Declaration of Human Rights

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

DJFC:


Everyone:

More specifically, I’m interested in the reasons why people are taking the positions they are on the issues that have been brought up thus far – it’s not what your position is but why it is. Which brings me back to the question In my original post – with any position you take, is it absolute? Is there any objectivity when we talk about ideas of things, or is everything subjective, swimming in a sea of relativism? Where does our authority to claim something is right or something is wrong come from? From God? Evidence? Reason?

Explain yourselves.

Essentially I think our authority comes from our reason, although this raises the issue of our reason being imperfect, I think humanity tends towards understanding the essential human rights as time goes on.

Relativism is a good tool for examining cultures and understanding them, but when it comes to ethical debates, relativism breaks down into nothing at all pretty quickly.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

It should be stressed that Kant's noteworthy because his name sounds like "cunt".

fyp

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Or did you mean something else?

That's why I fucking said it you dumb unlikable son of a bitch.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Yeah, I'm the unlikable one.

Can you tell me more about the philosophical implications of "I know you are but what am I"?

[Repugnant Abomination]

Thank you for helping me learn to be a more patient man.

[DDTempest]

Blonde > Repug, just saying ... the kid has heart!

[DJ FC]

Perhaps authority has arrisen naturally. I mean, certainly that's the case... right? We've evolved to have some rule over others. And it's pretty difficult to say anything is objectively true when it runs counter to millions of years of evolution.

[Ironic Mustache]

I see that several of you have yet to learn to stop reading as soon as you see posts like this:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I'm just now beginning to delve into morality myself.

You can sense the superiority in the air and before long (without fail) it turns into mega-faggy, epic battle of philosophical tummy-sticks--usually between Blonde and Repug.

Whatever happened to mega-faggy, epic battles of actual tummy-sticks?

[Saint DH]

When there's too many isms, the thread turns to jizzum.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

Perhaps authority has arrisen naturally. I mean, certainly that's the case... right? We've evolved to have some rule over others. And it's pretty difficult to say anything is objectively true when it runs counter to millions of years of evolution.

Why? First off, we haven't really evolved as a species much since the first actual humans; we are still biologically the same thing, it's just a matter of when that first fully formed human existed. We evolved into the human species, not as the human species. I think as society has been driven to the point of increasing the time and energy available towards abstract thought, the closer we get towards understanding what it means to behave ethically.

So while we can't overly condemn the past for being unethical, we can, to a large degree, look back and realize our understanding was more flawed and is moving towards less flawed with time.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

mega-faggy is my new favorite word to describe Blonde.

[Beebs]

Meta-faggy is my favorite word to describe you describing blonde

[thekremlin]

Meta-Feta-Faggy is my favorite word to describe a gay greek salad aware that the only reason he exists is because the decleration of human rights thread has gotten silly.

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Meta-Feta-Faggy is my favorite word to describe a gay greek salad aware that the only reason he exists is because the decleration of human rights thread has gotten better.

Fixed.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

I think you ruined everything.

[Repugnant Abomination]

If I can't discuss complex philosophical problems on the internet then where can I discuss them?!

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Whisper them into my butthole until it tickles too much.

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

If I can't discuss complex philosophical problems on the internet then where can I discuss them?!

I propose that no such venue exists; though, if it were to exist, it wouldn't be aware of its existence. We, therefore, certainly wouldn't be aware of it.

Edit* Before we get off track again:

[Saint DH]

Those are lovely.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological (the ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules) for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way; that one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification. Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

“Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.”

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'. People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty. Thus, according to Kant, goodness depends on rightness.

Kant's two significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.

2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

This is the best argument I've found thus far for the existence of objective morality without the need for the existence of God.

[Beebs]

I think there are two problems with Kants views.

First, he seems to break things down into either action or inaction, as in you have to "do" a fairly defined "thing" in order for it to be part of a situation where morality can be judged, and somewhat implies than inaction doesn't really count against you.

Second, he seems to deny that you can have many different moral influences and goals, weighted to different degrees, which combine into a good moral guide, without having one overriding principle that you are constantly striving to by specific affirmative actions.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Inaction is action.

To your second point, that's a fair criticism, and it's one that is often cited, though I'm not totally convinced it adequately refutes Kantian ethics.

There are three dominant schools in ethical thought these days: Deontological, Consequentialism, and Virtue Ethics. I've already explained Deontology.

Consequentialism is pretty much what it sounds like -the ethics of something are determined by the consequences of it. So lying would be an ethical thing to do if it meant saving a Jew from a snooping Nazi.

Virtue Ethics describes the character of a moral agent as the driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics). A virtue ethicist would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions.

You seem to be arguing for a more Virtue Ethics approach, which has made a big comeback since it was first put forward by Plato and Aristotle, as it's now one of the three leading schools of thought. The problem, of course, is that (for my interest anyway) I want to know if objective morality exists absent the existence of God. Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism are appealing because there's more gray area and context involved, but that also would mean there's no absolute morality. Only the Deontological approach explained by Kant's Categorical Imperative and explanation of good will being the only "good" there is without qualification works as an absolute morality.

This, however, may be unsatisfactory to some (or most), so the question is: does absolute, objective morality exist without the existence of God? You seem to be saying no, in which case we can't say that murdering an innocent person for no good reason is objectively bad, nor can we say that that holocaust was objectively bad. These things would be reduced to what we feel about them, and how they are not our preference, which, I imagine, people also find unsatisfactory.

So what the fuck?

Therefore, either there is absolute morality through the existence of God, or the holocaust wasn't objectively bad/wrong.

?????????????????????????????

I don't know.

[Beebs]

I'm saying yes, it does exist, for the record.

I don't see why objective morals can't exist the same way objective mathematics exists; it's just there.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I'm saying yes, it does exist, for the record.

I don't see why objective morals can't exist the same way objective mathematics exists; it's just there.

You may have come to the right conclusion, but I want a defense of it. Don't be lazy. We can't just say something is true because it's true.

A natural law:

A system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. According to natural law theory, morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity.

[Beebs]

Lazy is more or less accurate; It is a fucking chore to get to exactly where you are trying to start. I think it's important to start from a point of realizing that the end result doesn't have to be absolute, in the sense that not absolutely every possible situation has a 100% answer, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a better or best answer that can be reached logically; also you don't have to be a "value monist" with one ethical value being the guiding principle that has the final say so, I think you can break down ethical issues into rights, justice, utility, and care, and they don't always agree, but rather need to be weighed together in some way.

You can break down each of the 4 concerns: What are rights? Is justice objective? Etc. If you break down each of the 4 individually you get a long way towards your answer.