Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Objective morality

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Objective morality

 (Read 18613 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #90 - November 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
    Exactly.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #91 - November 16, 2011, 12:12 AM
    Why do we exist again?  razz
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #92 - November 16, 2011, 12:13 AM
    Where we differ is that you say it can all be decided rationally (without defining even vaguely how you would do this) whereas I think a lot of the decision comes down to emotion.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #93 - November 16, 2011, 12:26 AM
    I don't disagree that most people go with their gut feeling in many avenues of life, counting myself as one of them. I just don't think its a sound foundation on which to base actual moral statements these days. And, arguably, what got us into this mess in the first place. We are basically untangling millennia of entranched emotional decision making.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #94 - November 16, 2011, 12:28 AM
    I agree that it's all a bit iffy, and should be cross checked where possible. However that doesn't mean that allowing non-rational factors to have an influence is necessarily a bad thing. It's not that clear cut, IMHO.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #95 - November 16, 2011, 12:35 AM
    Well, one of my original points was that even when you do consider them, in any actual depth, they are considered rationally. I am not arguing that they shouldn't be considered.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #96 - November 16, 2011, 12:42 AM
    I'm gonna have to leave this for a while. Things to do. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #97 - November 16, 2011, 04:27 AM


    Later Oz,
    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #98 - November 16, 2011, 09:26 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 15, 2011, 10:18 PM
    How are we defining rationality here? Huh?

    K, for the current purpose I'm not defining in the sense of "sanity". It can be used that way, but this whole schemozzle started over Kagan's brief explanation of Contractarianism. He was saying that a moral code should ideally be worked out by "perfectly rational beings" so that there would be no mistakes in reasoning.

    In this sense, rationality would mean the process of applying reason to a problem. You could also say the process of applying logic to a problem. The two statements would be interchangeable IMO.

    So, when talking about rationality and reason in this context, it means something like "proceeding in a logical manner, such that each new step is derived from a previous step and does not contradict any of the earlier steps".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #99 - November 16, 2011, 06:28 PM
    I believe you said in another thread that there is no reason to think perception could never be explained in purely physical terms, right?
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #100 - November 16, 2011, 08:27 PM
    There's no obvious reason to think that or the converse at the moment. What I was objecting to in that thread was making an assumption one way or the other. I don't see how it is relevant to this.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #101 - November 16, 2011, 08:31 PM
    I'm confused how you justify this.

    Quote from: osmanthus on November 14, 2011, 09:05 PM
    You missed my point. The effects are not rational. Therefore, they cannot be accounted for by a rational process. Therefore, attempting to derive a moral code by a rational process is a flawed concept.

  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #102 - November 16, 2011, 08:34 PM
    Actually, I don't care all that much. I've got a linear algebra exam tomorrow and I have 6 weeks worth of work to catch up on. Ciao.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #103 - November 16, 2011, 08:49 PM
    K, good luck with the exam. Smiley

    I'll answer the question anyway. It's quite easy to justify. Logical thought is just a process. It is a very useful, but also fundamentally limited, tool. It is not an all powerful deity that you can call on to magically solve all your problems.

    Logical thought relies on internal consistency. This reduces the chance of some sorts of errors, but is not an ironclad guarantee that the results will be intelligent or sensible or useful. To use the computer analogy again, it's the old GIGO problem.

    You can include irrational factors in your rational deliberations once you are aware of them, and once you are aware that they are significant (if indeed they are). Getting to that point is not something you can do purely with logical thought. In the case of science you will need to bring in empirical evidence taken directly from "reality", and for some moral cases (like the infamous rape crisis centres) you will need things like empathy for the victims.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #104 - November 16, 2011, 09:05 PM
    You move from rational to logical though. The two words are not synonymous.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #105 - November 16, 2011, 09:20 PM
    They are in the sense that I am using "rational".

    Quote from: osmanthus on November 16, 2011, 09:26 AM
    K, for the current purpose I'm not defining in the sense of "sanity". It can be used that way, but this whole schemozzle started over Kagan's brief explanation of Contractarianism. He was saying that a moral code should ideally be worked out by "perfectly rational beings" so that there would be no mistakes in reasoning.

    In this sense, rationality would mean the process of applying reason to a problem. You could also say the process of applying logic to a problem. The two statements would be interchangeable IMO.

    So, when talking about rationality and reason in this context, it means something like "proceeding in a logical manner, such that each new step is derived from a previous step and does not contradict any of the earlier steps".


    Of course, you could always try to argue that rational thought processes are illogical. That could be fun.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #106 - November 16, 2011, 09:26 PM
    Ishina: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rational

    Quote
    ra-tion-al

    adj.

    1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
    2. Of sound mind; sane.
    3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
    4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.


    and

    Quote
    1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem
    2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable
    3. of sound mind; sane the patient seemed quite rational
    4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought man is a rational being
    5. (Mathematics) Maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials a rational number; a rational function

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #107 - November 16, 2011, 09:28 PM
    If I knew you meant logical when you used rational, I wouldn't have been disagreeing.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #108 - November 16, 2011, 09:35 PM
    K. This has been my point all along. I'm sure Kagan knows the limits of logic. I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't. However, given the sense in which he used the term "rational" (ie: with direct reference to the logical, step by step, process of reasoning) I have to say that although it may just have been a momentary oversight on his part, what he said was at the least rather sloppily worded and could easily give a false impression, particularly given that he was in a formal debate in front of a lay audience.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #109 - November 16, 2011, 09:44 PM
    Dunno. It's been a good while since I watched that Kagan debate. I can't imagine him meaning moral deduction by strict logic alone though, given what he has said or written on the subject overall.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #110 - November 16, 2011, 09:51 PM
    Well no, he obviously doesn't believe in that. He couldn't. Mind you I'm assuming that, since I haven't ever seen any of his other stuff.

    People love to bash Craig though for any little inconsistency. That's fine. I can't stand the slimy sod myself, particularly when he degenerates into the standard theist baseline position of "I want my life to have ultimate cosmic significance and I want it now and if I don't get it I'm going to sulk: therefore, God exists". However if you are going to be consistent, it's fair to point out when someone else puts their hoof in it too.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #111 - November 16, 2011, 10:06 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 16, 2011, 09:20 PM
    Of course, you could always try to argue that rational thought processes are illogical. That could be fun.

    Well, I guess rational deduction is typically not illogical. A idea can be both logical and rational of course. A logical deduction would be one that is formally correct or consistent within its own premises. A rational deduction might also be formally correct or consistent within its own premises, but I wouldn't describe it as ultimately rational unless it was also sensible or practical in some further way. At least, that's how I've always thought of it. I'd also struggle to imagine calling something rational if its logic is conflicting. I'm struggling to think of a rational statement that could be considered illogical. In contrast, I can quite easily think of a perfectly logical argument that has a conclusion that is completely ridiculous and wrong.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #112 - November 16, 2011, 10:07 PM
    Oh and I still am not sure that the whole concept of "objective morality" works anyway, unless you are relying on a very specific and rather squishy definition of "objective". Seems to me that although you can certainly try to be objective about certain points, any moral code worth living by is going to have to rely on some degree of subjectivity.

    I get the feeling that some people would very much like to think they could do it all objectively, and therefore set out to convince themselves that this is possible.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #113 - November 16, 2011, 10:10 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 16, 2011, 10:06 PM
    I'm struggling to think of a rational statement that could be considered illogical.

    What about something as basic as "The sky is blue"?

    Obviously this wouldn't work in the UK, because the sky is always a horrible shade of grey there, but for any other country it's generally true but cannot be derived by pure deduction. That would make it illogical in a certain sense, although only in that sense.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #114 - November 16, 2011, 10:13 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 16, 2011, 09:51 PM
    However if you are going to be consistent, it's fair to point out when someone else puts their hoof in it too.

    Sure. Nobody is perfect. Except me.

    However, Craig is a charlatan scumbag. Kagan is actually a pretty cool guy. When I'm bashing Craig it's because everything about him reeks of lies and smugness and every annoying mistake he makes stands out like a needle in my eye and infuriates me. If I was to bash Kagan, it would be because I was in a pedantic mood.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #115 - November 16, 2011, 10:19 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 16, 2011, 10:10 PM
    What about something as basic as "The sky is blue"?

    Yeah, but a rational person would acknowledge the more nuanced reasoning behind why the sky appears blue.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #116 - November 16, 2011, 10:19 PM
    Oh if I had to choose between being stuck on a desert island with Kagan or Craig I'd be very much inclined to go with Kagan.

    OTOH, I could always pick Craig, murder him, then enjoy the peace and quiet. This would be a moral act if you take a reasonable synthesis of Kagan's and Craig's ideas.

    Kagan believes being moral means not hurting people and not refusing to help them. Craig believes he is going to heaven when he dies, and he bloody well wants to get there. To him, his body is merely a disposable shell. In metaphysical terms, he believes he is ten feet tall and bulletproof, therefore he cannot really be harmed by acts of violence.

    So, acting morally in this case would be to not hurt Craig (coz you can't, not really, anyway) and not refusing to help him get to heaven without wasting a shitload of time. Pure win. grin12
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #117 - November 16, 2011, 10:20 PM
    I wonder what Christian tastes like.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #118 - November 16, 2011, 10:23 PM
    In Craig's case, I'm sure it would be extremely oily.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #119 - November 16, 2011, 10:25 PM
    I think he would also taste like bullshit.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »