Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 6, 2014 18:04:28 GMT
I'm not so sure I agree, or at least not in all cases. I grew up in world with apartheid in South Africa supported (or at least not condemned) by the British Government and gross injustices being carried out in Northern Ireland. I think it's important to stand up against such atrocities, regardless of contextual cultural differences. As for the LGBTQ and women's rights issues, despite the fact I am a cisgendered straight white male, these are concerns that are very dear to my heart and I personally feel it's important to lend visible support to such causes wherever and whenever possible. I agree that there are times when it's important to stand up against atrocities as you say. But one person debating his point of view on some forum hardly compares to the South African apartheid situation. As for LGBT, try organizing a gay pride parade in Saudi Arabia and see how long you last before you get your head chopped off. I'm all for equal rights and all that but not all of the the world is as progressive and open to discussion as the western world. Regardless of all that, this forum is open to discussion of all kinds by people of all kinds, which is a great thing. People should therefore be allowed to express their opinions without being prosecuted, even if they are not as progressive. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 6, 2014 18:10:12 GMT
Nice argument, but it only applies to morality obtained through tradition. I'm sure that anyone who follows a religious-based morality, consequentialists, followers of virtue ethics, followers of utilitarianism, anyone who believes in absolute morality, hedonists etc... basically anyone who doesn't base their morality unthinkingly on the culture surrounding them, will disagree with your points. If you think Social Learning is limited to tradition, you are gravely mistaken. Also, you are forgetting that once the concepts of good and bad are formed, you can just build reflexes on top of them, creating new links to already established state of emotion. And that covers ALL other instances of morality, including, for example, propaganda. Also, tradition pretty much defines everything you see. Not only tradition between generations, but your own "traditions" as well. No progress is possible without being based on the previous stage, which already defines most of peculiarities of the new stage. Freud made a career on this. |
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 6, 2014 18:12:00 GMT
Nice argument, but it only applies to morality obtained through tradition. I'm sure that anyone who follows a religious-based morality, consequentialists, followers of virtue ethics, followers of utilitarianism, anyone who believes in absolute morality, hedonists etc... basically anyone who doesn't base their morality unthinkingly on the culture surrounding them, will disagree with your points. If you think Social Learning is limited to tradition, you are gravely mistaken. Also, you are forgetting that once the concepts of good and bad are formed, you can just build reflexes on top of them, creating new links to already established state of emotion. And that covers ALL other instances of morality, including, for example, propaganda. If you think social learning is the only way to form morality, you need to go read a few books on ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 6, 2014 18:12:36 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary.
I say "ought to" because morality is subjective and contextual - one only need to look at societal shifts through history for proof of this.
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 6, 2014 18:13:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 6, 2014 18:14:16 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. I say "ought to" because morality is subjective and contextual - one only need to look at societal shifts through history for proof of this. And you still go back to social learning. Why? Because empathy exists for social learning and is a means of survival. And empathy is pretty much the only reason such rule is so deep down. If you think Social Learning is limited to tradition, you are gravely mistaken. Also, you are forgetting that once the concepts of good and bad are formed, you can just build reflexes on top of them, creating new links to already established state of emotion. And that covers ALL other instances of morality, including, for example, propaganda. If you think social learning is the only way to form morality, you need to go read a few books on ethics. If you really think ethics do define the origins of morality, you need to study both ethics AND psychology. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 6, 2014 18:16:51 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. What if you're a sadomasochist who likes to be hung from a ceiling on giant metal hooks through your nipples? Should you still do onto others as you would like to be done upon? |
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 6, 2014 18:18:42 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. I say "ought to" because morality is subjective and contextual - one only need to look at societal shifts through history for proof of this. I don't think it's fair to say that morality has to be subjective. It's true that it has changed through history, but that doesn't mean it has to be subjective, just that it's difficult (or not convenient for those who want to hold onto power) to find and enforce an objective system of morality. In terms of current day morals as an example, those people who get their morality from the bible would say that their morality is objective, because it's commands from God, and God is capable of absolutely proclaiming things to be good/bad. |
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 6, 2014 18:22:18 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. What if you're a sadomasochist who likes to be hung from a ceiling on giant metal hooks through your nipples? Should you still do onto others as you would like to be done upon? That's not looking deep enough at the action, it's not that you should do exactly the same actions to others as you want done to you, it's more of "I would like nice things to happen to me, so I should also like nice things to happen to other people". What's nice obviously depends on the person involved and so it's not always a particularly good form of ethics for solving ethical problems. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 6, 2014 18:22:58 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. I say "ought to" because morality is subjective and contextual - one only need to look at societal shifts through history for proof of this. I don't think it's fair to say that morality has to be subjective. It's true that it has changed through history, but that doesn't mean it has to be subjective, just that it's difficult (or not convenient for those who want to hold onto power) to find and enforce an objective system of morality. In terms of current day morals as an example, those people who get their morality from the bible would say that their morality is objective, because it's commands from God, and God is capable of absolutely proclaiming things to be good/bad. ...and that would be subjective morals of believers themselves. By the way, these would be totally different in any fields the local pastor doesn't consult them in. What if you're a sadomasochist who likes to be hung from a ceiling on giant metal hooks through your nipples? Should you still do onto others as you would like to be done upon? That's not looking deep enough at the action, it's not that you should do exactly the same actions to others as you want done to you, it's more of "I would like nice things to happen to me, so I should also like nice things to happen to other people". What's nice obviously depends on the person involved and so it's not always a particularly good form of ethics for solving ethical problems. Which proves the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 6, 2014 18:29:28 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say that morality has to be subjective. It's true that it has changed through history, but that doesn't mean it has to be subjective, just that it's difficult (or not convenient for those who want to hold onto power) to find and enforce an objective system of morality. In terms of current day morals as an example, those people who get their morality from the bible would say that their morality is objective, because it's commands from God, and God is capable of absolutely proclaiming things to be good/bad. ...and that would be subjective morals of believers themselves. By the way, these would be totally different in any fields the local pastor doesn't consult them in. That's not looking deep enough at the action, it's not that you should do exactly the same actions to others as you want done to you, it's more of "I would like nice things to happen to me, so I should also like nice things to happen to other people". What's nice obviously depends on the person involved and so it's not always a particularly good form of ethics for solving ethical problems. Which proves the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning. Incorrect. Objective morality is morality that comes from an external, absolute source. Ergo those people who believe in God believe in an objective morality. Naturally there is a debate to be had over if God exists, but that doesn't make their morality subjective, it'd just be both objective & incorrect. And it doesn't "prove the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning" at all [whatever that actually means]. It just says that one example of subjective morality isn't as straightforward as "Do exactly the same thing to other people as you want done to yourself" |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 6, 2014 18:39:38 GMT
...and that would be subjective morals of believers themselves. By the way, these would be totally different in any fields the local pastor doesn't consult them in. Which proves the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning. Incorrect. Objective morality is morality that comes from an external, absolute source. Ergo those people who believe in God believe in an objective morality. Naturally there is a debate to be had over if God exists, but that doesn't make their morality subjective, it'd just be both objective & incorrect. And it doesn't "prove the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning" at all [whatever that actually means]. It just says that one example of subjective morality isn't as straightforward as "Do exactly the same thing to other people as you want done to yourself" And this is why you should learn about internalization. |
|
|
|
Post by rubgish on Aug 6, 2014 18:42:49 GMT
Incorrect. Objective morality is morality that comes from an external, absolute source. Ergo those people who believe in God believe in an objective morality. Naturally there is a debate to be had over if God exists, but that doesn't make their morality subjective, it'd just be both objective & incorrect. And it doesn't "prove the point of moral subjectivity with no room for different meaning" at all [whatever that actually means]. It just says that one example of subjective morality isn't as straightforward as "Do exactly the same thing to other people as you want done to yourself" And this is why you should learn about internalization. I'm done with bothering about this. You aren't even bothering to try and reply to points, you're just making up new ones that aren't even relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 6, 2014 18:46:08 GMT
No, it's you brushing off the actual facts and mechanisms trying to shift the topic into more subjectivity which you deny at the same time and calling all things you don't understand irrelevant because they are inconvenient for you.
Sweet Mother, why the hell I'm trying to play chess with a dove?
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 6, 2014 19:05:36 GMT
I still say that all morality ought to boil down to treating others the way you want to be treated yourself. The rest is commentary. What if you're a sadomasochist who likes to be hung from a ceiling on giant metal hooks through your nipples? Should you still do onto others as you would like to be done upon? I'm friends with people like that and they'd tell you the same rule (mutual respect) still applies - never make anybody do something that they're not entiorely comfortable with. And you still go back to social learning. Why? Because empathy exists for social learning and is a means of survival. And empathy is pretty much the only reason such rule is so deep down. So what? What's your point? Unless you can provide an example where "love thy neighbour" shouldn't or couldn't be the basis for all morals, you're essentially agreeing with me. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 6, 2014 19:20:33 GMT
My neighbours are all like 70+, I don't want to love them as I love myself.  |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 6, 2014 19:23:01 GMT
My neighbours are all like 70+, I don't want to love them as I love myself. And here I thought you were open minded...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 20:47:29 GMT
Following the "Platinum Rule" of "Treating others the way they wish to be treated" is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't infringe on the rule followers own moral standards. That's essentially where the dichotomy of morality lies. There is no "one shoe fits all" and I highly doubt there ever will be. Even in celebrating our difference of opinion, we will never truly achieve moral homogenization as long as objective morality exists. Also, gaming morality is completely different... Everything I've learned about that I've learned from TF2. Do unto others before they can do unto you! |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Aug 6, 2014 21:32:57 GMT
My neighbours are all like 70+, I don't want to love them as I love myself. Just make sure you love your room mate and we are all good. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 9:07:37 GMT
Following the "Platinum Rule" of "Treating others the way they wish to be treated" is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't infringe on the rule followers own moral standards. That's essentially where the dichotomy of morality lies. There is no "one shoe fits all" and I highly doubt there ever will be. Even in celebrating our difference of opinion, we will never truly achieve moral homogenization as long as objective morality exists. Also, gaming morality is completely different... Everything I've learned about that I've learned from TF2. Do unto others before they can do unto you! Did you mean "subjective morality"? |
|
