I don’t have to tell you, since you’ve already pre-decided you don’t believe in the objective reality of them.
Hateful little nihilist.
Offering some interesting insights into the innate nature of morality, this article from New York Times Magazine, regarding the innate morality of infants. One of many on the subject, but well worth the reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
Warning: Cute babies! Women who are prone to Spasmodic Involuntary Ovulation Syndrome are advised to precaution!
Again, I agree with everything you said if you understand that “morals” in the post above just means “an individual’s preferences for their own and others’ behavior.”
Say you present some hypothetical scenario where a person can do or not do action x. If you say “doing action x is immoral,” then all I’m saying is you have just said “I don’t like it when people do action x.” Your statement is just an opinion, not a statement of fact. Your statement is not the same thing as saying “this piece of string is 2 inches long.”
Luci, what do you think my reaction to this study is? Just curious.
No, it doesn’t work that way, since morals carry weight and preferences don’t.
See, here’s the thing. It doesn’t really matter whether or not you’re right. People are heavily incentivized to disagree, both by biology and society, meaning that you’ll never convince more than a negligible amount of people. Furthermore, if you are right, and people followed your logic, civilization would collapse from all the murders, revenge-murders, thefts, slavery, slave rebellions, and so on. Those remaining would have to resort to hunting and gathering, and no-one wants that. So even if you are right, it is in everyone’s best interest to pretend you’re wrong and call you a dickbag, to discourage people from agreeing with you.
In fact, I’ll go one step farther. I agree with you, in a cosmic sense, about morals. But I will never argue that you’re right, because I feel that life would be better if you were wrong.
(Incidentally, a very similar argument can be made for free will.)
I don’t get this at all. If someone were to “follow my logic,” what would they do exactly?
Personally, I follow my logic. I don’t think there’s any objective reality to whether something is moral or immoral. And yet I share the same preferences for behavior that almost all other members of my society share. I’m glad we made some laws (and have police and courts to enforce those laws) because I also prefer that people not kill other people or steal from them. None of this requires that the morality or immorality of an action be objectively determinable.
Probably wondering how to steer the conversation towards a more interesting subject, i.e., yourself.
OK, whatever. Just wanted to see if you understand what I’ve been saying. I see you don’t. Thanks.
A lot of people, if the weight of morality did not hold them back, would kill/steal/employ slave labor/burn things, etc.
This is idiotic. Most people prefer not to kill people, and they prefer to live in a society where there is a law against willy-nilly killing people. They may also believe that whether an action is moral or not is something that can be determined objectively (which is not true).
If they stop believing that the morality of an action can be determined objectively, why would their preferences change?
What is it with you, guy? “Understand”? You mean be floored by such a sophomoric observation as the absence of an objective morality? You say stuff like that apparently expecting us to gasp in wonder!
Sweet Cthulu, man, you don’t think you’re deep, do you?
OK, fine, so you understand what I’ve been saying. You just don’t understand that lots of other people don’t. There are tons and tons of threads on here where people debate the shit out of whether an action is moral or not, apparently in the belief that they are discussing something other than just their preferences.
I’m saying that people’s preferences don’t always line up with general social morality. And that they follow general social morality because they think that it’s objectively determined. And if morality is objectively determined, it bears the weight of God or the Cosmos itself, which means that they likely won’t stray from it.
And if it sounds like I’m insufferably arrogant at the moment, keep in mind I’m speaking from experience. And that I’ll likely forget all this in a little while, though the magic of self delusion.
U.S. liberals and conservatives both believe in golden ages which never existed. Actually, the conservative dream was kinda close. The WASPS were at the peak of their power, certain classes knew their place, and the U.S. dominated the world in all spheres.
The liberal (well, more like Democrat) idea that the U.S. was, until recently, some moral arbiter of the world that was corrupted by the uniquely twisted soul of Bush and Cheney, and that we must now work to get back to the age where the U.S. was giving out rainbows and ponies to the world is just sick. At least the right is honest about their disgusting desires.
You’re right, that’s the least.
Why then RR’s refusal to admit his defence of torture in this very thread?
I think you give em too much credit.
-
:rolleyes:
-
What have I refused to admit? I’ve said that I thought the actions were an OK thing to do. I just object to calling it torture.
-
Why do you assume that I am representative of a “conservative” as used in that post?
Weave some more specious word webs for us RR.
With another twenty years practise, you might come up with something that doesn’t sound like tortured lawyerly self justification.
If it’s okay to do, why object to calling it torture? By your argument torture is OK if we do it, so there’s no point in quibbling about the name.
You all make some good points. I am willing to take them as food for thought, and instead of bashing each other for 4 more pages of verbal bloodsport, I suggest we have pie.
Who would like pie?