Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 12, 2007 23:15:52 GMT -4
I don't mean that there aren't degrees of good and evil. Some things obviously are greater or lesser evils or goods. There are even many actions that don't really matter one way or the other.
How will God judge someone who made a choice with good intentions and received bad results? Probably ultimately by his intentions, though his case could be less good because of bad results.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2007 1:33:05 GMT -4
Was your Uncle Roberts defending slavery or was he defending an entire way of life that happened to include slavery? Er, that's Uncle Robert. Known throughout the South as "Bobby," apparently. However, the last name in question is "Lee."
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 13, 2007 2:43:23 GMT -4
Jason said:
I certainly don't agree with that. If it was true, you should be able to come up with a comprehensive list of what was moral which would be acceptable to all normal people (not psychopaths, for example) in all societies. I seriously doubt that would be possible. What people consider moral changes over time and place.
For example, I dare say most people on this list would say that it would be completely immoral for a man to kill a close female relative because she brought dishonour upon the family. Yet in some parts of the world, this sort of behaviour would be approved and even applauded.
Likewise, we consider that for men to have sex with underage boys is immoral. But the ancient Greeks and Persians thought it quite acceptable.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2007 11:08:07 GMT -4
Jason said: I certainly don't agree with that. If it was true, you should be able to come up with a comprehensive list of what was moral which would be acceptable to all normal people (not psychopaths, for example) in all societies. I disagree. I think the differences are mostly in the details, not in the underlying sense of what is moral. For example, there are no human societies where cowardice is valued above bravery in battle. There are no human societies where it is considered moral to kill anyone who annoys them without consequence. Societies differ as to how many wives a man can have, but they all (until recently anyway) agreed that it wasn't right to have any woman you wanted, even if she was married to someone else. Some societies might have honored stealing from enemies, but I know of none that honored stealing from your own family or tribe. Gross details differ but an underlying pattern of what is acceptable in human behavior can be discerned. The issue of whether you can kill a female relative or not hinges on the perception of dishonor. Most societies agree that it is bad to dishonor your family - some simply proscribe harsher penalties than others.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2007 11:17:38 GMT -4
Er, that's Uncle Robert. Known throughout the South as "Bobby," apparently. However, the last name in question is "Lee." Ah. Well then from what I know about him the answer then is that General Lee felt he was fighting to protect his homeland and his way of life, warts and all. Ever read The Guns of the South, the Henry Turtledove novel about the South winning the war because a bunch of time-traveling white supremacist South Africans give them large quantities of AK-47s? Lee becomes president of the Confederacy after the war and eventually emancipates the slaves. I'm not sure how much research Turtledove did on Lee's actual attitudes towards slavery, but it's an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 13, 2007 19:15:45 GMT -4
I guess with brains that think we have to make decisions about stuff like that all the time. People make decisions about things like this all the time, with or without brains that think. In my opinion (and it is an opinion, there is not a firm consensus among development economists on the point) is that much of the poverty on earth is the result of bad policy, and much bad policy is formulated by people who want to do something that sounds good superficially, but who aren't willing to analyze the effects of their actions. Perhaps more on that later. Living without war is easy. Just surrender unconditionally when anyone threatens you. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it didn't sound to me like you even advocated this yourself: You supported war and military spending? Science and mathematics can tells us things about the world. How do they tell us whether an action is good or evil? They may tell us more about the effects of an action or policy, but the final step, of assigning "good" or "evil," is outside of their realm. Regarding the idea that if only there were no war, there would be enough resources to solve all the world's problems, I'll be glad to pull up some numbers on numbers of people living in poverty, military spending, and so on, so we can see whether that is true or not. If anyone wants to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 13, 2007 19:16:25 GMT -4
I guess with brains that think we have to make decisions about stuff like that all the time. People make decisions about things like this all the time, with or without brains that think. In my opinion (and it is an opinion, there is not a firm consensus among development economists on the point) is that much of the poverty on earth is the result of bad policy, and much bad policy is formulated by people who want to do something that sounds good superficially, but who aren't willing to analyze the effects of their actions. Perhaps more on that later. Living without war is easy. Just surrender unconditionally when anyone threatens you. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it didn't sound to me like you even advocated this yourself: You supported war and military spending? Science and mathematics can tell us things about the world. How do they tell us whether an action is good or evil? They may tell us more about the effects of an action or policy, but the final step, of assigning "good" or "evil," is outside of their realm. Regarding the idea that if only there were no war, there would be enough resources to solve all the world's problems, I'll be glad to pull up some numbers on numbers of people living in poverty, military spending, and so on, so we can see whether that is true or not. If anyone wants to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2007 19:48:29 GMT -4
Ah. Well then from what I know about him the answer then is that General Lee felt he was fighting to protect his homeland and his way of life, warts and all. Not according to recently-discovered letters of his, no. I happen to have just read an article in US News and World Report about some recently-discovered letters of his. I'd heard he didn't own slaves, which isn't actually true. He never bought slaves; his father-in-law died and left him quite a few. Which he then proceeded to mistreat horribly, in fact. His father-in-law's will stated that he had to release them all "within five years"; it turned out that five years after his death was, well, the date of the Emancipation Proclamation--and the date that Lee finally accepted that, no matter how much he fought the thing in court, he wasn't going to be able to overturn that clause in the will. He thought he was doing the right thing. Homeland, yes. He considered himself a Virginian first and an American second, and he did indeed agonize over the decision to lead the Union Army or join the Confederate one. But in his heart, slavery was the right thing. Thomas Jefferson was torn on the subject; Robert E. Lee was not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2007 22:26:41 GMT -4
Ah well, too bad. He's still a pretty popular figure in the South I understand.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 15, 2007 14:47:31 GMT -4
Yes. So are people far less savoury. I've studied the Civil War, and I can tell you a great deal about the evil that some people feel good about in their hearts. Ask Nathan Bedford Forrest. (Though I believe he repented shortly before he died.)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 15, 2007 20:01:59 GMT -4
I guess with brains that think we have to make decisions about stuff like that all the time. People make decisions about things like this all the time, with or without brains that think. In my opinion (and it is an opinion, there is not a firm consensus among development economists on the point) is that much of the poverty on earth is the result of bad policy, and much bad policy is formulated by people who want to do something that sounds good superficially, but who aren't willing to analyze the effects of their actions. Perhaps more on that later. Living without war is easy. Just surrender unconditionally when anyone threatens you. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it didn't sound to me like you even advocated this yourself: You supported war and military spending? Science and mathematics can tells us things about the world. How do they tell us whether an action is good or evil? They may tell us more about the effects of an action or policy, but the final step, of assigning "good" or "evil," is outside of their realm. Regarding the idea that if only there were no war, there would be enough resources to solve all the world's problems, I'll be glad to pull up some numbers on numbers of people living in poverty, military spending, and so on, so we can see whether that is true or not. If anyone wants to hear it. I agree that you have to defend yourself. I actually wish that Canada would put more money into military spending. In a perfect world, where everybody followed a strict moral code, there would be no need for armies etc. In a perfect world, wealth could be spread out among the nations. But, alas, the world isn perfect, and I am not either. Maybe in a few more centuries it will be different.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 8, 2007 3:48:31 GMT -4
I voted neither true nor false.
I believe morality is subjective either way. My belief is that God is completely unknowable and has no interaction with the universe other than initially creating it. God has nothing to do with morality. Every religion prays to the same God, but they each give Him (I say "Him" for lack of a better term) different names, identities, behaviors, motives, etc. They all have different ideas on morality. None are better or worse than any of the other ones.
Why do I believe God is unknowable? God by definition is a perfect omnipotent being. Any part of God that was knowable would then be subject to opinion and therefore be imperfect and not omnipotent. Omnipotence can't exist in reality. Think for a moment about any of the traits attributed to God by any of the mainstream religions. Christianity says God is loving but vengeful. I say God's fickle. See the problem? Omnipotence can't be open to interpretation. Morality is another thing often said to be dictated by God. But that's impossible. Morality is such a subjective issue, one set of rules could never be perfect.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 8, 2007 3:52:43 GMT -4
If everyone did agree to a particular moral, such as "child molestation is wrong" would that mean it really is an objective moral, or would it still be subjective? I think there's no such thing as objective. There's "reasonably objective" and "practically objective" but no real objective truth (at least when it comes to morals). Think of your "child molestation is wrong" decree. If even one sentient being in the entire universe thought differently, then it is still subjective. Hell, if every single being in the entire universe thought it was wrong, it would still be subjective, because by nature of the universe there is always a chance that there could be some being who believed child molestation was okay.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 8, 2007 3:56:13 GMT -4
Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion. One could pretty conclusively argue that there is no such thing as an objective truth, and that everything we experience could be a lie. But, to live a practical life and have a productive society, it is wise to forget about a lot of that and accept that they may not be right but they work well.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 8, 2007 4:03:51 GMT -4
So if societies don't function without good morals, does that mean that they are objective? Or does it merely beg the question "why should I care if society functions properly as long as I'm doing alright?" History is full of broken societies where those that were on top still had it pretty good while those below them suffered. If you're on top and can stay there, should you really care if the massess have bread to eat? Were they really doing that great? Many leaders of broken societies lived in complete isolation and constant fear of assasination. Even if you have a nice place, if the area around you is in complete ruin (and it's your fault) you aren't exactly living a good life. Plus, a healthy society just makes it that much easier for people in high places to get what they want. Whether they realize it or not, it is in their best interest to keep everybody happy. Think about this example. If I am driving down the road looking for a place to park, and I see a space big enough for three cars, why should I go through the trouble of making sure there is enough room for the other two cars? Because leaving the spaces will ensure that my car isn't keyed by some scorned motorist who realized I had acted selfishly. Also, if its a small neighborhood it will keep my reputation amongst my neighbors from being tarnished.
|
|