Morals, as most people know them, are a MYTH.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

how can i entertain a view that isn't logical? show me how morals can have any value when they are relative. i'm open to discussion, but i cannot change my views if the proposed system contradicts itself.

either morals are absolute, or relative to each person. if they're relative to each person, then anything anyone does is "right", which defeats the whole purpose of morals. everything would be permissible, which is to say that morals don't exist.

I completely understand where you're coming from.

Sometimes though, what appears to be illogical, isn't necessarily. Think about that. Of course, if you regard a thing as "contradictory", or illogical, a priori, then you may never get to find out if it really is.

And by the way, repeating over and over that a thing is illogical, or contradictory, may not make it so.

I guess I responded initially because of your statement that you liked thinking of these kinds of things, so I simply took it your comment face value. It doesn't actually appear to be the case, which is fine, but I'm just saying that's why I responded.

If you get a moment, you might read that post, my response to you above. To me, it doesn't look like you read it, or maybe you just didn't understand, maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

I mentioned quantum physics. Maybe you dismissed it as irrelevant?

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


if my reasoning is wrong, then use a logical proof to show how.

yes, i read the bit about how classical physics needed to be "quantized" for it to make sense with the new things we've observed. isn't it ironic that a paper written by einstein founded quantum physics, yet he rejected it. "god does not play with dice". when theories are wrong, it usually isn't in the math, its the assumptions made about the numbers.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

if my reasoning is wrong, then use a logical proof to show how.

yes, i read the bit about how classical physics needed to be "quantized" for it to make sense with the new things we've observed. isn't it ironic that a paper written by einstein founded quantum physics, yet he rejected it. "god does not play with dice". when theories are wrong, it usually isn't in the math, its the assumptions made about the numbers.

Einstein didn't reject quantum physics, he just thought that time would eventually show that things couldn't be a crazy as they appeared to be.

So far, he would still be waiting.

In the meantime, science has accepted even more uncomfortable possibilities, including such things as a "multiverse". The point is, they didn't stand still, wishing it wasn't as they were actually finding it, and as a result, they have moved ahead considerably.

But obviously science isn't for everyone, it just happens to help in this case. Also, I'm not sure why you mention mathematics, it certainly wouldn't help your case, as far as I can tell.

I also mentioned Socrates by the way, for those not so inclined to scientific hints.

A few posts up, you admitted you could not "prove" that there is "absolute" right or wrong, but retreated to the position that without that assumption, the concepts of good and bad would lose their meaning, and you further assumed this must constitute a "logical fallacy".

OK, so now you turn the tables, and ask me for "proof" that your reasoning is "wrong"?

Here's the problem, you're not even asking the right questions. You already created a "logical" system that explains itself, in it's own terms, and therefore is automatically "logical", as long as you accept the framework to begin with. Isn't it possible that we can easily fool ourselves with such methods? We can create wonderful sounding tautologies all day long, but how does this really help us explain the reality that may lie beneath the surface?

Since you may not be inclined to science, then why not back to Socrates? Yes, it is somewhat of a long conversation he has with his dear friend Euthyphro, but seeing as how someone has already gone down this road, over two millennia ago, why not see if you can find problems in his reasoning?

One of the most important things I think that we can all learn, is that we can indeed be very "right" about various things in life, and yet, be totally wrong in the most important sense.

In this case, logic, medicine and science seem to suggest that the actual reality beneath what we are so casually discussing, "morality", isn't at all what we imagined it to be.

Imagination is good, but reality is still better, if we want to know the "truth".

JR

Basically, we need to be able to know how someone will react to our actions before we take those actions, some actions are perceived positive to some, some others perceive the same actions as negative.

reply to post by JR MacBeth

either morals are absolute, or relative to each person. if they're relative to each person, then anything anyone does is "right", which defeats the whole purpose of morals. everything would be permissible, which is to say that morals don't exist.

i can show that morals are absolute through examining the logical flaw of the alternative. the argument above, coupled with the "two opposites cannot both be true at the same time" (also known as the "principle of contradiction")argument show that relative morals don't work as a system.

if you wish to hold two opposing views as both true, however illogical that is, then i can't stop you, but it doesn't work as a system.

also. einstein did reject quantum mechanics. its why he said "god does not play with dice". in other words "nothing can truly be random".

Einstein never wavered from his rejection of quantum mechanics. His motive for making a unified field theory was not to extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics. No research program that accepts quantum mechanics as a given can count itself to be within Einstein’s legacy.

www.logosjournal.com...

maybe it is you who should steer clear of science. i added in the bit about math because it is an interesting point on its own. though math does operate through logic, and logic requires absolutes.

i enjoy using the socratic method to see if people end up arriving at the same conclusions as i did, but socrates believed that people who did wrong did so through ignorance. as DARE has shown us, this is not true.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

...relative morals don't work as a system.

OK. Good. Did I say relativism did work as a system? You sound awfully right, but I'm actually trying to get at something of the epistemological issue, that is, why do we "know" we're right.

also. einstein did reject quantum mechanics. its why he said "god does not play with dice". in other words "nothing can truly be random".

Straw man first, and now the (not so) subtle switcharoo. When did I say anything about quantum mechanics? Quick review, what was mentioned was quantum physics, not that I want to be so picky, but you're trying to make a case built on your own irrelevant insertions.

SO, you recommend that I stay away from science? I always appreciate good advice. Too bad I didn't get it a long time ago.

I guess I would be silly to go against Einstein anyway.

OK Bob, so do you agree with Einstein then, his "God does not play with dice" quote? Just wondering.

JR

no, i never claimed that you did. many things are self evident. like logic. i hold that morals only have worth if they're absolute. any other way, and the system cannot exist. paradoxes ensue.

humans can know next to nothing of real truth. perspective is the problem. there are absolutes, but knowing them is difficult. for instance, lets say we have two points in space, and nothing else. a greater and greater distance is growing between them. how do we know which is moving, and which is staying still, or if they're both moving? we can't.

quantum mechanics and quantum physics are interchangeable.

yes, i would agree with einstein. nothing is truly random. if multiple universes exist, i believe they are exactly the same as this one. an infinite amount of identical realities infinitesimally close to one-another.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Bob, it doesn't look like this is going anywhere. I was hoping to stimulate some conversation, hoping people might jump in with new ideas perhaps, maybe learn something. But I guess this subject isn't the most popular.

By the way, I'm not an advocate for "moral relativism" (your term, a typically religionist term, the more precise and less inflammatory term might be "consequentialist", something to consider anyway), I just think that it's a good idea to question the things we imagine are "facts". There is value in that process, IMO. True, we might risk having to give up cherished notions, but it's a risk worth taking I think. We just might learn something.

No doubt you are in the majority with your opinions, and thank goodness for that. As you pointed out, things might get ugly if this wasn't the case.

If you go back a few posts, you might see that I simply pointed out a couple of avenues perhaps worthy of exploration. Plato / Socrates thought about these things a long time ago, and while they didn't reach popular conclusions, our culture has deemed them important thinkers. You don't seem to value the ancient work perhaps, but then, I wasn't so sure you valued modern science either.

Also, observing human behavior, as it is (not how we would like it to be), can be valuable as well. In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned a part of the brain that seemed to have some relevance when it came to how humans decide something is "moral". Seemed important to me.

I'm glad you used the term "paradox". Often, what we may be dealing with is only an "apparent" paradox, but most of the time, while we might feel that there must be an answer to these sorts of things, the stubborn paradox remains, which is why we call it that I suppose.

For example, you mention that you agree with Einstein, and feel that there is nothing truly "random". That is very "logical". The only problem is the implications of such a notion. In this case, if things are as you believe them to be, then all was "determined" then long before any of us was born. Whether there is a First Cause, or a Prime Mover, your belief seems to imply one.

Of course, I seem to recall someone saying something about this sort of thing...

if you wish to hold two opposing views as both true, however illogical that is, then i can't stop you

I'm not going to accuse you of "holding two opposing views" now, am I? Well, I'll leave it up to you to decide, but frankly, you can't (easily) have it both ways.

If all is determined, then we have little justification for ANY system of morality, unless you go after the Prime Mover him /her /itself. As I'm sure you are well aware, it makes no logical sense to punish someone for a thing they had no control over. I'm sure you have read that the determinist world-view has little place for a thing like "free will".

A paradox? Well, perhaps, like so many things. Are we "illogical" for honestly believing that we value human life, and yet fail to offer our "extra" kidney, when it is dead certain that a life would be saved?

if you wish to hold two opposing views as both true, however illogical that is, then i can't stop you

This is something we all seem to be dealing with, on some level, which is why I continue to think it is worthy of further exploration. The fact is, very soon our programmers will be tasked with providing the exact logical instructions that will bestow artificial moral judgement on artificially intelligent machines. It could be that we need to get this right.

I imagine you do enjoy some satisfaction with feeling that you have somehow "solved" this old enigma?

Ah well, too bad Socrates didn't live to see this glorious day. If there is an afterlife, I guess he will have to be consoled with the fact that you used his methods at least.

JR

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i hold that morals only have worth if they're absolute. any other way, and the system cannot exist.

They only have to be absolute for the system, not for individuals.

I can see all morals as relative and respect them depending upon my environment and the local system (when in Rome.....). All that I need to be able to manouver within that system is an awareness of "other" or awareness of my environment, the exterior. I do not need any belief in specific morals as absolute..... in fact belief in any as absolute becomes a handicap to me as an individual.

Maybe

If you intended to stay in one place all your life, and not interact with foriegners, then it is beneficial to you to believe in one system as being universal,
but if you intend to have freedom to move and travel in life and experience, you would do better to percieve morals and ethical systems as relative?

People cannot say they have morals - if has to be intrinsic. If you say you won't cheat on a spouse/significant other because it's against the Bible or might hurt that other person, you are already on the wrong path. You don't cheat on the other person because you gave your word and you stick by it - it's an intrinsic value. There's little honestly and honor in people anymore.

reply to post by boncho


Morals are the things which keep other people from killing you.

A concience is what keeps you from killing others.

Oh, and in your story you left the implication that a nun's habit somehow opens in the front ---- they don't.

The only problem is the implications of such a notion. In this case, if things are as you believe them to be, then all was "determined" then long before any of us was born. Whether there is a First Cause, or a Prime Mover, your belief seems to imply one

yes, i do believe in a prime mover. i believe everyone has free will, but that everyone would have always made the same choices they have. its a response to stimuli, and that stimuli is a response to previous stimuli all the way back to the beginning. it also touches on my view of time and how we move through it. past, present, and future are physical places based off of choices that we have made, are making, and will make.

everything that a person experiences has a part of the brain responsible for that. there is a part of the brain without which you could not recognize people by their faces. we all take it for granted until its gone. people have control over their morals, even if that control stems from a reaction to events. some people go one way, some another.

i mentioned paradox because a previous poster said "i have no problem holding paradoxes". while they're very fun to think about, they can't actually exist. its like encountering a singularity in a math equation.

If all is determined, then we have little justification for ANY system of morality, unless you go after the Prime Mover him /her /itself. As I'm sure you are well aware, it makes no logical sense to punish someone for a thing they had no control over.

choice is an act of free will, but only reasonably free will. there are quite a few things that i want to choose, but can't. i would like to be in egypt looking at the pyramids, but i can't get there. humans don't have absolute free will, we are limited in what choices we have. just because the choices you make will have always been the same doesn't change the fact that you made them, or that you didn't have a choice.

i find pleasure in the act of finding solutions, i care little where the path ends, but making the trek is exciting to me.

plato is my favorite of SPA. i especially liked his thought experiment with the cave and his definition of forms.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

past, present, and future are physical places based off of choices that we have made, are making, and will make.

To me, it still doesn't look like you've solved this ancient mysteries, but I compliment you on making it sound as if you did. No doubt some will imagine they have finally found an answer.

I'm not surprised you seemingly have contrived some system where somehow free will, and determinism, co-exist. Sure, I've seen other attempts at the same, mainly from the religionist quarter. Of course, they have their hands already full trying to defend their god's nasty behavior, but that's another story.

To me, it looks pretty transparent. You want to have your cake, and eat it too. You want to insist you have "free will", but don't see how a deterministic universe implies that "free will" could be illusion. And no, it doesn't help your case to start talking about "absolute free will", or limitations. It's either determined from the get-go, or not. If it is determined, your Prime Mover, First Cause whatever got the ball rolling, then the concept of any free will suffers considerably.

JR

reply to post by boncho

I've often wondered if it's possible to have a society with much less murder and mayhem than is traditionally considered normal. People say utopia isn't possible. I'm not asking for that. Just wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes. Maybe we don't know the full story about evil. Could it be that greed somehow leads to all this? Or finity? Or natural selection? I mean, if you had pretty much figured out nature had given up on you and that your genetic lineage is over, might you be a bit pissed off? Maybe so much that you're going to harm someone? A meager form of justice?

Eye for an eye. And then there're those who're not good with numbers...

A form of evolution not based on competition, but on free range. So every individual on earth is given all the land they could desire and the tools necessary to build their empire. This is entirely unrealistic, but lets just go with it. Assuming that they succeed and evolve from there onward into the future, could this be even better than anything competition might offer?

Naturally, we compete because of limited resources. There's no choice involved. Free range comes about only when we discover something new. Then a crowd of immigrants move to this new area where there's less competition. Maybe for a short time they would experience less crime? After all, there's less things to fight over. Maybe even evolve. But then the resources inevitably get tied up and we're back to a dominantly competition-based life.

When we landed on hte shores of america we encountered indians. They were our competition. We fought them. And we fought britain as it sought to share in the prize. And soon enough there were so many people in the states that they started to fight each other and a government was needed to organize the mess. On and on it went until we have an over-sized government. Might this simply be all the result of too much competition and not enough free range?

I'm not surprised you seemingly have contrived some system where somehow free will, and determinism, co-exist.

its neither pure determinism, nor absolute free will. its a place where physics and philosophy merge.

You want to have your cake, and eat it too.

that's an expression i've never quite understood. to me, it seems perfectly reasonable for someone to eat the cake they have. its like saying "you can't have your car and drive it too." yes, you can, and if you don't, it defeats the purpose of being yours in the first place.

You want to insist you have "free will", but don't see how a deterministic universe implies that "free will" could be illusion. And no, it doesn't help your case to start talking about "absolute free will", or limitations.

you can't have absolute free will without being all powerful and limitless. for humans, doing whatever we want is limited by our limitations.

i'm going to assume you've watched a movie all the way through more than once, no? lets assume that the movie is its own reality. everyone in the movie makes their own choices based off of what has happened, how they feel about it, and the limitations they have. yet no matter how many times you watch the movie, it will always be exactly the same.

a human is the same way. our entire lives are stretched through the 4th dimension, yet we are only aware of 3 dimensions. everything has already been hashed out, and we influenced what we will have become, but are still limited.

It's either determined from the get-go, or not.

looks like you've already made up your mind.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


"Absolute", "pure", abuse of the past tense, in favor of what sounds like a New Age consciousness paradigm, the movie has already run?

Straw man on steroids. All these additions you mention, how again do they help your case? Usually, in order to get to the bottom of things, it's better to begin by simplification, to the extent possible. Imagine Occam holding his razor perhaps, but why is it so difficult to start with "determinism", and "free will"? You introduce modifiers that you admit are utterly irrelevant, that could only apply to some god-like being. Again, this is how you make your case?

As far as making up my mind, no, not really. In fact, I'm not sure I have revealed any particular "belief" of mine, other than the belief that we must challenge our own dogmas to ever hope to move ahead. Of course, we do seem to agree that there are such things as logical fallacies. You just don't seem to realize you subscribe to some of them.

I suppose I shouldn't read too much into your wild-sounding system, that you have finally just barely laid out. If it's like it sounds, then I have indeed learned something after all. I've learned that the New Age has apparently triumphed over all the wise men of the ages, who never quite cracked the case (while I was looking the other way).

Again, my compliments to you on your creativity. You should write a book. This is probably a good time for that sort of thing, lots of people will eat it up. (No, not your cake.)

JR

i use modifiers like that to differentiate between different definitions. "absolute" free will could only exist for an all powerful limitless being, yet humans still have some options available to them, and the freedom to choose between them as they see fit. i only subscribe to the notion that humans would have always done what they did.

english doesn't have the proper tense to deal with past present and future all existing at the same time, so i must use "would have always" to get the point across.

determinism and free will contradict eachother, but i've shown a way where they don't have to.

this system is different than the previous topic of morals. it isn't particularly new age. i came to my conclusions while thinking about physics and how time and dimensions go together. its the only way i've found that the future can be solid yet choice still exists.

why don't you point out why you think i'm wrong, and we can discuss from there.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i only subscribe to the notion that humans would have always done what they did.

Why? "Solid future"?

determinism and free will contradict eachother, but i've shown a way where they don't have to.

Glad you finally admit the contradiction, but have you shown a way where they don't have to? Hardly.

i came to my conclusions while thinking about physics and how time and dimensions go together. its the only way i've found that the future can be solid yet choice still exists.

Again, I think you should write a book, especially useful to someone like me, who has somehow missed the details of your scheme. You've cracked the ancient case...

why don't you point out why you think i'm wrong, and we can discuss from there.

Honestly. You admit you have a novel idea that you imagine solves the sticky problem, but refuse to even consider the ancient thinkers on the matter? I get it, so what if Plato, or Aquinas spent years showing that there is indeed a severe contradiction?

And how on earth could I offer anything of value, considering the Greats who have gone before?

JR

Why? "Solid future"?

solid future. as in, the future is just as solid a place as the present. so is the past. they are solid physical places. the 4th dimension is the bridge between them.

Glad you finally admit the contradiction, but have you shown a way where they don't have to? Hardly.

they only appear to contradict. what is so hard to understand? humans have a choice, but each of us always would have chosen to do what we have done, and will do. so there is only one timeline, and choice still manifests itself.

aquinas didn't think to consider anything less than absolute free will.

plato's view on free will was that the body was "victim to causation" but the soul enjoyed free will, which doesn't make a huge amount of sense because does not the soul control the body?

age has no effect on the validity of an argument. it can neither affirm nor discredit.

When it comes down to it, people care about themselves, and their families, but nothing else. you're right, morals are a kind of comfort blanket, a way to feel important. it's a great feeling to feel like you are a 'good person', and a better feeling, a rush really, to condemn and hate a 'bad person'. most people wouldn't kill in normal situations, because it's just unpleasant to do so and normally we have an aversion to it, but most people would kill in revenge if they got angry enough, like if their daughter was raped or something and they could get away with killing the rapist.

For the most part anyway, there's the occasional person who truly loves their fellow man, and planet Earth, and so on, but most people are just interested in propagating their genes. I've noticed that while I have a principled but kind of 'cool' love for everyone. most people have a passionate love for their family and nearly total indifference for non-family members.