Where We Get Our Morals From

[Herzblut]

Oh, I don't know ... Maybe if they took Christ at his word, and went out and bought a sword..

What does that mean? A soldier should not trust the sword provided to him (because it's no good), but purchase his own weapon in the shop around the corner?

 

[plumjam]

So absolute humour is out there in the same way gravity is out there, simply because we have never seen it, only its effects?

Although the topic here is not humour, the answer is yes.
Some people perceive humour better than others. Think "sense of humour".. it is a mode of perception of non-subjective truth, just as conscience is a mode of perception of non-subjective (moral) truth, just as eyesight is a mode of perception of non-subjective (physical) truth.

As with so many people here you seem to be labouring under the simple misapprehension that truth can be perceived only via the 5 senses.

 

[godless dave]

Do you believe in absolute truth, the concept that there is a standard of right and wrong?

No.

If no, morals are relative. If the latter is the case: should criminals be prosecuted?

Yes. Why would morality have to be absolute to be meaningful?

Any more questions?

 

[plumjam]

The drive to develop that law could have come from any number of motivations aside from conscience.

Rather than seeing it as a 'moral truth', the lawmakers could have put themselves in the position of those being hit and sought to avoid it from a more 'that could have been ME!' position of self-interest.

Equally, from the standpoint of a functioning society (in which, let us not forget, these people have a privileged position as lawmakers), they may have decided that the social contract should include reductions in the risk of death to others through the lowering of the speed limit; one of the many measures which cumulatively prevent the breakdown of society and help them retain this privileged position.

These things could be considered 'for the best' from a purely rational standpoint without having to go into 'right' and 'wrong', with the idea of what is best relying entirely on self-interest.

If you were to witness an innocent pedestrian being killed by a speeding driver, what would your reaction be?

1. That action of the driver's was morally wrong, because it is an absolute moral truth that it's wrong to take an innocent life without justification.
or
2. That action of the driver's was only morally wrong due to the fact that one day a similar thing could happen to me
?

 

[Herzblut]

I agree to some extent. But to have "love your enemy" as something we rely on socially and internationally would be pretty unrealistic, and in fact highly irresponsible.

OK. But if you think Christ's word is unrealistic and highly irresponsible, how could you be a christian?

 

[Hughnon]

Some people perceive humour better than others. Think "sense of humour".. it is a mode of perception of non-subjective truth, just as conscience is a mode of perception of non-subjective (moral) truth, just as eyesight is a mode of perception of non-subjective (physical) truth.

So there are merely increasing degrees of 'funny' and people's relative abilities to perceive it?

A comedian could absolutely die on stage and yet prove, with diagrams, that he had actually brought the funny, but that the joyless dimwits in front of him had merely failed to appreciate it?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, not really. The speeding law originates from conscience, in that the people who were instrumental in introducing the law were acting on the moral perception provided to them via conscience, of the moral truth that it is important to protect innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians from the increased likelihood of suffering injury or death due to the inconsiderate desire of some people to speed.

No. Conscience is an internal (metaphor) sense of right and wrong that has more than one source -- hence my appeal to its complexity. There are our originary feelings, what used to be called the moral sentiments, that are part of our evolutionary heritage. And there are rules that we learn as part of a society that are based on those moral sentiments. We internalize issues such as "speeding is bad", and this is part of our conscience. But that feeling is not one of the originary moral sentiments on which conscience is built. conscience is more complex than the original sentiments on which it is partially based.

They are moral intuitions of what?
To intuit something, there has to be something there to intuit in the first place; otherwise we're just engaging in completely subjective fantasy.

Subjective fantasy implies only one subject being involved. Moral intutions are a shared fantasy. Much like money. There is no such "thing" as money. We share the fantasy of money allowing us to engage in economic activity. We intuit inbuilt moral tendencies that allow us to form in to large groups without killing one another. The feelings are very real, but they are not "out there" in the universe separate from us. Those feelings exist only because we exist.

If you believe that these are not truths.. well, that contradicts your earlier statement that you believe slavery to be morally wrong. If truths in morality are not possible, then you can make no meaningful statements on morality.. and therefore we should all just shut up (which I can sometimes see the appeal of )
Yes, moral truth is out there in the same way that gravity is out there. No one has ever seen gravity, only its effects. No one has ever seen moral truth/falsehood (only via conscience, not visually), only their effects. It's exactly the same.

No, because truth refers to statements we make about the world "out there". 'Gravity is real' is a truth because it is a statement that can be objectively verified and which reflects the nature of what is "out there".

Moral directives are not truth statements. They do not refer to what is "out there". They are statements that concern the way that we should act. The statement 'slavery is wrong' concerns how humans should treat one another, not about how the universe is structured. Moral statements are not statements about the world. They are more like imperatives in our language.

If I tell you that you should buy spaghetti at the store I have not made a true or false statement. I have said what I want you to do. You may or may not fulfill that imperative, but whether you do or not does not concern truth. Rather, you either do or do not fulfill the directive in the imperative statement.

 

[plumjam]

So there are merely increasing degrees of 'funny' and people's relative abilities to perceive it?

A comedian could absolutely die on stage and yet prove, with diagrams, that he had actually brought the funny, but that the joyless dimwits in front of him had merely failed to appreciate it?

Yes, if the audience had little or no sense of humour even a very good comedian would struggle.
(diagrams could not be used for demonstration of this, due to humour not, in itself, being a visual thing.. although it can be expressed via visual media)

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

That's what I mean. Christ's words are plain, simple and universal. And that's my problem. What's unclear about "Love your enemy"? How could a christian become a soldier and kill people on profane secular orders, pissing on Christ's word?

The ideal is clear. Not being a soldier and not killing people is the easy part, by the way. Now the Loving part ... that's a bit more difficult.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Although the topic here is not humour, the answer is yes.
Some people perceive humour better than others. Think "sense of humour".. it is a mode of perception of non-subjective truth, just as conscience is a mode of perception of non-subjective (moral) truth, just as eyesight is a mode of perception of non-subjective (physical) truth.

Just using phrases such as 'non-subjective truth' and applying it to things such as humour and conscience does not make them assume this function.

What evidence do you have that humour is non-subjective? As looking around, people seem to be entertained by a vast variety of comedy.

As with so many people here you seem to be labouring under the simple misapprehension that truth can be perceived only via the 5 senses.

The human construction of 'truth'? I guess I am.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If you were to witness an innocent pedestrian being killed by a speeding driver, what would your reaction be?

1. That action of the driver's was morally wrong, because it is an absolute moral truth that it's wrong to take an innocent life without justification.
or
2. That action of the driver's was only morally wrong due to the fact that one day a similar thing could happen to me
?

Tell that to the millions of children who have just bought a game in which you can run over prostitutes and slaughter pedestrians in their droves.

 

[godless dave]

If you were to witness an innocent pedestrian being killed by a speeding driver, what would your reaction be?

1. That action of the driver's was morally wrong, because it is an absolute moral truth that it's wrong to take an innocent life without justification.
or
2. That action of the driver's was only morally wrong due to the fact that one day a similar thing could happen to me
?

3. The action of the driver was wrong because, as a human, I do not want other humans to suffer or be killed.

 

[Hughnon]

If you were to witness an innocent pedestrian being killed by a speeding driver, what would your reaction be?

1. That action of the driver's was morally wrong, because it is an absolute moral truth that it's wrong to take an innocent life without justification.
or
2. That action of the driver's was only morally wrong due to the fact that one day a similar thing could happen to me
?

It doesn't matter how I would react. What's important is that this state of affairs could quite easily have arisen through self-interest rather than from a more conventional moral standpoint, which rather negates the point that it is necessarily the result of the latter.

Yes, if the audience had little or no sense of humour even a very good comedian would struggle.
(diagrams could not be used for demonstration of this, due to humour not, in itself, being a visual thing.. although it can be expressed via visual media)

Someone can simultaneously be viewed as both 'funny' and 'not funny' by two different people watching the same act.

To whom do we appeal as the Great Arbiter of who is correct in their assessment, or the Cosmic Clerk who compares the quality of the act with the value of absolute humour and sends back a report?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If you were to witness an innocent pedestrian being killed by a speeding driver, what would your reaction be?

1. That action of the driver's was morally wrong, because it is an absolute moral truth that it's wrong to take an innocent life without justification.
or
2. That action of the driver's was only morally wrong due to the fact that one day a similar thing could happen to me
?

Number 1 requires that you define " innocent " and " justification " in the context of the event ..


For number 2; by ".. a similar thing happening to me .. " do you mean being hit, or being the driver ?

 

[Tricky]

Morals are evolved, and even designed by humans for their protection and well-being, but like many traits, they vary widely, so enforcement is needed to make those protections work. Sometimes they work well. Sometimes they work poorly. Sometimes humans invent laws. Sometimes humans invent God.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's worth pointing out that I knew a man who used to show us his cat, put it in his rucksack and swing it around in circles before he broke up in absolute hysterics.

Is it simply the majority that ensures a 'truth' or a lone man who thinks this is the funniest thing he has ever seen? You'll notice that for us to describe how this isn't actually a good thing to do to the cat we have to use reason and arguments rather than rely on the blokes' 'gut' and the 'conscience'.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Although the topic here is not humour, the answer is yes.
Some people perceive humour better than others. Think "sense of humour".. it is a mode of perception of non-subjective truth, just as conscience is a mode of perception of non-subjective (moral) truth, just as eyesight is a mode of perception of non-subjective (physical) truth.

As with so many people here you seem to be labouring under the simple misapprehension that truth can be perceived only via the 5 senses.

Just to muddy the waters:

IMO, That humans have humour is universal, What is humerous is cultural, and within that the specifics are subjective on an individual basis with some not having that "sense" at all.

I think it goes that way largely with the morals that are programmed into us.

Morals: Certain types of broad Morals are universal, the specifics are cultural with the specific's within that set being subjective.

C.S. Lewis attempted to identify the broader Morals here.

This anthropologist is attempting to show the same thing.

Now - once someone illuminates the non-subjective moral basis - what happens to your personal subjective morals?

 

[Mashuna]

3. The action of the driver was wrong because, as a human, I do not want other humans to suffer or be killed.

Quite. Are moral absolutes required, or can we derive morals through empathy?

 

[rocketdodger]

So there are merely increasing degrees of 'funny' and people's relative abilities to perceive it?

A comedian could absolutely die on stage and yet prove, with diagrams, that he had actually brought the funny, but that the joyless dimwits in front of him had merely failed to appreciate it?

Well, you have to appreciate the source.

Nobody has taken plumjam seriously since he claimed that fans of the Beatles are morally superior to fans of Japanese kabuki. In case you missed it, his argument went something like this:

1) There is a univeral moral truth when it comes to certain decisions (which decisions appear to be completely arbitrary since plumjam refuses to give any explanation other than "it just is.")

2) Music is one such decision (as is humor, he now seems to be saying).

3) The universal moral truth for music states that the music of the Beatles is "better" than the music of Japanese Kabuki (where "better" is another undefined plumjam term).

4) Fans of the Beatles recognize their music as being "better" because their 'spirit' is more 'attuned' to this universal truth I.E. they can 'perceive' it better using the 'Xth' sense (where the Xth sense is, again, an undefined plumjam construct).

5) Because the spirits of Beatles fans are better at this perception, they make choices according to the universal moral truth of music more often, and hence are morally superior in this respect.

 

[rocketdodger]

Quite. Are moral absolutes required, or can we derive morals through empathy?

No, you can't.

If you use empathy, your morality will make sense and won't feature arbitrary rules, double standards, or hypocrisy. This is clearly unacceptable for the absolutists.