviour of nature, is as artificial as mathematics. It is a very simple claim.
    But getting back to the point you believe ""Sex between a child and an adult is wrong" is not always true or meaningless.

    I should distinguish between "veracity" and "valid" as in logically true or it describes what it claims to describe.

    How can you use "veracity" with respect to morals is you claim moral truth isn't valid?

    We are discussing the veracity of moral nihlism. Moral nihlism is true or it is false.
    But you just happen to believe it and if someone else believes otherwise you think you have a right to impose your belief on others? You also admit no such right exists because your "rule" in your opinion is meaningless when generalised to soceity.

    We are discussing moral nihlism, not normative moral relativism. Moral nihlism says nothing about whether I should or should not impose my morality on others.
    You say "moral rules, are human constructs" therefore (unless human constructs always agree that something is always right or wrong) they are not absolute.

    You are not following even your own train of thought. You said
    ISAW wrote:
    Also you are saying "There are no absolute truths apart from the truth of this statement" and I think the self reference in that statement implies an inconsistency or an ever repeating loop.

    I said
    Morbert wrote:
    Moral nihilism does not say this. Metaphysical nihilism does not say this either. I can construct plenty of true statements. All tautologies are true statements, for example.

    I.e. Moral nihlism does not say "There are no absolute truths apart from the truth of this statement". It says moral systems are human constructs, and are not necessarily true or false.


  • #223
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sure. 1 (incomplete) theory of electricity, 40,000 religions. differences of opinion on at least one aspect or another of the theory of electricity, on the different scientific and commercial applications of electricity, or on the methods that are best used to generate, distribute and market electricity.

    Fixed your post for you, to make you look more intelligent and less like someone who uses wildly inappropriate analogies.

    I'm nice like that! :)


  • #224
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    This line of argument can be instantly dismissed, as it has been explained to you before that the reality of moral nihilism is in no way related to "contribution to civilization".

    Back to the original issue. Sexual orientation in now way determines contribution to civilisation but if everyone was homosexual ther would not be any next generation and that would have a profound effect on civilization. similarly you personally believing that there are no morals may have little or no effect on society but if you isntituted your beliefs as a core principle in society there would be chaos.
    Just as the atrocities carried out by Christians is not an argument against Christianity.

    It is an argument if the Autrocities were carried out in the name of christianity and believing they were doing good for and furthering Christianity. Though this happened in christian societies this rarely happened whereas in atheistic societies it always happened . similarly if a society ever comes around where everyone says "there is no such thing as morals" there will be chaos.
    The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa, for example, periodically slaughters villages and assimilates children into its war machine. They are moral realist Christians doing "God's work". Does this mean moral realism is therefore wrong?

    If they are "real" Christians then yes. But they are thwarting the real definition of Christianity. If a society of nihilists came about and they pout nihilism as a central belief the chaos that results can't be excused by saying it has nothing to do with nihilism!
    Mathematics is also "meta-scientific".

    Nah it is logic. It doesn't go outside itself. You can not mathematically derive a non mathematical entity.
    Also:Human

    Which refers to this in the first paragraph
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
    A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context

    The point being what is a "human" construct? constructed by
    1. something which is beyond or above science and not definable or
    2. something which is totally explained by logic/science or
    3. something which isn't fully understood but science will understand it all someday so it will therfore not be philosophical speculation but a closed question

    If moral knowledge is not absolute and instead is a human construct and humans can not be defined in absolute terms then how can you be so sure it is such a construct?
    By "Laws of nature" I mean the behaviour and patterns of nature codified into sets of relations. I am saying morality, unlike the behaviour of nature, is as artificial as mathematics. It is a very simple claim.

    So you are saying the physical universe is "real" and has defined and understandable laws at work but the non physical universe is a figment of our imaginations. Given it can't be explained by deriving it how do you explain nearly all humans happen to imagine the same things as wrong? Just an accident?
    We are discussing the veracity of moral nihlism. Moral nihlism is true or it is false.

    If you mean logical truth that is one thing. If you mean "truth" as a human construct how can you apply that to a definition if element of the entity making that definition cant be explained by logically deriving them? i.e. If human persons can't be explained in the first place how can you use themn to say morality is a human construct if it is constructed by something which isn't defined and the definition given is "entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context" It is a bit chicken and egg isn't it?
    We are discussing moral nihlism, not normative moral relativism. Moral nihlism says nothing about whether I should or should not impose my morality on others.

    So what . If everyone believed in moral nihilism how do you think society would fare? Just like everyone believing in atheism. But at least you admit you do not believe your view is preferable to other views. So while you claim it is true or false you don't really know if it is.
    You just happen to believe it is true. Mind you how can you show a society where all people believe there is no right and wrong is any better than a Hell?
    I.e. Moral nihlism does not say "There are no absolute truths apart from the truth of this statement". It says moral systems are human constructs, and are not necessarily true or false.

    Is the statement " moral systems are human constructs, and are not necessarily true or false."

    1 True
    2. False
    3. Not necessarily true or false.

    If 3 what is the point in asserting it?


  • #225
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Fixed your post for you

    Not really, you just changed the meaning because you didn't like what was being pointed out.

    Like I said to Fanny when you ask an electrician how does your light bulb work you don't get 40,000 different answers depending on the personal faith of the electrician you asked.


  • #226
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Thisa isnt a true statement. If god does not exist societies do not have atheism at their core do they?

    Moral nihilism is a statement of the nature of human morality. If it is true all human morality is subjective and based on opinion. Thus this is at the core of all morality.

    That doesn't of course rule out that some people can pretend otherwise, but that is like asking if someone doesn't believe in gravity do they still fall over.
    ISAW wrote: »
    All the societies that promulgated atheism as a core value for society quickly piled u the bodies

    Atheism isn't a "value" it is a statement of reality, like saying what the speed of light is. Neither is moral nihilism for that matter.

    I assume you mean Communism, which is a value system dictating what should and shouldn't be important to society. And yes I agree 100%, Communism (particularly the Stalin/Mao branches) are a basis for a value system.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So no a belief in something even if that thing does not exist does not mean an alternative philosophy is preferable.

    No offense ISAW but we seem to be talking about two completely different things. Moral nihilism (or atheism for that matter) is neither preferable or not preferable, it is a statement about reality.

    And before anyone takes me wrong, neither is the statement "God exists". The statement "God exists and it is right that we do what he says", now that is a value system.

    As Morbet has had to repeatably explain moral nihilism makes no comment on value.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Atheism is a statement about the non existence of god. Atheistic societies created mayhem.

    There has never been an atheistic society (certainly not Russia or China which maintained high levels of theist belief during Communist rule).

    Sweden is probably closest and I think they are managing fine.

    What does this have to do with moral nihilism?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Moral objectivists.

    That is a non-answer


  • #227
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Not really, you just changed the meaning because you didn't like what was being pointed out.

    Like I said to Fanny when you ask an electrician how does your light bulb work you don't get 40,000 different answers depending on the personal faith of the electrician you asked.

    No, I changed it because it was a really really poor analogy.

    When you ask religious folks whether it is wrong to torture babies for fun, you don't get 40,000 different answers.


  • #228
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    No, I changed it because it was a really really poor analogy.

    When you ask religious folks whether it is wrong to torture babies for fun, you don't get 40,000 different answers.

    Of course not, there are only two answers to that question, yes or no.

    But as I'm sure your little disingenuous heart is aware, that isn't the question.

    The question is what is the objective standard of morality. Your answer for example is "God".

    Ask religious folks whether it is wrong to torture babies for fun and you will get one of two different answers for 40,000 different reasons.


  • #229
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Of course not, there are only two answers to that question, yes or no.

    But as I'm sure your little disingenuous heart is aware, that isn't the question.

    The question is what is the objective standard of morality. Your answer for example is "God".

    Ask religious folks whether it is wrong to torture babies for fun and you will get one of two different answers for 40,000 different reasons.

    Absolute nonsense. You will get pretty much the same answer, that there is an objective morality where certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

    Now, if you were to start asking metaphysical questions as to whether a god, or which god(s), has decreed such morality then, yes, of course you will get more different answers - just as electricians might give you different answers as to who created electricity and why, or how electricity came about in the first place.

    You used a stupendously inappropriate analogy. I don't know which is funnier, the fact that you chose it, or the mental gymnastics you will indulge in to avoid admitting that you made a mistake.


  • #230
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Back to the original issue. Sexual orientation in now way determines contribution to civilisation but if everyone was homosexual ther would not be any next generation and that would have a profound effect on civilization. similarly you personally believing that there are no morals may have little or no effect on society but if you isntituted your beliefs as a core principle in society there would be chaos.

    It is an argument if the Autrocities were carried out in the name of christianity and believing they were doing good for and furthering Christianity. Though this happened in christian societies this rarely happened whereas in atheistic societies it always happened . similarly if a society ever comes around where everyone says "there is no such thing as morals" there will be chaos.

    If they are "real" Christians then yes. But they are thwarting the real definition of Christianity. If a society of nihilists came about and they pout nihilism as a central belief the chaos that results can't be excused by saying it has nothing to do with nihilism!

    Nah it is logic. It doesn't go outside itself. You can not mathematically derive a non mathematical entity.

    Are you deliberately stifling the debate by making incorrect statements that are only tangentially related to the discussion? This will not work with me. I dismiss your assertions out of hand, because even if they were correct, they bear no relation to the discussion at hand (moral nihlism, and whether or not right and wrong have to be absolutes). Let us assume that Christians have not exercised systematic cruelty throughout history. Let us assume they did not, for example, remove the skin from Hypatia, the first female mathematician. Let us assume that the abhorrent regimes of the 20th century were not only atheistic, but moral nihilists. Let us assume that, if we all acknowledged moral nihilism, we would all be dead within a week. How is any of this, in any way, related to whether or not moral nihlism is true?
    Which refers to this in the first paragraph
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

    The point being what is a "human" construct? constructed by
    1. something which is beyond or above science and not definable or
    2. something which is totally explained by logic/science or
    3. something which isn't fully understood but science will understand it all someday so it will therfore not be philosophical speculation but a closed question

    If moral knowledge is not absolute and instead is a human construct and humans can not be defined in absolute terms then how can you be so sure it is such a construct?

    By "human", I was referring to homo sapiens. I.e. Moral principles are devised by homo sapiens.
    So you are saying the physical universe is "real" and has defined and understandable laws at work but the non physical universe is a figment of our imaginations. Given it can't be explained by deriving it how do you explain nearly all humans happen to imagine the same things as wrong? Just an accident?

    Evolution. But with this said, it only takes a little nudge for people to have completely different opinions on what is wrong. I, for example, do not see homosexual acts as wrong.
    If you mean logical truth that is one thing. If you mean "truth" as a human construct how can you apply that to a definition if element of the entity making that definition cant be explained by logically deriving them? i.e. If human persons can't be explained in the first place how can you use themn to say morality is a human construct if it is constructed by something which isn't defined and the definition given is "entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context" It is a bit chicken and egg isn't it?

    So what . If everyone believed in moral nihilism how do you think society would fare? Just like everyone believing in atheism. But at least you admit you do not believe your view is preferable to other views. So while you claim it is true or false you don't really know if it is.
    You just happen to believe it is true. Mind you how can you show a society where all people believe there is no right and wrong is any better than a Hell?

    Again, it is as if you are kicking up a murky cloud of half-baked ideas to hide from a simple issue. I never said truth is a human construct. I said moral rules are human constructs. If moral rules are human constructs, moral nihilism is true. Your armchair dissertation about the sociological implications of moral nihilism does not interest me.
    Is the statement " moral systems are human constructs, and are not necessarily true or false."

    1 True
    2. False
    3. Not necessarily true or false.

    If 3 what is the point in asserting it?

    I would argue that it is true, but I cannot show that it is necessarily true. Just as I would argue that there was heavy flooding in Dundrum recently, but I could not show that it was necessarily true.


  • #231
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Absolute nonsense. You will get pretty much the same answer, that there is an objective morality where certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

    And?

    The question isn't does objective morality exist. That is like asking is their an explanation for why the lightbulb is on. It is pointless if you get 40,000 different ones.

    The question is what is the true explanation and do any of use what it is, and this translate to what is the true objective morality (ie why is the lightbulb on and do we know why). An unknowable objective morality is pointless to humans.

    Lots of people have put forward subjective assumptions as to what this objective morality might be. You claim it is the commandments of the Christian god. Ask to any other non-Abramic religion and they will give you a different answer, often a completely different answer.

    Which highlights the ridiculousness of claims that assumptions of the existence of objective morality mean anything. It is worthless unless you know what it is and none of you know what it is. Let me repeat that None of you know what it is. Claims otherwise are simply arrogance on the part of religious followers.

    It is even more worthless than subjective morality because by definition all incorrect assessments of what the objective morality are are asserting an immoral framework. It is a lot more consequential if you get it wrong than if it simply doesn't exist in the first place.

    That certainly doesn't stop you guessing though.
    PDN wrote: »
    Now, if you were to start asking metaphysical questions as to whether a god, or which god(s), has decreed such morality then, yes, of course you will get more different answers - just as electricians might give you different answers as to who created electricity and why, or how electricity came about in the first place.

    No you don't get to that level. It is 40,000 electricians giving me an answer to why the bulb is alight.

    You pretend that the Christian notion of objective morality (ie the commandments of God) are knowable in a meaningful sense. They aren't. If they were you wouldn't have 39,999 other assertions of what the objective morality is, just like you don't get 39,999 other explanations for why the light bulb is on.

    You picked Christianity and are simply asserting it is the objective morality with nothing but your subjective opinion to back this up. And around the world lots and lots of other people are doing the same thing with different objective moral systems. And you all dismiss the others as simply not having their hearts open to the truth or some other such nonsense.

    Its is like someone saying the bulb is alight because little fairies are carrying the fire from the plug to the lightbulb.

    Another electrician might say that no that is completely wrong, the light bulb stores light during the day and releases it when it gets dark.

    Another says that is bolderdash what is happening is that the fire in the bulb itself is being released.

    Heck another electrician might say that no it is in fact electrons passing over the filament causing it to heat up and give off photons.

    None of you would a clue which of these is actually causing the light to light, and equally none of the religions have a clue if the objective morality they are asserting is actually the objective morality or even if such an objective

    The analogy is apt, you just don't like the conclusions from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Moral nihilism is a statement of the nature of human morality. If it is true all human morality is subjective and based on opinion. Thus this is at the core of all morality.

    All that is stating is that nihilism is in your opinion relativism. Morbert already pointed out this is not necessarily the case.

    Also it in now way validated your statement that your statement "If moral nihilism is correct all societies have moral nihilism at their core." As i ponted out if all people were atheist society would not be atheistic . Every time I point out about atheistic societies atheists always say "Atheism is nothing to do with running society" It does if teh society is atheistic! Similarly, nihilistic societies would be a disaster.
    That doesn't of course rule out that some people can pretend otherwise, but that is like asking if someone doesn't believe in gravity do they still fall over.

    This is also where you and Morbert part company since he distinguishes between laws of physics and standards of morality. He regards one as absolute and the other as non existing. You apparently regard one as absolute and the other as relative.
    Atheism isn't a "value" it is a statement of reality, like saying what the speed of light is.

    No it isn't. it is a belief that there is no God. Unlike the speed of light it has no empirical support.
    Neither is moral nihilism for that matter.

    Neither is is what? "not a value". If morals are not about values what are they about?
    And what is the source of values. You say these is none and they are all relative. Morbert says they are meaningless. Im reminded of people who claim all human interaction can be explained in terms of biological and other scientific determinable constraints. Which suggests not only that poetry and music are just "imagined" beauty but that even speaking itself is just a babble.
    I assume you mean Communism, which is a value system dictating what should and shouldn't be important to society. And yes I agree 100%, Communism (particularly the Stalin/Mao branches) are a basis for a value system.

    No I mean atheistic philosophies such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
    , Jacques Hébert, a radical revolutionary journalist, and Anacharsis Cloots, a politician, both anticlerical and atheist, had successfully campaigned for the proclamation of the atheistic [17] Cult of Reason, which was adopted by the French Republic on November 10, 1793,
    ...
    and socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious.

    No offense ISAW but we seem to be talking about two completely different things. Moral nihilism (or atheism for that matter) is neither preferable or not preferable, it is a statement about reality.

    Christianity is a belief based on a statement about reality too.
    And all the societies based on this statement about reality in the case of atheism or moral nihilism they produced what...?
    And before anyone takes me wrong, neither is the statement "God exists". The statement "God exists and it is right that we do what he says", now that is a value system.

    So in spite of all the societies built in such a philosophy it is not preferable to the one built with atheism or nihilism as their core philosophy? I beg to differ.
    As Morbet has had to repeatably explain moral nihilism makes no comment on value.

    Nor do "There is a God" and "there is no God" but societies based on those principles either were beneficial in history or resulted in hundreds of millions of corpses. Ill put them both on the stage for people to chose. Guess which philosophy was behind the curtain which resulted in hundreds of millions of dead? . Forgive me but adding another nihilism choise went make me feel any safer that such a society is an even better choice.
    There has never been an atheistic society (certainly not Russia or China which maintained high levels of theist belief during Communist rule).

    LOL what was it you stated above? If you believe the law of gravity is not true that wont stop you falling when you jump off a cliff???
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
    he People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and since then the government has been officially atheist.
    ...Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use.
    ...Communist leaders, ranging from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, had been critical of religious institutions. During the Cultural Revolution, religion was condemned as feudalistic and thousands of religious buildings were looted and destroyed.
    ...
    Religious people were killed in the killing fields, as the leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia's Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed
    ...
    despite the Soviet Union's attempts to eliminate religion,[91][92][93] other former USSR and anti-religious nations, such as Armenia,[94] Kazakhstan,[95] Uzbekistan,[96] Turkmenistan,[97] Kyrgyzstan,[98] Tajikistan,[99] Belarus,[100][101] Moldova,[102] Mexico,[103] Albania,[104] and Georgia[105] have high religious populations.[106]
    Sweden is probably closest and I think they are managing fine.

    Sweden isn't an atheist country. And it isnt even close to it.
    What does this have to do with moral nihilism?

    It has to do with any philosophy that any individual adheres to. for example Jesus promoting a philosophy and people following it and society being based on it. Or people following atheism as a central tenet or nihilism. When they tried atheism the result was corpses. Im not aware of a nihilist State but i don't want to try the experiment when the Atheistic example is there for all to see.
    That is a non-answer

    No it isn't but i didn't want to get into "what have the Romans really done for us" issues.
    I mean apart from churches, architecture, stable society, education, law and order what had moral objectivity really done for us?


  • #233
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Are you deliberately stifling the debate by making incorrect statements that are only tangentially related to the discussion?

    sorry thought I posted that in the "gay marraige " thread to which i am also posting.
    Let us assume that the abhorrent regimes of the 20th century were not only atheistic, but moral nihilists. Let us assume that, if we all acknowledged moral nihilism, we would all be dead within a week. How is any of this, in any way, related to whether or not moral nihlism is true?

    Assuming that if it is true we will all be dead in a week i guess I d have to say wait till next week and ask me again whether the assumption is true. Given true= dead by next week and we dont all turn out to be dead then I can't be true can it?

    I don't intend to go into a proof of God or disproof of nihilism. What I stated was that if any society is run by nihilism it will be a disaster. So by assuming it isn't true society will never become nihilist.
    By "human", I was referring to homo sapiens. I.e. Moral principles are devised by homo sapiens.

    In your opinion but natural law can exist and does not have to be based on God. It can be secular.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
    The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception [2] of natural law in the liberal tradition. Libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard argues that "the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus."[91]
    Again, it is as if you are kicking up a murky cloud of half-baked ideas to hide from a simple issue. I never said truth is a human construct. I said moral rules are human constructs. If moral rules are human constructs, moral nihilism is true. Your armchair dissertation about the sociological implications of moral nihilism does not interest me.

    Whether or not it interest you is beside the point. Or rather maybe it is the point since nihilists don't have any concern about the morality of destroying society because morality is to them a figment of the imagination.

    If moral nihilism is a human construct and truth is not a human construct. Moral nihilism is not truth..
    I would argue that it is true, but I cannot show that it is necessarily true. Just as I would argue that there was heavy flooding in Dundrum recently, but I could not show that it was necessarily true.

    But you can show natural law is necessarily false?


  • #234
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I had a big long post but ultimately replying to the details of your post don't make sense until you realize the category error you are making, which is explained below. So read that first and then see if you still want to make the claims you are making.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isn't but i didn't want to get into "what have the Romans really done for us" issues.

    That is not the point I was trying to make, I was trying to get you to see the category error you are making.

    Moral objectivism cannot be followed, because it is not telling you to do anything. Moral systems that claim to be objective (such as Christianity) certainly do tell you to do things and thus can be followed. But moral objectivism itself doesn't, it is a statement on meta-ethics, not an ethical statement in of itself.

    Likewise with both moral nihilism and atheism. Neither of these things can be followed because they are not telling you to do anything.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I mean apart from churches, architecture, stable society, education, law and order what had moral objectivity really done for us?

    Moral objectivity has done any of those things. Moral objectivity doesn't tell you to do anything, so it cannot tell you to build churches or stable societies, any more than Newtons Laws of Motion tell you to do things.


  • #235
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I had a big long post ...the category error you are making.
    ...

    Moral objectivism cannot be followed, because it is not telling you to do anything. Moral systems that claim to be objective (such as Christianity) certainly do tell you to do things and thus can be followed. But moral objectivism itself doesn't, it is a statement on meta-ethics, not an ethical statement in of itself.

    Waffle and sophistry! In message 218 you asked
    What has moral objectivism created? (not moral objectivists, but actual moral objectivism)

    It is the philosophy on which stable working societies have been based!
    What you are saying is akin to Philosophy A = a belief in peace and love
    "but" you claim "Followers of philosophy A create a peaceful society not hte philosophy itself"

    You asked what the philosophy created. I pointed out it gave us moral objectivists. with the philosophy of moral objectivism there would not be any. It is a determining cause of moral objectivists! You have only gone for "what did the Romans really do for us" to "ah well that may be what they did, but just because there was a Rome doesn't mean there has to be Romans. What did Rome do for us?"
    Likewise with both moral nihilism and atheism. Neither of these things can be followed because they are not telling you to do anything.

    Mathematics and engineering plans are not telling you how to build a bridge either but if you follow a different plan the bridge will collapse.
    Moral objectivity has done any of those things. Moral objectivity doesn't tell you to do anything, so it cannot tell you to build churches or stable societies, any more than Newtons Laws of Motion tell you to do things.

    and if you ignore Newtons Laws and decide to make up your own way of putting a rocket into Space you will still be on the ground when those that used Newton's Laws are up in orbit.


  • #236
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Waffle and sophistry! In message 218 you asked
    Don't get pissy just because I've highlighted an error in the way you are viewing this subject
    ISAW wrote: »
    It is the philosophy on which stable working societies have been based!

    Again no it isn't, and that the category error you are making. It is a statement about reality (morals are objective).

    You are again confusing the statement (morals are objective) with any morals that adhere to the statement (it is objectively wrong to murder people).

    Again this can be highlighted by the fact that you can completely reverse the moral value (it is objectively right to murder people) and the statement (morals are objective) stays exactly the same.

    There are two mutually exclusive philosophies about murder, both require the statement to be true but the statement does not determine them.

    This is why it is called a meta-ethical or meta-moral statement. It is not an ethical statement (it is objectively right to murder people) it is a statement describing what morals/ethics are in the first place.
    ISAW wrote: »
    What you are saying is akin to Philosophy A = a belief in peace and love
    "but" you claim "Followers of philosophy A create a peaceful society not hte philosophy itself"

    You cannot follow something that does not tell you what to do. "Peace" as a definition of absence of violence does not tell you to do something. The moral statement "Peace is good and should be sought after" does tell you what to do and can be followed. The former is a statement about a state of non-violence (when no one is being violent you have a state of peace) the latter is a value (peace is good and should be achieved).

    Once could just as easily make the moral statement "Peace is bad and is to be avoided". This still requires an understanding of what peace is, it requires the exact same definition of peace as the previous moral statement. Hitler knew what peace was, he just didn't think very much of it.

    Again you are confusing the statement of reality with the value systems. Moral nihilism is not a value system, it is a statement of reality.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Mathematics and engineering plans are not telling you how to build a bridge either but if you follow a different plan the bridge will collapse.

    Mathematics and engineering plans are not telling you you should build a bridge or you shouldn't build a bridge. Other factors tell you that. Engineering is not a value system that can be followed.

    Just like moral nihilism doesn't tell what to do and thus cannot be followed.
    ISAW wrote: »
    and if you ignore Newtons Laws and decide to make up your own way of putting a rocket into Space you will still be on the ground when those that used Newton's Laws are up in orbit.

    Which is irrelevant to the point. You cannot follow Newtons Laws of motion because they are not telling you to do anything.

    You cannot follow moral nihilism (nor atheism), they are not value systems telling you what to value.


  • #237
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Assuming that if it is true we will all be dead in a week i guess I d have to say wait till next week and ask me again whether the assumption is true. Given true= dead by next week and we dont all turn out to be dead then I can't be true can it?

    That is not what I said at all. I said let's assume that, if everyone acknowledged that moral nihlism was true, we would be dead within a week. I.e. Let's assume people need to believe their morality is validated by a higher power. How would this imply their morality is validated by a higher power.
    I don't intend to go into a proof of God or disproof of nihilism. <snip>

    Do you believe a refutation exists? Do you believe it is an incoherent position even if you are an atheist?
    If moral nihilism is a human construct and truth is not a human construct. Moral nihilism is not truth.

    Moral nihilism would not be a human construct. It would be a truth about human constructs.
    But you can show natural law is necessarily false?

    This is what I mean by Natural law


  • #238
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    sorry for the delay peeps, was busy, & loath as I am to dredge up a gracefully aging post, couldnt have an accusation of stalling on my rap sheet!

    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    I don't know yet, it will better inform me of the individuals you listed and/or your credibility.

    Now, presuming of course you're not stalling (perish the thought) ;

    Can you provide us with reputable proof of each assertion there please.



    "Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher .. Now 'slavery belongs to the right of nations,' as Isidore states ..Therefore the right of nations is a natural right."
    Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, "On Justice"

    "The prime cause ... of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence."
    But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance; for if nothing had been done in violation of that law, there would have been nothing to restrain by penal servitude. And therefore the apostle admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them heartily and with good-will, so that, if they cannot be freed by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free, by serving not in crafty fear, but in faithful love, until all unrighteousness pass away, and all principality and every human power be brought to nothing, and God be all in all."
    St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XIX, Chapter. 15.

    "Astonishing! Where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not, and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doeth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clarity, he says 'But even if thou canst become free, use it rather,' that is, rather continue as a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage."
    St. John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on I Corinthians

    "If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema."
    Pope Liberius , Synod of Gangra , Canon 3

    “The penalty of permanent enslavement to the Church is imposed on the children of priests who had violated the vow of celibacy. .”
    Pope Urban II. 9th Council of Toledo, 655 AD

    All men are equal by nature but that a hidden dispensation of Providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that the differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice.
    Pope Gregory I. (Expositio in librum )

    Those whom God perceived were not fit for freedom, He more mercifully inflicted with slavery. A slave's capacity for doing wrong must needs be restrained by his master's power. To be submissive as a slave is better than to be proud as a free man.
    St. Isidore of Seville. Sententiae

    "We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery”
    Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas 1452

    We (therefore) weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ where so ever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery."
    Nicholas V, Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex, January 8, 1455.

    "It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."
    GREGORY IX, Quaestiones Morales Theologicae, Lyons 1668 - 1692,

    Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. ... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."
    Instruction 20, The Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), June 20, 1866.

    Finally:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4694896.stm




    Some Biblical references to slavery in general (needless to say the list is not exhaustive) which supports the view that what was written in what could be argued as barbaric, uncivilised and primitive times, is best left there:

    Genesis 9:24-27
    Exodus 21:3
    Exod. 21:20-21
    Matt. 10:24
    Matt. 24:45-46
    Tim. 6:1-5
    Eph. 6:5-6
    Titus 2:9-10
    Pet. 2:18-29
    Titus 2:9-10


  • #239
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Don't get pissy just because I've highlighted an error in the way you are viewing this subject

    You asked "What has moral objectivity created?"
    You were given an answer.
    If you don't like the answer don't waffle and pretend it isn't an answer.
    Again no it isn't, and that the category error you are making. It is a statement about reality (morals are objective).

    Moral objectivity is the philosophy on which stable working societies have been based! Society isn't based on a statement about morals it is based on morals. People have based societies on this philosophy for donkeys years. Societies based on other philosophies crumbled.

    Snip more waffle!
    There are two mutually exclusive philosophies about murder, both require the statement to be true but the statement does not determine them.

    This is why it is called a meta-ethical or meta-moral statement. It is not an ethical statement (it is objectively right to murder people) it is a statement describing what morals/ethics are in the first place.

    I am aware what a meta argument is.
    Societies have been based on philosophies
    Ones based on morals survived and thrived
    Ones based on atheism or nihilism perished or caused untold harm or never even got off the ground.

    You can deny that all you want but history shows us otherwise. that is the pragmatic answer.
    You cannot follow something that does not tell you what to do. "Peace" as a definition of absence of violence does not tell you to do something. The moral statement "Peace is good and should be sought after" does tell you what to do and can be followed.

    Morals tell you what is right and wrong. for example "It is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a child" tells you not to do that.

    snip more waffle!
    Again you are confusing the statement of reality with the value systems. Moral nihilism is not a value system, it is a statement of reality.

    "It is wrong to abuse a child" is also a statement!
    Mathematics and engineering plans are not telling you you should build a bridge or you shouldn't build a bridge. Other factors tell you that. Engineering is not a value system that can be followed.

    Okay ignore it and go and build all the bokkety bridges you want. IIR you made the comparison with engineering and mathematics. Now when it is used against you rely on the point that they are NOT similar to morals.
    You cannot follow moral nihilism (nor atheism), they are not value systems telling you what to value.

    You are now trying to untie the comparison of physical laws which are absolute from sociological concepts which you claim are not absolute. So - Why compare them in the first place?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75136659&postcount=234
    Moral objectivity has done any of those things. Moral objectivity doesn't tell you to do anything, so it cannot tell you to build churches or stable societies, any more than Newtons Laws of Motion tell you to do things.


  • #240
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    That is not what I said at all. I said let's assume that, if everyone acknowledged that moral nihlism was true, we would be dead within a week. I.e. Let's assume people need to believe their morality is validated by a higher power. How would this imply their morality is validated by a higher power.

    It would show if God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent God.
    Moral nihilism would not be a human construct. It would be a truth about human constructs.

    And if it were truth we would all be dead. But we are not all dead. What can you conclude from that?

    Furthermore how can you know if it is the truth or not. It is a belief. and it is based on the belief that what you say are human constructs actually are only human constructs.
    This is what I mean by Natural law

    Okay.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    You asked "What has moral objectivity created?"
    You were given an answer.
    And you are ignoring why it is a non-answer.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Moral objectivity is the philosophy on which stable working societies have been based! Society isn't based on a statement about morals it is based on morals.

    That my dear ISAW is precisely the point!

    Society isn't based on statements about morals, thus society isn't based on moral nihilism (or moral objectivism) which are (drum roll please) statements about morals.

    It is based on the actual morals (murder is wrong). Which is why a society based on the moral "Murder is absolutely wrong" will be completely different to the society based on the moral "Murders is absolutely right" even if both these morals fall under moral objectivism.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I am aware what a meta argument is.
    Apparently not since you have trouble saying society is not based on statements about morals. Statements about morals are meta-ethical statements. And as you say society is not based on them.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Morals tell you what is right and wrong. for example "It is always wrong for an adult to have sex with a child" tells you not to do that.

    Correct. And moral nihilism is not a moral. Thus it does not tell you what is right and wrong.
    ISAW wrote: »
    "It is wrong to abuse a child" is also a statement!

    It is a moral statement, a value statement, not a meta-ethical statement.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are now trying to untie the comparison of physical laws which are absolute from sociological concepts which you claim are not absolute. So - Why compare them in the first place?
    [/QUOTE]

    Look ISAW you clearly have zero clue what moral nihilism actually means. You have wasted a good amount of time arguing with both me and Morbet and you still seem to think that moral nihilism is a moral value rather than a meta-ethical statement about what morals are in the first place.

    Go read up on moral nihilism, otherwise this conversation is just the both of us correcting your misunderstandings, not an actual discussion about the concepts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement