Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 02:09 PM       
What if absolute morality is regarded as simply a product of society? Is there a set of norms for a given group of humans (or for humanity in general) that will result in the most harmonious and/or efficient society possible? If so, I would call that the absolute good in the absence of a divinely mandated value system.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 03:22 PM       
Absolute morality can never come from society. The values of various societies change; but absolute moral rights and wrongs are, by their nature, eternal.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 04:02 PM       
Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future and any illusion of free will (hell, even the passage of time in general) is based on an individual's perspective or his very chemical composition. In other words, we're trapped in a blob of amber a la "Slaugtherhouse Five". Sprinkle in a little chaos theory or quantum physics just for fun. Discuss.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 04:28 PM       
My, what provocative thinking!
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #30  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 04:40 PM       
Let's see where it goes.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 05:00 PM       
let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future

Assuming God doesn't play dice with the universe, there is only one possible outcome in the first place.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #32  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 06:51 PM       
You can't have an absolute for an abstract concept. What do you compare absolute good to in order to determine that it's the absolutest, or even "good"? The same goes for evil.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 07:28 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Absolute morality can never come from society. The values of various societies change; but absolute moral rights and wrongs are, by their nature, eternal.
That's why I proposed right and wrong to be defined as whether an act is salutary to the society (thus no longer an abstract, Chimp), and under this thesis cultural relativism would simply be evidence that no culture figured out the absolutes yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Mr. Vagiclean Mr. Vagiclean is offline
Mocker
Mr. Vagiclean's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Mr. Vagiclean is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 08:02 PM        Re: Question of omniscience
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge
One thing that has always bothered me about God (especiall the Christian version) is how can we have free will if there is an omniscient God that knows all past, present, and future? I mean, wouldn't it's knowledge of th future set the path of the future?

but if that's true, how can we even think of the word to describe "free will"? i can't really explain it in a detailed, comprehensive manner, but wouldn't free will = non-existence?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Apr 2nd, 2004, 08:37 PM       
In short, no.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 01:42 AM       
True neutral
Reply With Quote
  #37  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 12:19 PM       
[quote="Perndog"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
That's why I proposed right and wrong to be defined as whether an act is salutary to the society (thus no longer an abstract, Chimp), and under this thesis cultural relativism would simply be evidence that no culture figured out the absolutes yet.
The manner in which you wrote was misleading. But what makes you think that your version of morality is true in the absense of transcendence? What makes the actions morally right or wrong?

Moral laws are not abstractions if they exist, Chimp. They are concrete.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 03:53 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future

Assuming God doesn't play dice with the universe, there is only one possible outcome in the first place.
I'm talking about a variety of avenues, both backward and forward and sideways (alternate dimensions), wherein time is not a factor. Being so, there would be no outcome, so to speak. The world would not evolve into something or move toward anything. That thing would already exist ... somewhere. The universe would be static and the passage of time in all directions would be an illusion, sort of like a billion-fold version of the "choose your own adventure" books.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
The manner in which you wrote was misleading. But what makes you think that your version of morality is true in the absense of transcendence? What makes the actions morally right or wrong?
This is just a possible model, and I'm not even sure if it would work, so I can't say that I think I'm right. I'm basically just making it up for fun as I go along, (at least trying to keep it consistent with itself) so don't take it *too* seriously.

But within the model, morality is redefined as social efficiency (as opposed to morality as accordance with divine will or some other abstract); thus the social outcome of an action would determine its rightness.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:18 PM       
Then the point is lost. If your form of morality requires a new definition for the word, it is not morality as has been discussed in this thread.

In other words, somewhere in this thread an equivocation has been made.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:27 PM       
Morality is simply the concept of right and wrong, which fits perfectly well if right and wrong are understood to be products of social outcomes.

I think the problem is that morality itself doesn't *have* a concrete definition because no one can agree on what really constitutes right and wrong. I thought that's what we were discussing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:33 PM       
Then you still haven't answered my question. How can your view on morality be correct without any transcendent right or wrong? How can there be a natural morality?
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:41 PM       
It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 07:53 PM       
I'm with OaO on this one. Right and Wrong are established by legal cannon. Laws are a reflection of what a society finds acceptable, and therefore have nothing to do with Morality, and are essentially dynamic

Good and Evil are established by doctrine. Morality, is a spiritual concept, and the only the paradigm which can support such is one where God -Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus' God, Muhommed's Allah, the Sikh's Void or Baha'u'llah's "Central Orb"- is accepted as the Absolute from which Morality stems and remains static.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 10:07 PM       
What if the dynamic nature of laws only shows that the right set of laws hasn't yet been discovered? If the "right laws" do exist, it wouldn't be a matter of acceptability but rather of what works best for a society.

As for morality being solely spiritual, I think millions of atheists who consider themselves moral people will have a serious problem with your statement, especially as you're saying all deity-worshipping religions are acceptable as sources of morality but not atheistic belief systems. The entire purpose of my suggestion was to describe the only possible way (unless someone wants to propose another) that absolute morality could exist without spirituality. Of course, if you and other folks want to classify me as amoral because I am entirely devoid of a spiritual life, I'm fine with that.

By the way, Zoroaster was a living prophet of the god Ahuramazda.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 4th, 2004, 10:32 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perndog
It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.
You still haven't answered my question yet. What makes actions that create the greatest possible harmony objectively right? What force makes them correct?

I would imagine that those atheists who consider themselves moral are not arguing over morality as has been in the strictly philosophical sense. For example, most of us - even nihilists - would say that we shouldn't kill people, but that does not necessarily reflect on our beliefs regarding an absolute right or wrong.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 4th, 2004, 12:02 PM       
It's a matter of how right and wrong are defined, and you can't accuse me of equivocation because "right" has no standard definition; it has a unique meaning within every philosophical paradigm. In monotheistic religions, "right" or "good" means in accordance with divine will. In nontheistic systems such as Buddhism, "right" has different definitions or is subjective and defined individually. The only universal standard for what is right is that it is what people should do according to a given value system. In this model, "right" is defined as socially efficient, and the entire purpose of the system is to provide a definition that doesn't require a spiritual basis for it yet still allows it to be absolute. If you want a specific source for it, the source would have to be human psychology.

So if rightness is defined uniquely (and it must be) within every model, and this model defines rightness as social efficiency, then this model can be correct as long as a superceding source of morality is absent and so long as absolute standards of what works exist.

I doubt it's correct myself. I just want to show that it's possible.

I bet a lot of moral atheists are quite philosophical about it. And Ror said, in essence, that the only way morality is possible is if a deity is accepted as the static and absolute root of it. That's what I think would be objectionable, even to eggheads.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 4th, 2004, 02:27 PM       
This is all you need to decide morality.

Quote:
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Apr 4th, 2004, 02:44 PM       
Does using dark magic make you a bad person if you use it for a good end? :/
Reply With Quote
  #50  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 4th, 2004, 03:23 PM       
That's up to the DM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.