|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 3:48:32 GMT -6
Before there was a law against murder, what was the moral imperative for writing one?
(a) We originally made murder illegal because murder had always been morally wrong. (b) We originally made murder illegal because deliberate premeditated homicide had always been morally wrong.
?
Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b).
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on May 28, 2011 4:34:39 GMT -6
Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). I don't know. That's only true if you believe that the only authority to define what constitutes murder is the law. When no law exists, there might be other authorities to define this, like philosophical or theological works. After all, I hope we both agree that if our respective countries legalized murder, we both would still oppose committing the act on moral grounds. It's a rare case that the law defines the morale, mostly the morale "gives birth" to a law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 8:03:53 GMT -6
Before there was a law against murder, what was the moral imperative for writing one? (a) We originally made murder illegal because murder had always been morally wrong. (b) We originally made murder illegal because deliberate premeditated homicide had always been morally wrong. ? Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). The first stated law, came in Genesis 9:6 in a Biblical context. I also suspect there are other early historic documents that document such a prohibition. Biblically the first murderer was punished by punishment to the desert by God. There was no trial procedure, and Cain was punished by the Eyewitness. Genesis 9 told people to execute all murderers simply because man is made in the image of God so it is the one crime that needs to be paid with blood. You might notice the intolerance this law shows to murderers, that is there was no acceptable excuse for deliberately killing someone. Those who accidently killed someone could go to a City of Refuge for protection from avenging relatives. The flow of the argument was that severe punishment for murder in a Biblical context was based on the command of God
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 8:54:44 GMT -6
Before there was a law against murder, what was the moral imperative for writing one? (a) We originally made murder illegal because murder had always been morally wrong. (b) We originally made murder illegal because deliberate premeditated homicide had always been morally wrong. ? Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). Your inquiry seems to beg the question that there is some outside moral imperative that exists independent of society. There's not. Rather, murder is a subset of killings that those in power have traditionally deemed the most heinous. The moral authority of the State derives not from natural law principles, but from the power of the State to coerce and punish those who defy its edicts. In some societies a few individuals have gained the power to define murder for the masses. In the USA, the collective will of the people has triumphed over that of would be tyrants. Accordingly, in America, murder is defined by the subjective and amorphous moral standards that the majority has codified into objective laws. So it was never about killing per se; it has always been about killing without the blessing of the most powerful entity that happens to be in charge. You might now ask, "what about the Nazis?" Well, the Nazis were certainly the most powerful group within Germany at the time, and they tried to justify their atrocities by passing laws. The problem is that they evoked the wrath of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world was more powerful than the Nazis. Thus, we used our collective might to conquer and punish them in a manner that we as the victors saw fit. For in a world where might makes right, the will of a sovereign who reigns supreme within his own boarders can still be subjected to the will of stronger international forces.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 17:30:54 GMT -6
Before there was a law against murder, what was the moral imperative for writing one? (a) We originally made murder illegal because murder had always been morally wrong. (b) We originally made murder illegal because deliberate premeditated homicide had always been morally wrong. ? Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). Your inquiry seems to beg the question that there is some outside moral imperative that exists independent of society. There's not. Rather, murder is a subset of killings that those in power have traditionally deemed the most heinous. The moral authority of the State derives not from natural law principles, but from the power of the State to coerce and punish those who defy its edicts. In some societies a few individuals have gained the power to define murder for the masses. In the USA, the collective will of the people has triumphed over that of would be tyrants. Accordingly, in America, murder is defined by the subjective and amorphous moral standards that the majority has codified into objective laws. So it was never about killing per se; it has always been about killing without the blessing of the most powerful entity that happens to be in charge. You might now ask, "what about the Nazis?" Well, the Nazis were certainly the most powerful group within Germany at the time, and they tried to justify their atrocities by passing laws. The problem is that they evoked the wrath of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world was more powerful than the Nazis. Thus, we used our collective might to conquer and punish them in a manner that we as the victors saw fit. For in a world where might makes right, the will of a sovereign who reigns supreme within his own boarders can still be subjected to the will of stronger international forces. So if and when a global fascist tyranny takes over, and they start executing people for being from the wrong race, you will be here pronouncing that its might makes it right? Or will you be hoping for an invasion of non-racist E.T.s?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 17:32:37 GMT -6
Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). I don't know. That's only true if you believe that the only authority to define what constitutes murder is the law. The pros here believe this. It's what blocks the claim that execution is murder. If they want to sacrifice that claim, however, I'd be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 17:47:39 GMT -6
Your inquiry seems to beg the question that there is some outside moral imperative that exists independent of society. There's not. Rather, murder is a subset of killings that those in power have traditionally deemed the most heinous. The moral authority of the State derives not from natural law principles, but from the power of the State to coerce and punish those who defy its edicts. In some societies a few individuals have gained the power to define murder for the masses. In the USA, the collective will of the people has triumphed over that of would be tyrants. Accordingly, in America, murder is defined by the subjective and amorphous moral standards that the majority has codified into objective laws. So it was never about killing per se; it has always been about killing without the blessing of the most powerful entity that happens to be in charge. You might now ask, "what about the Nazis?" Well, the Nazis were certainly the most powerful group within Germany at the time, and they tried to justify their atrocities by passing laws. The problem is that they evoked the wrath of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world was more powerful than the Nazis. Thus, we used our collective might to conquer and punish them in a manner that we as the victors saw fit. For in a world where might makes right, the will of a sovereign who reigns supreme within his own boarders can still be subjected to the will of stronger international forces. So if and when a global fascist tyranny takes over, and they start executing people for being from the wrong race, you will be here pronouncing that its might makes it right? Or will you be hoping for an invasion of non-racist E.T.s? Honky, I did not say I necessarily like the conclusion of my above analysis. It is a rather cynical approach, and I think that is why people for ages have been attracted to the idea of natural law. I myself would like to appeal to natural law, but so far I have been unable to justify doing so. I am forced, it seems, to accept the sort of international Hobbesianism I described. I suppose it is not really Hobbesian since Hobbs himself acknowledged natural law and since there is no single sovereign on the global level. But the idea of might making right it the best explanation I can give for how laws are justified.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 18:06:31 GMT -6
Before there was a law against murder, what was the moral imperative for writing one? (a) We originally made murder illegal because murder had always been morally wrong. (b) We originally made murder illegal because deliberate premeditated homicide had always been morally wrong. ? Well, before the law existed there was no such thing as murder. So it couldn't have been morally wrong. So (a) makes no sense. So the moral motivation for originally writing a law prohibiting murder must have been (b). The first stated law, came in Genesis 9:6 in a Biblical context. I also suspect there are other early historic documents that document such a prohibition. Biblically the first murderer was punished by punishment to the desert by God. There was no trial procedure, and Cain was punished by the Eyewitness. Genesis 9 told people to execute all murderers simply because man is made in the image of God so it is the one crime that needs to be paid with blood. I observe that that makes no sense whatsoever. "If he didn't look like me, killing him would be ok. But since he does, there must be a payment in blood." wtf? So why do pros keep making one? Yes but God's just made-up. But whatever, let's run with it. Do you think that the term 'murder' is a legal term or a religious one? Who gets to define it? The legislature or God?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 18:09:06 GMT -6
So if and when a global fascist tyranny takes over, and they start executing people for being from the wrong race, you will be here pronouncing that its might makes it right? Or will you be hoping for an invasion of non-racist E.T.s? Honky, I did not say I necessarily like the conclusion of my above analysis. It is a rather cynical approach, and I think that is why people for ages have been attracted to the idea of natural law. I myself would like to appeal to natural law, but so far I have been unable to justify doing so. I am forced, it seems, to accept the sort of international Hobbesianism I described. I suppose it is not really Hobbesian since Hobbs himself acknowledged natural law and since there is no single sovereign on the global level. But the idea of might making right it the best explanation I can give for how laws are justified. Nonsense. Clearly the wrongness of unnecessary suffering is directly observable. Just suffer and see.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 18:27:25 GMT -6
Honky, I did not say I necessarily like the conclusion of my above analysis. It is a rather cynical approach, and I think that is why people for ages have been attracted to the idea of natural law. I myself would like to appeal to natural law, but so far I have been unable to justify doing so. I am forced, it seems, to accept the sort of international Hobbesianism I described. I suppose it is not really Hobbesian since Hobbs himself acknowledged natural law and since there is no single sovereign on the global level. But the idea of might making right it the best explanation I can give for how laws are justified. Nonsense. Clearly the wrongness of unnecessary suffering is directly observable. Just suffer and see. All I can observe is that someone is suffering. I cannot see that it is wrong. To do so requires a leap. If I am suffering, of course I would want it to stop. I might say that my suffering is wrong, but I would be bias and saying that to try to convince someone to do something to help me. Yes, my feelings tell me that murder is wrong. Unfortunately my feelings matter only insofar as I can force the unwilling to respect them. And my feelings are intangible and sometimes transitory. Moreover, I can't really explain why I feel murder is wrong. It is just a gut feeling, and gut feelings are too impalpable to be a solid basis for universal natural law. This the problem that many Christians have with atheism, since the existence of a divine moral law giver would largely eliminate ethical subjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 28, 2011 18:45:16 GMT -6
Honky, I did not say I necessarily like the conclusion of my above analysis. It is a rather cynical approach, and I think that is why people for ages have been attracted to the idea of natural law. I myself would like to appeal to natural law, but so far I have been unable to justify doing so. I am forced, it seems, to accept the sort of international Hobbesianism I described. I suppose it is not really Hobbesian since Hobbs himself acknowledged natural law and since there is no single sovereign on the global level. But the idea of might making right it the best explanation I can give for how laws are justified. Nonsense. Clearly the wrongness of unnecessary suffering is directly observable. Just suffer and see. Everyone suffers at some time in life or thru their death, natural death or other. The difference the lenght of time one suffers. Unavoidable. Sadly some suffer for months, lifetime, weeks days if they survive some criminal attacks, if they do not survive the familys are in pain for the remainder of their lives. To add in the wrongness/unnecessary" of their suffering... That pain of survivors is observable, just let it happen to your child or other just suffer and see Honk their pain forever lasting...no 10 15 mins and over.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 19:33:45 GMT -6
Nonsense. Clearly the wrongness of unnecessary suffering is directly observable. Just suffer and see. All I can observe is that someone is suffering. I cannot see that it is wrong. To do so requires a leap. If I am suffering, of course I would want it to stop. I might say that my suffering is wrong, but I would be bias and saying that to try to convince someone to do something to help me. All observations are necessarily subject relative. If you observe that an electron cuts a certain path through a cloud chamber, that observation can only be made from your perspective, using your eyes, by your being in that position. The best you can do as a scientist is attend to those observations that are replicable. I.e. the ones that would be made by any honest observer who ran the same experiment. The objective facts, then, are just the ones that can be verified by any observer who bothers to put themselves in the relevant position. Ethical observations are of this sort. You can tell that some particular act is morally wrong by putting yourself in the position of the victim, as journalist Christopher Hitchens did with waterboarding. He submitted to being waterboarded and observed that, indeed, it was morally repugnant to do that to someone.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 19:34:40 GMT -6
Nonsense. Clearly the wrongness of unnecessary suffering is directly observable. Just suffer and see. Everyone suffers at some time in life or thru their death, natural death or other. The difference the lenght of time one suffers. Unavoidable. Sadly some suffer for months, lifetime, weeks days if they survive some criminal attacks, if they do not survive the familys are in pain for the remainder of their lives. To add in the wrongness/unnecessary" of their suffering... That pain of survivors is observable, just let it happen to your child or other just suffer and see Honk their pain forever lasting...no 10 15 mins and over. Thank you for your agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 19:53:34 GMT -6
All I can observe is that someone is suffering. I cannot see that it is wrong. To do so requires a leap. If I am suffering, of course I would want it to stop. I might say that my suffering is wrong, but I would be bias and saying that to try to convince someone to do something to help me. All observations are necessarily subject relative. If you observe that an electron cuts a certain path through a cloud chamber, that observation can only be made from your perspective, using your eyes, by your being in that position. The best you can do as a scientist is attend to those observations that are replicable. I.e. the ones that would be made by any honest observer who ran the same experiment. The objective facts, then, are just the ones that can be verified by any observer who bothers to put themselves in the relevant position. Ethical observations are of this sort. You can tell that some particular act is morally wrong by putting yourself in the position of the victim, as journalist Christopher Hitchens did with waterboarding. He submitted to being waterboarded and observed that, indeed, it was morally repugnant to do that to someone. Ok, but what happens if we put ourselves in the same position, observe the same facts, and come to different ETHICAL conclusions? I guarantee you I can find a dozen conservative journalists who would volunteer to be waterboarded who would report back that it is not so repugnant. Likewise, a person who is waterboarded will say one thing, and person who is a victim of terrorism will say another. There, the subjects would be in different positions. But which position should trump? The most that can be agreed on is that waterboarding is unpleasant for the person experiencing it. In short, you talk of objective facts that we can observe. But when it comes to ethics, we assign our own moral values to those facts, and there is no concrete way that I can think of to determine who is right when those values conflict.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 20:02:09 GMT -6
All observations are necessarily subject relative. If you observe that an electron cuts a certain path through a cloud chamber, that observation can only be made from your perspective, using your eyes, by your being in that position. The best you can do as a scientist is attend to those observations that are replicable. I.e. the ones that would be made by any honest observer who ran the same experiment. The objective facts, then, are just the ones that can be verified by any observer who bothers to put themselves in the relevant position. Ethical observations are of this sort. You can tell that some particular act is morally wrong by putting yourself in the position of the victim, as journalist Christopher Hitchens did with waterboarding. He submitted to being waterboarded and observed that, indeed, it was morally repugnant to do that to someone. Ok, but what happens if we put ourselves in the same position, observe the same facts, and come to different ETHICAL conclusions? I guarantee you I can find a dozen conservative journalists who would volunteer to be waterboarded who would report back that it is not so repugnant. Ok then. Go ahead. Bring me a dozen such journalists. I should note, by the way, that Hitchens was a supporter of the Iraq war and of most of the policies of the Bush administration on that front. So though he is not a conservative about all issues, this was a journalist who was ideologically aligned with the hawkish right when it came to the war on terror. Are they in conflict? Terrorism is wrong. Waterboarding is wrong. I don't see the contradiction. You're mistaken. Anyone undergoing waterboarding will conclude that it is an evil. You're confusing this with the separate question of whether we should sometimes perform evil in order to avoid a greater evil, or whether we should perform evil as retribution for another.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 20:11:30 GMT -6
Ok, but what happens if we put ourselves in the same position, observe the same facts, and come to different ETHICAL conclusions? I guarantee you I can find a dozen conservative journalists who would volunteer to be waterboarded who would report back that it is not so repugnant. Ok then. Go ahead. Bring me a dozen such journalists. I should note, by the way, that Hitchens was a supporter of the Iraq war and of most of the policies of the Bush administration on that front. So though he is not a conservative about all issues, this was a journalist who was ideologically aligned with the hawkish right when it came to the war on terror. Are they in conflict? Terrorism is wrong. Waterboarding is wrong. I don't see the contradiction. You're mistaken. Anyone undergoing waterboarding will conclude that it is an evil. You're confusing this with the separate question of whether we should sometimes perform evil in order to avoid a greater evil, or whether we should perform evil as retribution for another. Honky, you ignore that pure science does not involve assigning moral values to the observations made. The assigning of moral values is always an act of subjectivity, even when the subjects are in the same position and given the same exact facts.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 20:29:36 GMT -6
You're mistaken. Anyone undergoing waterboarding will conclude that it is an evil. You're confusing this with the separate question of whether we should sometimes perform evil in order to avoid a greater evil, or whether we should perform evil as retribution for another. Evil is a moral judgment. It is not a fact amenable to scientific validation. The only objective observation that would be agreed on is that being waterboarded tends to be unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 20:33:16 GMT -6
Ok then. Go ahead. Bring me a dozen such journalists. I should note, by the way, that Hitchens was a supporter of the Iraq war and of most of the policies of the Bush administration on that front. So though he is not a conservative about all issues, this was a journalist who was ideologically aligned with the hawkish right when it came to the war on terror. Are they in conflict? Terrorism is wrong. Waterboarding is wrong. I don't see the contradiction. You're mistaken. Anyone undergoing waterboarding will conclude that it is an evil. You're confusing this with the separate question of whether we should sometimes perform evil in order to avoid a greater evil, or whether we should perform evil as retribution for another. Honky, you ignore that pure science does not involve assigning moral values to the observations made. The assigning of moral values is always an act of subjectivity, even when the subjects are in the same position and given the same exact facts. Aren't you assuming the point at issue? When (almost) everyone makes the same perceptual judgment about some experimental situation, we use that as the basis of science. So if (almost) everyone makes the same moral judgment about some ethical situation, then why can't we use that as the basis of a science of ethics? What's the relevant difference? Don't just assert that morality is subjective, tell me how it is subjective in any way that regular science is not.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 20:42:18 GMT -6
You're mistaken. Anyone undergoing waterboarding will conclude that it is an evil. You're confusing this with the separate question of whether we should sometimes perform evil in order to avoid a greater evil, or whether we should perform evil as retribution for another. Evil is a moral judgment. It is not a fact amenable to scientific validation. The only objective observation that would be agreed on is that being waterboarded tends to be unpleasant. Pure assertion. Absent argument. Try this: A dentist puts you through an unpleasant procedure, with your consent, to improve your oral health. A sadist puts you though the exact same procedure, without your consent, for fun. In only the latter case do you feel the need for revenge or recompense, because in only the latter case do you perceive you have been wronged. Anyone would perceive the same thing, if put in the same circumstance. That makes it as objective as any scientific observation.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 21:13:19 GMT -6
Honky, you ignore that pure science does not involve assigning moral values to the observations made. The assigning of moral values is always an act of subjectivity, even when the subjects are in the same position and given the same exact facts. Aren't you assuming the point at issue? When (almost) everyone makes the same perceptual judgment about some experimental situation, we use that as the basis of science. So if (almost) everyone makes the same moral judgment about some ethical situation, then why can't we use that as the basis of a science of ethics? What's the relevant difference? Don't just assert that morality is subjective, tell me how it is subjective in any way that regular science is not. In science, there must be some fact/observation that, if true, would prove the scientific theory incorrect. In morality, the buck stops with the observer. No matter what other evidence there is, the moralist could disregard it or assign it little weight. No one could prove him wrong as long as the facts are agreed on. Indeed, ultimately the moralist is reduced to the argument that something is wrong just because it is wrong. We can formulate arguments and justifications to push that point back, but ultimately we are forced to say that something is wrong simply because our gut tells us so. So unlike science, morality must appeal to feelings, and feelings cannot exist independent of the mind experiencing them. To be sure, a robot could do science, and science is possible (and at its best) without emotion, whereas morality is impossible without emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 21:36:45 GMT -6
Honky, you ignore that pure science does not involve assigning moral values to the observations made. The assigning of moral values is always an act of subjectivity, even when the subjects are in the same position and given the same exact facts. When (almost) everyone makes the same perceptual judgment about some experimental situation, we use that as the basis of science. So if (almost) everyone makes the same moral judgment about some ethical situation, then why can't we use that as the basis of a science of ethics? What's the relevant difference? Don't just assert that morality is subjective, tell me how it is subjective in any way that regular science is not. You seem to be implying that moral judgments involve some sort of consensus. Of course, most people viewing the same facts believe the DP is morally correct for certain crimes. But aside from that, unlike morality, ultimate scientific truths do not depend on any consensus whatsoever. Look at it this way: If EVERYONE in the whole world who ever lived agreed that torture was morally acceptable, there could be no disputing it. But if everyone believed that the world was flat, they would still be wrong because the truth exists independent of any such consensus or human mind. That, to me, is the fundamental difference between science and morality.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 28, 2011 22:01:26 GMT -6
Evil is a moral judgment. It is not a fact amenable to scientific validation. The only objective observation that would be agreed on is that being waterboarded tends to be unpleasant. Pure assertion. Absent argument. Try this: A dentist puts you through an unpleasant procedure, with your consent, to improve your oral health. A sadist puts you though the exact same procedure, without your consent, for fun. In only the latter case do you feel the need for revenge or recompense, because in only the latter case do you perceive you have been wronged. Anyone would perceive the same thing, if put in the same circumstance. That makes it as objective as any scientific observation. Try this crazy hypo: A sadist tortures you, without your consent, for fun. As you are undergoing the torture in his underground lair, everyone else besides you and the sadist gets killed in a global disaster. The sadist himself then dies of a heart attack. You do not perceive that you have been unjustly injured by the sadist, and even though you have not done anything, you think you had it coming. Again, there is no one left to sit in moral judgment other than yourself. At that point, your own moral judgment of the sadist's act is the be all and end all. That makes it about as subjective as it gets, unless you think that some intangible outside moral authority would still exist to condemn our sadist. Assuming there is no God, where, exactly, would that authority come from? It can't be within you since you don't perceive that the sadist was wrong. And everyone else is dead, so it could not exist by virtue of humanity as a whole. So by what source or measure of morality could the sadist's act still be deemed iniquitous?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 23:56:02 GMT -6
Aren't you assuming the point at issue? When (almost) everyone makes the same perceptual judgment about some experimental situation, we use that as the basis of science. So if (almost) everyone makes the same moral judgment about some ethical situation, then why can't we use that as the basis of a science of ethics? What's the relevant difference? Don't just assert that morality is subjective, tell me how it is subjective in any way that regular science is not. In science, there must be some fact/observation that, if true, would prove the scientific theory incorrect. In morality, the buck stops with the observer. Then it's the same. If the observer, because of some defect of the eyes, cannot make the requisite observation, that's too bad. The scientific community simply excludes that observer, and goes with the majority of people whose eyes are functioning fine. If the moral observer, because of some defect of the conscience, cannot make the requisite judgments, that's too bad. The moral community simply excludes that observer, and goes with the majority of people whose consciences are functioning fine. It's the same again. The person with defective eyes could disregard the testimony of others to the effect that the sun rises in the morning. No-one could prove him wrong to his own satisfaction, even though it's trivial to prove him wrong to everyone else's. Similarly, the person with defective conscience could disregard the testimony of others to the effect that killing is wrong. No-one could prove him wrong to his own satisfaction, even though it's trivial to prove him wrong to everyone else's. Not quite. He is reduced to the argument that it is wrong simply because, using his conscience, he can tell. Similarly, the empirical investigator is reduced to the argument that the sun rises in the morning because, using his eyes, he can tell. What's the difference? Simply because our eyes tell us so. Simply because our ears tell us so. Simply because our fingers tell us so. Simply because our conscience tells us so. Science, similarly, must appeal to perceptions, and perceptions cannot exist independent of the mind experiencing them. He later changed his mind.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 28, 2011 23:59:09 GMT -6
When (almost) everyone makes the same perceptual judgment about some experimental situation, we use that as the basis of science. So if (almost) everyone makes the same moral judgment about some ethical situation, then why can't we use that as the basis of a science of ethics? What's the relevant difference? Don't just assert that morality is subjective, tell me how it is subjective in any way that regular science is not. You seem to be implying that moral judgments involve some sort of consensus. Of course, most people viewing the same facts believe the DP is morally correct for certain crimes. But aside from that, unlike morality, ultimate scientific truths do not depend on any consensus whatsoever. The determination of those facts depends on consensus. The facts themselves do not. The same is true of morality. They would all be wrong. I don't see the difference. In the old days, everyone thought the world was flat. That didn't make it right and, from our modern perspective, we can see that it was false, even though it was believed by a large number of people, and by the most authoritative people of the period. Similarly, in the old days, everyone thought it was ok to burn women for being witches. That didn't make it right and, from our modern perspective, we can see that it was wrong, even though it was believed by a large number of people, and by the most authoritative people of the period.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 29, 2011 0:09:21 GMT -6
Pure assertion. Absent argument. Try this: A dentist puts you through an unpleasant procedure, with your consent, to improve your oral health. A sadist puts you though the exact same procedure, without your consent, for fun. In only the latter case do you feel the need for revenge or recompense, because in only the latter case do you perceive you have been wronged. Anyone would perceive the same thing, if put in the same circumstance. That makes it as objective as any scientific observation. Try this crazy hypo: A sadist tortures you, without your consent, for fun. As you are undergoing the torture in his underground lair, everyone else besides you and the sadist gets killed in a global disaster. The sadist himself then dies of a heart attack. You do not perceive that you have been unjustly injured by the sadist, and even though you have not done anything, you think you had it coming. Again, there is no one left to sit in moral judgment other than yourself. At that point, your own moral judgment of the sadist's act is the be all and end all. That makes it about as subjective as it gets, unless you think that some intangible outside moral authority would still exist to condemn our sadist. Try this crazy hypo. A physicist with bad eyesight is in the lab with you, observing the path of an electron across a cloud chamber. He misdescribes it because of his poor eyesight. As you are running the experiment, everyone else besides you and the visually impaired physicist get killed in a global disaster. The physicist himself then dies of a heart attack. You do not realize that the physicist had bad eyesight, and you figure he must have made the right judgment about the path of the particle since he's an expert and you are not. There is no-one else to make the judgment. Hence the only person left thinks that the electron made that trip as the dead physicist said. The whole of the scientific community, as it now stands, thinks this, since you are all that is left of that community. You're still wrong. So is the person who was tortured by the sadist. Assuming there is no God, where, exactly, did electrons come from? These questions - where did X come from - apply to everything. Ultimately, if you go back far enough, you run out of answers. There's no point appealing to God, because where did God come from? And where did he get his authority, let alone his ability to make electrons? Ultimately, 'where did it come from' is the question that attends everything. Let's suppose we just stipulate that, in the beginning, there were electrons and protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons, laws of nature and laws of morality. From these all else sprung. What's wrong with that answer?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 29, 2011 0:40:55 GMT -6
Here's the thing:
Scientific laws CANNOT be violated. We might be mistaken about what those laws are, but the laws as they do exist cannot be broken. On the other hand, ethical laws exist precisely because they CAN be violated. Moreover, scientific laws exist outside of humanity and have an effect on the universe regardless if any mind exists to perceive them, whereas moral laws are dependent upon at least one conscious mind capable of moral thought. I say that because it does not make sense (to me) to think of moral laws floating around in a vacuum devoid of any consciousness. You disagree, but I see those as fundamental differences between scientific truths and ethical truths.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 29, 2011 0:51:03 GMT -6
Here's the thing: Scientific laws CANNOT be violated. So what? What does that have to do with where they came from? I don't see how you know that. Sure, only conscious beings can obey moral laws. But that doesn't mean that there have to be conscious beings around in order for them to exist. You have not proven that there were no moral laws before there were people to observe them. Where do you think the laws of physics 'float around'? Is there a place where I can grab a hold of one and take a look at it? For someone who claims not to like the relativism you claim to be stuck with, you sure are fighting hard to protect it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 29, 2011 1:03:29 GMT -6
You have not proven that there were no moral laws before there were people to observe them. I'm not sure how I could go about doing that. Who do you think should have the burden of proof? Those who argue for the existence of such laws or those or those who deny them? When it comes to religion, I think the burden of proof should be on those who argue for God's existence. Am I wrong on that? If not, is the burden of proof any different when discussing the existence of eternal moral truths?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 29, 2011 1:14:45 GMT -6
Sure, only conscious beings can obey moral laws. But that doesn't mean that there have to be conscious beings around in order for them to exist. Can you explain how moral laws might exist in the absence of a moral consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on May 29, 2011 1:36:17 GMT -6
You have not proven that there were no moral laws before there were people to observe them. I'm not sure how I could go about doing that. Who do you think should have the burden of proof? Me. So here goes. You think that morality is more than just personal norms. You don't think sadists should be allowed to just torture and kill folks. But moreover, you think that morality is more than just a social norm too. You think that stoning women to death for adultery is morally wrong, even if it is right within the culture in question. You conceded that after a long fight. But if it's more than a personal norm, and more than a social norm, how is it in any way a human construct? It appears that it is not.
|
|