Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 70 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Pendulum-secret that you have to study
by newton
Yesterday at 12:01 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 1
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#30279 - 04/10/09 08:38 AM Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality.

Law can create particular obligations but law cannot create a law that dictates an obligation to obey law. Law can punish but cannot create the general obligation to obey law. Such an obligation comes via moral character. “Morality must be distinguished from self-interest, although the two can often coincide…What is the rational ground for morality and its obligation?”

The rational ground for morality rests upon the need for mutual cooperation within a community. With mutual cooperation comes mutual dependence. Mutual cooperation demands trust, which relies upon honesty. Honesty implies obligation. Violence destroys cooperation.

Cooperation is essential for social life; only if we wish to withdraw into isolation can we afford to ignore cooperation. Empirically we can find cooperation within every community. Morality is about human relationships thus empirically we can find both the need and presence of morality in all communities.

Morality exists in all communities but it has many variables and much diversity. Three factors are important here: differences in religion, differences in politics, and differences in production and economic relations.

“Certain moral commitments with their attendant obligation are necessary for any kind of human co-operation whatever. These must first be acknowledged before there can be other values which vary. This is an a priori not an empirical thesis.” By definition, a group of individuals without human co-operation is no community at all.

A diversity of moral codes within a community can be accepted but primary loyalty to all within the community must be to the community and not to particular groups or classes within the community. Those values that unite must be more important than those that divide.

A community is a group committed to the rule of law, which entails three specific principles of law: the law is supreme with equality and freedom under the law. Legal rules are supreme and all members are subjected to and protected by those rules.

Public interest, when properly understood, forms the “rational basis of both government and politics”.


Quotes from The Morality of Politics edited by Bhikhu Parekh & R. N. Berki

Top
.
#30283 - 04/10/09 10:55 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: coberst
..There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality...
Do you mean a physical laws? Ater then your statement is true.

Top
#30291 - 04/10/09 05:33 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Zephir]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: coberst
..There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality...
Do you mean a physical laws? Ater then your statement is true.


No I am speaking about civil law.

Top
#30293 - 04/10/09 07:06 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
law 1. the body of rules recognized by a state or community as binding on its members.

Question: If the Golden Rule is a rule, is it also a law?

morality 1. the relative right or wrong of an action; a system of morals; a set of rules or principles of conduct.

Question: Is morality and justice one and the same?

============================================================
Obviously, in a true and secular democracy, the law and morality--the kind any state or community agrees to have as binding on its members--must be determined by its members.


Question: Who should be the makers of our laws? The elite few chosen to represent us?

Or should all our laws be put to the vote of the electorate by a system of direct democracy?

Questions: Should laws be designed to serve the state or community only?

Or should the emphasis be put on redeeming the individual?

In a secular democracy, when it comes to the laws and morality by which we choose to live, what it the role of religion?

For example, should Muslims, Jews, Christians and others be allowed to make laws for those who belong to those religions?


Edited by Revlgking (04/10/09 07:08 PM)

Top
#30310 - 04/11/09 03:37 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
In my opinion law making should be absolutely, totally and completely separate from religious influence.

Coberst- you need to define your terms. Exactly what do you mean by 'morality' and what do you mean by 'law'.

As Rev has suggested the underlying philosophy of any discussion in this area is usually accepted as the golden rule--- that is ---'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. As I have often remarked here before--- if you keep to that standard you will not go too far to the dark side!

Do not forget Coberst, that morality which does not allow for free choice is never going to work. For example some people deny half their population the same rights as the other half, often in the name of morality. This is more than undemocratic, it is immoral, but it happens and is enshrined in laws, made by people who would consider themselves of shining morality.

Making people moral by legislation never succeeds. Indeed it has to be acknowledged that even in the midst of the worst situations some people are still able to act morally with a grace and humanity that we can admire and recognise, even though it is sometimes against the law. We should be debating how such people can keep their integrity and show their humanity at the highest level always.


Edited by Ellis (04/11/09 03:41 AM)
Edit Reason: left out a bit

Top
#30312 - 04/11/09 07:28 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
law 1. the body of rules recognized by a state or community as binding on its members.

Membership being tantamount to democratic belief. When man thought the world was flat the rule was that if you sailed to the horizon you would fall off the edge of the world.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Question: If the Golden Rule is a rule, is it also a law?

morality 1. the relative right or wrong of an action; a system of morals; a set of rules or principles of conduct.
Morality is subjective. Most don't recognize universal laws which hold the universe in place at different levels of consciousness. At the grossest levels of awareness which are plagued with opinion, belief and superstition, the law of survival is that the fittest are superior, and if survival means to take a life that is within the rules.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Question: Is morality and justice one and the same?

Morality and justice a subjective to varying states of conscious awareness in the evolution of the species. History makes a great example of morality and justice and how it evolves with knowledge and spiritual maturity.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Obviously, in a true and secular democracy, the law and morality--the kind any state or community agrees to have as binding on its members--must be determined by its members.

Membership is relegated to the compliance of an already established set of rules. Usually set in place thru belief and opinion. The majority is often swayed in a democracy by a strong will.
Certain laws such as universal laws that establish levels of reality are not affected by democratic opinion. One such example would be that even tho democratic opinion and belief would establish the idea that the world was flat and that the sun rotated around the earth, it did not change the fact that the world was round and the earth orbited the sun.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Question: Who should be the makers of our laws? The elite few chosen to represent us?

The many and the few unconsciously create laws based on the inadequate knowledge of human and universal potential. Man is capable of living without rules but as long as the ego is alive and influencing man to put fear into the equation, man will create laws to fit his beliefs and his fear.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Questions: Should laws be designed to serve the state or community only?
As long as the state or community has a broken leg it will need a crutch, and it will manufacture something to aid its disability.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

In a secular democracy, when it comes to the laws and morality by which we choose to live, what it the role of religion?

It is a crutch.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

For example, should Muslims, Jews, Christians and others be allowed to make laws for those who belong to those religions?
Should is a relative term.
A better question is: Would mankind, if it found commonality above and beyond the segregation of individual belief and opinion that creates religions that separate humanity into diverse groups, create a better humanity than one that tries to rule over it with superstitious belief and opinion?
I think the answer is obvious. The problem is people are still trying to create rules from personal belief and prejudice that separates man into objects of value and measure and that includes groupings of belief and ability. Such is the state of evolving man. Until man wakes up to lead mankind beyond such a state of ignorance, man will continue to create rules based on limitations and ignorance, approaching man in relative belief and ignorance.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30319 - 04/11/09 03:02 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369


I have a constantly changing attitude toward morality. My views are changing because I am constantly studying subject matter that is related to the problem of morality. In fact as I study these matters I find that the most important concerns of sapiens is morality based.

I have a cartoon figure that my son has crated for me that speaks to my general attitude toward morality. The figure has an Arnold-like upper torso set on two spindle weak veracious veined legs. The upper torso is our ‘man of science’ and the lower body represents our ‘science of man’, i.e. morality. We are rapidly running out the clock on human survival unless we quickly develop a moral code that will allow us to live together.

I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.”

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.” The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality” according to the analysis in ”The Morality of Politics” by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”

I was raised as a Catholic; I was taught by the nuns the Catholic doctrine regarding sin, punishment, and consciousness. Venial sins were like misdemeanors and mortal sins were like felonies. However, this is not a completely accurate analogy because if a person dies with venial sin on the soul s/he would be punished by having to spend time in purgatory before going to heaven but if a person died with mortal sin on the soul s/he went directly to hell for eternity.

Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession.

Top
#30320 - 04/11/09 05:46 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: coberst


Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession.


The idea of being conscious of ones sin in this case was to accept the programming which identified incorrect thought feeling and action.
Someone made a rule and in order to follow the rules one had to believe in the circumstances which led to the rule.

If you take into consideration the Ten Commandments and compare them with the the eight limbs of yoga, you get the idea that standards of thought feeling and action, are established as useful boundaries in order to nurture greater awareness of ones self and those others, that are perceived in reflection of belief and opinion.


1.Yama The yamas refer to an individual’s ethical standards and way of behaving. The yamas have five areas of focus:
Ahimsa: nonviolence against oneself or others, in actions or thoughts.
Aparigraha: noncovetousness, non-grasping, taking only what is necessary.
Asteya: nonstealing, thoughtful in what is yours, not taking advantage of one’s trust.
Brahmacharya: continence, abstinence, self-restraint, conscious awareness.
Satya: truthfulness in all dealings with the self and others.
2. Niyama The niyamas refer to a more internal view of ourselves; to behaviors and observances. The niyamas have five areas of focus:
Isvara Pranidhana: surrender to God, realizing ego is not in control of one’s existence.
Samtosa: contentment and modesty, accepting what happens through expansion of consciousness.
Saucha: purity of the body and thoughts.
Svadhyaya: the study of sacred texts, to study oneself through reflection.
Tapas: literally translated as heat; the fire tha burns away all that is not real, spiritual austerities, which means useful boundaries or focus and discipline.

3.Asana The most common discipline taught in contemporary yoga classes are the postures and movement between postures. Practicing asana helps prepare us for deeper meditation. By maintaining a healthy and open physical body, we are able to come to deeper meditation, enabling us to experience samadhi. From a yoga perspective, this is the primary reason for practicing asana.
4.Pranayama Prana translates as breath or life force. Yama translates as control. Thus pranayama means control of the breath. Through pranayama practice, we learn to energize the body and mind by becoming aware of the subtle breath of Prana that travels up the Ida and down the Pingala which are the energy channels which surround the spind represented by the two snakes intertwining thru the chakras represented in the caduceus. We can strengthen the energy within as well as making the energy more peaceful. Pranayama increases our lung capacity, decreases stress, helps us focus, and brings a sense of balance of the inner self with the world around us. If practiced correctly, the body and mind become healthier. Practicing the first four limbs of yoga, Yama, Niyama, Asana and Pranayama help us to more thoroughly experience the next four limbs, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi, which focus more on the spiritual self.
5.Pratyahara Pratyahara means withdrawing from the senses. More accurately, it means to transcend the senses so they don’t influence us in a way that prevents us from reaching Samadhi, or enlightenment. By transcending the senses, we move our awareness away from the outer world and toward the inner self. Here, without outside influence, we are able to view our selves in a deeper, more intimate way, ultimately finding the true self.
6.Dharana With the help of Pratyahara, Dharana enables us to concentrate more fully, bringing a richer awareness of the mind. This step is essential to meditation. Here, we use all the previously mentioned limbs to bring our selves to a place of such peacefulness and balance, every thought or influence is met with a totally open mind, body and spirit. There is no preconception, prejudgment, conditioning, fear, anxiety, joy or sorrow to influence our meeting with each event. We meet every moment with our true selves.
7.Dhyana Dhyana is meditation. In Dhyana, or meditation, we move beyond Dharana (concentration) into a state of total awareness. We are able to concentrate on a focus point, while still being aware of everything else around and within us. This is a much more difficult task than might be thought. All the previously mentioned limbs are engaged when we come to this state. The mind and body must be totally quiet and open.
8.Samadhi Samadhi is the state of transcendence of the self, a state of ecstasy. It is the joining or union (the meaning of yoga) with all living things, with the universe, with the Devine. Here, we are in a state of bliss, beyond the place of knowledge, beyond the place of worldly things, to a realization that everything is of the same substance and that all is connected – yoga!

Here are 8 terms given to types of yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Dhyana Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga,



The rules and morals determined from chaotic changing beliefs of the world around us, which are determined at lesser states of consciousness, are rules determined by personal opinion and belief of what the world is and how separate it is from our own thoughts and ideas. Rules then are determined as protection for personal belief and ideals which are constantly changing and evolving. If one does not know the nature of Ones Self as it lives and breathes in everyone else there is no connection at a deep unchanging level of consciousness.
The only result is to put bandaids on surface appearances rather than to deal with the root of all things. This is like watering and protecting individual branches of a tree rather than to water the root.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30345 - 04/15/09 06:30 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Coberst wrote:
"I was raised as a Catholic; I was taught by the nuns the Catholic doctrine regarding sin, punishment, and consciousness. Venial sins were like misdemeanors and mortal sins were like felonies. However, this is not a completely accurate analogy because if a person dies with venial sin on the soul s/he would be punished by having to spend time in purgatory before going to heaven but if a person died with mortal sin on the soul s/he went directly to hell for eternity.

Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession. "

Coberst-- you were introduced to the idea of existence of sin when you were a small child, and as a child you saw no reason to argue with this very important piece of church doctrine. Children do not know about sin unless they are taught it exists.This does not mean they are immoral little beings, my soon to be 3 year old grandson can tell you what is the right thing to do in a situation. He knows that a decision which hurts someone else is wrong, and he should try not to make his playmates cry. He will try to cover up such behaviour, but he has not sinned. He has done the wrong thing. Similarly bombing the heart out of a country on a spurious pretext is not a sin, it is not even evil, (another value-added word) it is just wrong, and wrong beyond redemption. There is no absolution possible for such an action.

So Coberst , when you discuss morality you are probably remembering, maybe unconsciously, the sins you committed and confessed to as a child, and do not understand how people can make judgements without the strong buttress of the acknowledgement of sin. In fact sin is a device used by a select band of people (maybe a church, but remember that the communists of China were fond of group confession of transgressions.) The point is the ONLY the people in charge can decide what is a sin, and only they can forgive (using the authority of the highest power they work for, that is in my examples- God or the commissariat).

Everyone on the planet is capable of being a morally motivated being. We are all however brainwashed into hate, sin and violence. Most of us do not want to be. The last sentence of your post was very insightful. To indoctrinate people to believe in the existence of the abtract term 'sin' allows them to commit sin, in the hope of absolution. If a person is personally resonsible for their own behaviour then no absolution is possible. Behaving morally is then a personal choice, and a rational choice, as it always is.


Top
#30347 - 04/15/09 07:43 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Ellis]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
Ellis

I agree that morality is a choice we make and it seems to me that it can be a choice of accepting relgious dogma, a choice of reason, or a choice to just go on about our daily problems without any thought as to what morality is about. Far too many accept the dogma from their childhood or the simple ignoring the whole matter much as would a cow chewing its cud in the field.

Top
#30349 - 04/15/09 05:10 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: coberst
Ellis

I agree that morality is a choice we make and it seems to me that it can be a choice of accepting relgious dogma, a choice of reason, or a choice to just go on about our daily problems without any thought as to what morality is about. Far too many accept the dogma from their childhood or the simple ignoring the whole matter much as would a cow chewing its cud in the field.


And....morality when expressed as an ideal, is often misconstrued by those who reason, as religious dogma.
It takes a certain level of awareness to recognize the inherent truths within the mixing of personality and delusions of opinion.

Anyone can reason. Not all are Conscious of the differences between relative truth and universal truth.
You got your east, and you got your west, when politics and demographics tune and influence idealism, reason becomes attuned to personality, and social mores of the traditional programs are the morals of historic influence.

Who shall be the Truth for reason and the reason for Truth?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30353 - 04/16/09 11:13 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
There is no uiniversal or absolute truth. Truth is here today and gone tomorrow in matters of human values. That is why moral imagination and the ability of dialogue and dialectical reason is so important.

Top
#30355 - 04/16/09 04:49 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: coberst
There is no uiniversal or absolute truth.

Not within your changing experience, I take it.
Originally Posted By: coberst

Truth is here today and gone tomorrow in matters of human values. That is why moral imagination and the ability of dialogue and dialectical reason is so important.

Relative truth is here today and gone tomorrow, which is why moral imagination gleaned from the art or practice of logical discussion, as employed in investigating the truth of a relative theory or opinion is a fantasy. It is dedicated to your reason that what is here today, will be gone tomorrow.
There are those things which endure, such as change in the relative world, and the essence of which underlies perception of values, theories, opinions and those truths of a relative nature.
The mind is like a monkey that searches for the ideal banana. It searches for the ideal thought.
"Truth" Universal is a connotative word, when understood within the nature of its context, resonates at a level of comprehension that is experienced in its timelessness, rather than at a surface level of mind word association to past memories of disappointment and judgment toward the broken promises and idealizations of changing personal opinions and values.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30358 - 04/16/09 05:53 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
Tutor


“We understand a statement as being true in a given situation if our understanding of the statement fits our understanding of the situation closely enough for our purpose,”

This statement of the meaning of truth comes from Women. Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind by George Lakoff. It is one that makes most sense to me.

Top
#30361 - 04/16/09 09:05 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: coberst
Tutor


“We understand a statement as being true in a given situation if our understanding of the statement fits our understanding of the situation closely enough for our purpose,”

This statement of the meaning of truth comes from Women. Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind by George Lakoff. It is one that makes most sense to me.

We?
Understanding exists within a greater Truth that is beyond the relative. What makes the most sense to me and those who have gained the experience of a constant within the relative, is that regardless of any state of mind, there are things that exist whether we know of them or not, and whether one wants to believe in them or not. Letting go of the limitations of relative truths so that the mind is not bound to the relative reveals the greater.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30362 - 04/16/09 11:40 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
I have no idea what TT is saying as I ignore the postings uder that name- however, I think that there is indeed such a thing as truth-- and absolute truth is one of the most inconvenient things on this planet as it can interfere with the enjoyment and conduct of our lives (it is also known as conscience). We know the truth and we sometimes choose to ignore it. Bending truth to accommodate our actions, and harm others, is not a moral action, even if it is to our advantage. Stoning one's sister (as mentioned in another post), is a cultural deviation of morality that is based on religious fanatisism. It is not grounded in a moral stance as morality must include truth. How could it possibly be that stoning someone, even if it is culturally accepted, is a moral act that advances truth?

As the poet suggests truth is beautiful, and it underlies all moral behaviour and is a harbinger of hope, without which we humans would have nothing.

Top
#30364 - 04/17/09 03:53 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Shame on you, Ellis, for ignoring The Truth (TT) smile

But seriously, it is said that a 'bad conscience' is simply a good conscience doing its duty.

BTW, Coberst, I ask the following in the spirit of dialogue, without prejudice and without pretending that I have all the answers: Are you a moral relativist?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30366 - 04/17/09 11:41 AM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: Revlgking]
coberst Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 369
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


BTW, Coberst, I ask the following in the spirit of dialogue, without prejudice and without pretending that I have all the answers: Are you a moral relativist?


I might be, could you give me a definition of what that label means?

Top
#30374 - 04/17/09 05:24 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: coberst
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


BTW, Coberst, I ask the following in the spirit of dialogue, without prejudice and without pretending that I have all the answers: Are you a moral relativist?


I might be, could you give me a definition of what that label means?

You kind of answered your own question.
The world and all that you believe, are who you are as experienced by you, when you define yourself and others.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30375 - 04/17/09 05:49 PM Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality? [Re: coberst]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Lots on the WWW about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=moral+relativism+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

FROM THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Quote:
Moral Relativism
First published Thu Feb 19, 2004; substantive revision Tue Dec 9, 2008

Moral relativism has the unusual distinction--both within philosophy and outside it--of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in meta-ethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong.

The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a meta-ethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.




Edited by Revlgking (04/17/09 05:53 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.