Free Will and the Nature of Heaven

[aelf]

You mean that we have actually agreed about this the whole time and yet argued pointlessly for so long? I thought it was all about grounding your moral beliefs in something rock-solid (well, God-solid is more apt). If you agree that human conscience and convenience are enough, then there is really nothing to argue about.

No, because your understanding of the terms are wrong. And no, I never said that human conscience and convenience are enough. There's the universal values bit that I keep talking about.

How would you define those terms then? So as to avoid future confusion.

Edit: I am aware that by my definition only God would be absolute, since He is perfect and unchanging. Everything else relies on something else, and ultimately on God Himself, and is therefore relative. If there is no God, then there is nothing that is absolute. Natural laws may seem to be so, but we cannot know for sure what causes them.

Edit2: A clarification. In my mind, relative = relies on something else; not self-sufficient.
Arbitrary = whimsical; relative only to the whims of the agent. Things that are arbitrary are always relative, but things that are relative are not always arbitrary. Such as moral values. They have a definite basis, i.e., morality is derived from biology. I can't believe this has been about semantics the whole time.

You don't have to explain everything in the world to me, just what is between absolutism and relativism. A few words would be enough.

Well, this isn't the first question you're asking me to hold your hand through. Frankly, it's getting annoying. I mean, just look at wiki, everyone's favourite source:

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.

When people say moral relativism, they don't take the conventional meaning of "relative" and then apply it to morality. They usually mean something quite specific. It's the same with virtues - it's not just taking some meaning of "virtue" as we use it today and apply it to Virtue Ethics. It's more specific than that.

I'm pretty sure, though, that for some reason you still have an objection. Well, whatever. This has been going nowhere fast since a few pages ago.

 

[Fifty]

I'm disappointed that I didn't get into this thread early, woulda been a good opportunity to put my philosojerk hat on (yelling at everyone, playfully mocking birdjaguar, agreeing with Ayatollah in all likelihood, &c.)

 

[Greizer85]

No, because your understanding of the terms are wrong. And no, I never said that human conscience and convenience are enough. There's the universal values bit that I keep talking about.

Well, this isn't the first question you're asking me to hold your hand through. Frankly, it's getting annoying. I mean, just look at wiki, everyone's favourite source:

When people say moral relativism, they don't take the conventional meaning of "relative" and then apply it to morality. They usually mean something quite specific. It's the same with virtues - it's not just taking some meaning of "virtue" as we use
it today and apply it to Virtue Ethics. It's more specific than that.

I'm pretty sure, though, that for some reason you still have an objection. Well, whatever. This has been going nowhere fast since a few pages ago.

That is all very well, but let us tend now to our garden, weedy as it is:


Please answer me this one question: If I have no conscience, murdering others brings me great personal joy, makes me 'flourish' (whatever that vague concept means), and I believe that all the people I murder get to paradise, and I murder only chronically ill people to boot - is or is it not virtuous for me to murder as many people as (in)humanly possible? If not, why is it not so?


As for relativism, cultural relativism is what I mean (since individual relativism is arbitrary/whimsical - you cannot leave other people unaccounted for when talking about morality, since it is all about social interaction). I argue that different cultures have some similar values because we are all of the same species and have largely the same genes (some of which 'program' our conscience and common sense). Since every sane person's conscience is nearly the same to start with, our conditioning after birth mostly produces the different values apparent among different cultures. The common parts of our values have mostly to do with not killing each other wantonly; even rape is considered a virtue in some tribal cultures.

That some values appear universal across a particular culture is ofc the result of them being thought en masse to children in said culture - not because there is some intrinsic universality about them. As for how those particular values came about in the first place, leave that to cultural anthropology as well as practicality. I'll get to the latter right now, in a more broader sense:

I admit that there are some values that seem common to all cultures. Truthfulness, e.g., seems to be one such value. I argue that such a value is simply convenient: if everyone tells the truth in important matters, society works much better than if lying was appreciated. Only such values that go against biological barriers (namely wanton or mass killing) are 'unteachable' and even then not in all cases. That something feels like a virtue is because it was thought to me that it is so; all the more easy to believe it if the virtue is convenient for society as a whole.


Yes, even conscience can be 'programmed' to a large extent. I talk about conscience a lot because it all comes back to it in the end. If there is no conscience, or it is extremely conditioned, there can be no morality in any meaningful (= modern human) sense. In such a society murder of the weak and helpless may very well be thought of as moral.


That we follow our conscience at all is in the end due to convenience, in other words self-interest (having a bad conscience is rather inconvenient, not to mention that having constant anarchy can give you a leaden headache). Much as this thread has done to me on several occasions.

*If my moral system is on 'shaky ground', then so be it. The ground is shaky; there's nothing I can do about it - except try my best to stand upright on it, even it that means moving my feet constantly.

 

[Fifty]

The annoying thing about garden variety relativism is that the arguments used in favor of it would, if the person offering them thought things through, make everything relative. Of course, when pressed, the garden variety relativist will happily retreat to the relativity of everything and also to near-global skepticism, then mutter something about whats "useful to postulate the existence of" or some such other quasi-instrumentalist nonsense.

 

[Greizer85]

The annoying thing about garden variety relativism is that the arguments used in favor of it would, if the person offering them thought things through, make everything relative. Of course, when pressed, the garden variety relativist will happily retreat to the relativity of everything and also to near-global skepticism, then mutter something about whats "useful to postulate the existence of" or some such other quasi-instrumentalist nonsense.

Press me then, and we'll see what happens. If you don't find it too tiring.

 

[aelf]

Please answer me this one question: If I have no conscience, murdering others brings me great personal joy, makes me 'flourish' (whatever that vague concept means), and I believe that all the people I murder get to paradise, and I murder only chronically ill people to boot - is or is it not virtuous for me to murder as many people as (in)humanly possible? If not, why is it not so?

No, because, once again, when talk about "virtue" we talk about something quite specific, and not any old thing that anyone happens to consider a virtue.

That some values appear universal across a particular culture is ofc the result of them being thought en masse to children in said culture - not because there is some intrinsic universality about them. As for how those particular values came about in the first place, leave that to cultural anthropology as well as practicality. I'll get to the latter right now, in a more broader sense:

Again, you're mistaking phenomena for essence. The fact that a good practice is taught en masse is merely the phenomena. The essence is the universal values. Surely you can't say that the fact that everyone believes in them is just a happy but trivial coincidence.

I admit that there are some values that seem common to all cultures. Truthfulness, e.g., seems to be one such value. I argue that such a value is simply convenient: if everyone tells the truth in important matters, society works much better than if lying was appreciated. Only such values that go against biological barriers (namely wanton or mass killing) are 'unteachable' and even then not in all cases. That something feels like a virtue is because it was thought to me that it is so; all the more easy to believe it if the virtue is convenient for society as a whole.

Actually, if something is always 'convenient', then it ceases to be a matter of convenience, right?

Yes, even conscience can be 'programmed' to a large extent. I talk about conscience a lot because it all comes back to it in the end. If there is no conscience, or it is extremely conditioned, there can be no morality in any meaningful (= modern human) sense. In such a society murder of the weak and helpless may very well be thought of as moral.

The fact that it is accepted does not mean that it is moral. You're always confusing the two.

That we follow our conscience at all is in the end due to convenience, in other words self-interest (having a bad conscience is rather inconvenient, not to mention that having constant anarchy can give you a leaden headache). Much as this thread has done to me on several occasions.

Yes, it is a matter of self-interest, I suppose. However, one might call it "enlightened self-interest", not just any old version of self-interest, and as such it is not merely governed by self-interest in the way you suggest.

 

[Greizer85]

No, because, once again, when talk about "virtue" we talk about something quite specific, and not any old thing that anyone happens to consider a virtue.

What determines a virtue then? Its overall benefit to society? Then it's not about essence anymore but about utility. In the article it said that virtue ethicists disagree greatly on the definition of virtues.

Again, you're mistaking phenomena for essence. The fact that a good practice is taught en masse is merely the phenomena. The essence is the universal values. Surely you can't say that the fact that everyone believes in them is just a happy but trivial coincidence.

Happy yes, trivial not. It is convenient to teach values that are good for social stability. And it makes sense to believe in them.

Actually, if something is always 'convenient', then it ceases to be a matter of convenience, right?

You could say so. But if the benefit to society defines a virtue, then again it seems to me that this is about plain utility and not intrinsic concepts.

Fwiw, in time many of our current virtues will change or become non-existent, as humanity evolves (I suspect through genetic engineering). They are universal only in so much as they pertain to the current human biology.

The fact that it is accepted does not mean that it is moral. You're always confusing the two.

What can I say, different societies & times, different standards. I do agree that it is inhuman, but I can find no other base for that than 'emotivism'.

Yes, it is a matter of self-interest, I suppose. However, one might call it "enlightened self-interest", not just any old version of self-interest, and as such it is not merely governed by self-interest in the way you suggest.

Yes, that is fine. I do believe that true altruism exists, although it is quite rare I should think. Not many would bother if not for that 'warm glow' inside of you when you do good deeds. It may be called 'divine vanity'; I rather like the sound of that.

 

[aelf]

What determines a virtue then? Its overall benefit to society? Then it's not about essence anymore but about utility. In the article it said that virtue ethicists disagree greatly on the definition of virtues.

The thing is, as I've said, it doesn't really matter on a practical level. You might disagree on the definition of laws of nature, but it doesn't mean that some fundamental rules aren't true anyway.

Happy yes, trivial not. It is convenient to teach values that are good for social stability.

You could say so. But if the benefit to society defines a virtue, then again it seems to me that this is about plain utility and not intrinsic concepts.

No, because social stability is not the central issue. Abolishing slavery, for example, might well destabilise a society. That doesn't necessarily make it the wrong thing to do.

Fwiw, in time many of our current virtues will change or become non-existent, as humanity evolves (I suspect through genetic engineering). They are universal only in so much as they pertain to the current human biology.

This is pure speculation, as I've said. My bet is that it would not change as long as we're capable of complex rational thought. But for our purposes in this age and probably for many more to come, thinking that has no relevance whatsoever to our actual concerns.

In fact, if pursued to the end it just leads to all sorts of absurdities, since everything becomes relative. Why, the most immutable laws of nature would be relative to the fundamental constitution of the universe. What if the universe is not made of particles, but countless numbers of abracadabrahocuspocusalakazam that allow every human being to be in 999 gazillion places at the same time within the same dimension and can multiply themselves by 999 billion times within 0.009 nanoseconds? Wouldn't that change how everything works? Of course. But it's pure speculation and has no meaningful content whatsoever.

And, coming back to reality, it still does not mean that individuals and societies have the ability to simply decide what is moral and what is not. They have to bow to certain natural laws that are universal.

What can I say, different societies & times, different standards.

Perhaps by repeating something to death, it becomes a principle...

Yes, that is fine. I do believe that true altruism exists, although it is quite rare I should think. Not many would bother if not for that 'warm glow' inside of you when you do good deeds. It may be called 'divine vanity'; I rather like the sound of that.

This is what all this is about to you, isn't it?

In classic internet discussion fashion, I'm just recounting what I've said again and again while you refuse to even recognise let alone try to understand them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perhaps, as individuals we are capable of anything, but our social needs allow/encourage us to submit to the cultural needs of the group. Morality is not inherent, but rather it is the need/desire/willingness to be part of a larger community that is built into our genes. Moral laws are our way of structuring community living.

I see it as similar to the idea that females of many sophisticated species are genetically inclined to seek out alpha males, but the local/cultural/survival norms determine what it means to be an alpha male.

Our need/desire for sociability tells us to find a way to live together, but the way we do so is suited to the times and places of when and where we live. A particular culture and the morals of that culture are driven by the higher need for participation in a community. Our conscience is just a part of our psyche that reinforces the need to live in harmony within the group.

1. Genetic disposition to live on communities (most basic)
2. Willingness to submit freedom of action to group control (conscience) (an evolutionary trait that supports the above)
3. Group acceptance of general standards of behavior
4. Codification of standards into rules and laws
5. Replication/modification of those standards through time and space

Morals arose, not because they are some universal concept, but because in order to live together such, things are needed.

 

[aelf]

Morals arose, not because they are some universal concept, but because in order to live together such, things are needed.

And those things are needed as such universally, and thus they constitute universal rules. Notice how you end up with what you're trying to refute?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And those things are needed as such universally, and thus they constitute universal rules. Notice how you end up with what you're trying to refute?

Not at all. The primary driving force is the genetic/evolutionary drive for community living of some sort. As what "community" means changes over time (go back as far as you like) then the requirements for it to be successful changes also. As community becomes more complex informal rules become more formal. Over time humankind sheds old rules and adopts new ones. The best are selected by other cultures too. today's rules will also evolve as our culture and social needs change. What will remain constant is not the morals, but the need for community.

 

[Greizer85]

The thing is, as I've said, it doesn't really matter on a practical level. You might disagree on the definition of laws of nature, but it doesn't mean that some fundamental rules aren't true anyway.

Laws of physics are (according to current knowledge at least) unalterable, unlike 'moral laws'.

No, because social stability is not the central issue. Abolishing slavery, for example, might well destabilise a society. That doesn't necessarily make it the wrong thing to do.

Slavery was only possible so long as certain groups of people were perceived as inferior to the ruling elite(s). Once it became to be recognized that they were in fact, if not totally our equals, at least more so than what was thought before, most people started to feel rather queasy about keeping slaves. At that point slavery contributed to social instability and was promptly done away with. I am ofc oversimplifying matters horrifically, but that is the gist of it basically.

This is pure speculation, as I've said. My bet is that it would not change as long as we're capable of complex rational thought. But for our purposes in this age and probably for many more to come, thinking that has no relevance whatsoever to our actual concerns.

In fact, if pursued to the end it just leads to all sorts of absurdities, since everything becomes relative. Why, the most immutable laws of nature would be relative to the fundamental constitution of the universe. What if the universe is not made of particles, but countless numbers of abracadabrahocuspocusalakazam that allow every human being to be in 999 gazillion places at the same time within the same dimension and can multiply themselves by 999 billion times within 0.009 nanoseconds? Wouldn't that change how everything works? Of course. But it's pure speculation and has no meaningful content whatsoever.

Let's necro this thread in 30 years and see where we are then. I suspect it is more meaningful speculation than what you just posted, but you are entitled to your opinion ofc.

And, coming back to reality, it still does not mean that individuals and societies have the ability to simply decide what is moral and what is not. They have to bow to certain natural laws that are universal.

They 'bow' to their genes, nothing more, nothing less. Other things may guide them, but are not constraining to the same extent.

Perhaps by repeating something to death, it becomes a principle...

We are both getting familiar with this method.

This is what all this is about to you, isn't it?

In classic internet discussion fashion, I'm just recounting what I've said again and again while you refuse to even recognise let alone try to understand them.

Well, if you see my avatar, you'll understand that this is about vanity for me, yes. But not solely about that. I like the sound of my own voice a little too much, I admit it. But I have also learned some things from this conversation, so it hasn't been a total waste, for me at least.

Imo Birdjaguar there hit the nail straight on the head. (I wish you had posted that pages ago! ) If some moral rule is always needed for certain kind of living (I doubt it, except for the most simple rules), it may be called 'universal' in a sense, but the rule will then change according to circumstances. I'd say that not nearly all of these changes are predictable, especially in today's complex society. It is possible for moral rules to affect culture also, perhaps even to the same extent as the other way around. Think of Eastern mentality and Confucianism for example. It's a complicated social net.

 

[aelf]

Not at all. The primary driving force is the genetic/evolutionary drive for community living of some sort. As what "community" means changes over time (go back as far as you like) then the requirements for it to be successful changes also. As community becomes more complex informal rules become more formal. Over time humankind sheds old rules and adopts new ones. The best are selected by other cultures too. today's rules will also evolve as our culture and social needs change. What will remain constant is not the morals, but the need for community.

Even then the basis of those rules or the basic rules that determine the applied rules don't change.

Laws of physics are (according to current knowledge at least) unalterable, unlike 'moral laws'.

As I've been saying moral laws are like laws of physics. Unalterable given our condition, which isn't of our own choosing and liable to last as long as certain fundamental characteristics of human beings are unchanged.

Slavery was only possible so long as certain groups of people were perceived as inferior to the ruling elite(s). Once it became to be recognized that they were in fact, if not totally our equals, at least more so than what was thought before, most people started to feel rather queasy about keeping slaves. At that point slavery contributed to social instability and was promptly done away with. I am ofc oversimplifying matters horrifically, but that is the gist of it basically.

Of course if people don't want to keep slaves they wouldn't. This doesn't even have anything to do with what I'm saying. The likelihood is no matter the circumstances, slavery would be wrong (assuming the form of slavery we're most familiar with), even though the abolition of it might destabilise the society. Of course, morality says nothing about whether that would be done. Nevertheless, morality remains a solid guide for our actions under most if not any circumstance, and the side effect of this is that we can look back and say that slavery was wrong, as many of us do.

They 'bow' to their genes, nothing more, nothing less. Other things may guide them, but are not constraining to the same extent.

I suspect it's not just genes, but the way things are. Unless certain fundamental characteristics of human beings (eg. death, the need to subsist, the need to exist socially, etc.) are altered, then, yes, I'd give that the universal values might change.

Well, if you see my avatar, you'll understand that this is about vanity for me, yes. But not solely about that. I like the sound of my own voice a little too much, I admit it. But I have also learned some things from this conversation, so it hasn't been a total waste, for me at least.

Well, the pattern is pretty clear. You just want to insist on what you already believe in, despite your claims about wanting to learn more. This is just one big exercise of begging the question, really. Perhaps you'd say that of me as well, but I think I have at least considered some options carefully and at some depth. For one, I haven't formed beliefs about certain things merely through a cursory reading of articles on the internet.

Imo Birdjaguar there hit the nail straight on the head. (I wish you had posted that pages ago! ) If some moral rule is always needed for certain kind of living (I doubt it, except for the most simple rules), it may be called 'universal' in a sense, but the rule will then change according to circumstances. I'd say that not nearly all of these changes are predictable, especially in today's complex society. It is possible for moral rules to affect culture also, perhaps even to the same extent as the other way around. Think of Eastern mentality and Confucianism for example. It's a complicated social net.

You're contradicting yourself here. If something is universal then it doesn't simply change according to circumstances. That's incoherent. Perhaps if circumstances change in a fundamental reality-altering way, but that's not really something we're considering here because the likelihood of that happening is low enough. Just as you don't make provisions for a black hole suddenly appearing underneath you tomorrow (eg. by making a will in the off chance that it might prove useful after the event).

And it's interesting that you bring up Confucianism, because it has been noted that it shares most of the kind of values that are upheld in the Greek-born system.

 

[Greizer85]

Even then the basis of those rules or the basic rules that determine the applied rules don't change.

There are more than one set of moral rules by which a community could be organized on a certain demographic level (a village, town, etc.)

As I've been saying moral laws are like laws of physics. Unalterable given our condition, which isn't of our own choosing and liable to last as long as certain fundamental characteristics of human beings are unchanged.

It's not really fair to call them laws imo. More like necessary conveniences. Many different sets of moral rules could be devised to help govern the same community, as I said above; while only one law governs the moving of a particle in a certain way, etc. And as humans change, so does what is moral. Natural laws are unchangable.

Of course if people don't want to keep slaves they wouldn't. This doesn't even have anything to do with what I'm saying. The likelihood is no matter the circumstances, slavery would be wrong (assuming the form of slavery we're most familiar with), even though the abolition of it might destabilise the society. Of course, morality says nothing about whether that would be done. Nevertheless, morality remains a solid guide for our actions under most if not any circumstance, and the side effect of this is that we can look back and say that slavery was wrong, as many of us do.

Slavery is wrong. There, are you happy? I feel that it is wrong, personally. Since I can emphatize with the enslaved. I would not want to be a slave myself, so I wouldn't want to subject someone else to it.

I suspect it's not just genes, but the way things are. Unless certain fundamental characteristics of human beings (eg. death, the need to subsist, the need to exist socially, etc.) are altered, then, yes, I'd give that the universal values might change.

The need to exist socially is currently due to genes alone. We don't need it anymore to survive against beasts, so our genes are 'outdated' and a burden in this respect. As for death and subsistence, yes, those things mean we have to devise some sort of moral rules if we are to live in a community. What kind of rules, it doesn't say in any book that is universally correct as far as I'm aware.

Well, the pattern is pretty clear. You just want to insist on what you already believe in, despite your claims about wanting to learn more. This is just one big exercise of begging the question, really. Perhaps you'd say that of me as well, but I think I have at least considered some options carefully and at some depth. For one, I haven't formed beliefs about certain things merely through a cursory reading of articles on the internet.

Even though I assume I'm right, I am willing to admit that I'm wrong if given overwhelming evidence of the incorrectibility of my position. So far you haven't presented it. As for considerations, I think my morals are sound enough with my emotivist approach, thank you very much. So far I haven't hurt anyone that badly simply by following my heart, as clichéd as that sounds.

I'm glad that being more educated than the unwashed masses is working out for you.
Let me enjoy my vain glibness in return, so we can all get along.

You're contradicting yourself here. If something is universal then it doesn't simply change according to circumstances. That's incoherent. Perhaps if circumstances change in a fundamental reality-altering way, but that's not really something we're considering here because the likelihood of that happening is low enough. Just as you don't make provisions for a black hole suddenly appearing underneath you tomorrow (eg. by making a will in the off chance that it might prove useful after the event).

This is a problem with definitions, again. Universal in the current circumstances. If we must always abandon the sick and elderly in hunter-gatherer societies so that they do not burden the rest of the tribe and jeopardize its survival, that doesn't mean that it's right to do that in a farming village that could easily support them and benefit from their wisdom. For example.

And it's interesting that you bring up Confucianism, because it has been noted that it shares most of the kind of values that are upheld in the Greek-born system.

That is not because of inherent virtues, but because the same types of thought virtues were useful for the building of a stable society in both places, for reasons which the particulars of I admit I have no idea. But those types of virtues are the same nearly everywhere: respect your elders, respect the law, respect the king, help the poor, etc. That this is so is not enough to call them natural laws imo. If people change, so will these things. We have already given up kings for the most part, for example. If extreme libertarians get their way the poor will be left to starve and it will be a-ok. Natural laws, on the other hand, are unchangable and are able to be clearly and universally formulated.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Even then the basis of those rules or the basic rules that determine the applied rules don't change.

What doesn't change (or changes very, very slowly) is the need for community. How a group or town or region or civilization achieves such "community" changes all the time. the human need for community is a multi dimensional affair and a large complex community may have many smaller communities within it. The rules of those different communities may not be the same at all. A big city community may have laws against murder and associated penalties, but within that city gang communities will have rules that encourage and promote murder. In each case the goal is to preserve the community and keep members working together for the benefit of the group.

If you are looking for some "absolute", then it would have to be whatever force keeps us wanting to be with and interact with one another. How we do that is very dependent upon time and place. Now, some standards of behavior may be more successful at keeping a community united than others, but I cannot see how you make the case that they are permanent, universal or absolute since history has shown us that are not. Inthe case of community, we have 10,000 years of evidence that people seek out and persist in living in larger and more diverse communities in spite of the failure of those communities to protect them from people who do not conform to the rules.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The need to exist socially is currently due to genes alone. We don't need it anymore to survive against beasts, so our genes are 'outdated' and a burden in this respect. As for death and subsistence, yes, those things mean we have to devise some sort of moral rules if we are to live in a community. What kind of rules, it doesn't say in any book that is universally correct as far as I'm aware.

Well, what if our genetic need to be sociable is nothing more than the human expression of the property of atoms and molecules to find the lowest and, most stable energy state? "Community" may be the most stable and efficient situation for people to live in. If so, then our gentic tendency for community is really a reflection of a deeper chemically driven force. If, after all, we are nothing more than a collection of electrochemical processes grouped together in a skin bag, it would seem pretty natural for the characteristics of those indvidual processes to dominate every aspect of what we do and how we behave.

 

[aelf]

Even though I assume I'm right, I am willing to admit that I'm wrong if given overwhelming evidence of the incorrectibility of my position. So far you haven't presented it.

Shrug. I can hold out for some ultimately convincing proof before I believe something that is fairly believable, but just the fact that being convinced of it is possible doesn't prove that I'm willing to open my eyes and see. Just like the fact that some change that can affect the universality of basic values is possible doesn't prove that those values change with circumstances.

I'm pretty satisfied with the account that I've built up over the many number of posts, especially the more recent ones. I think they give an adequate (if badly expressed) outline of what a morality based on virtues is about, and I think they answer most of the valid concerns you've raised so far. Whether you want to consider them again some time is up to you. I don't have anything more to say about this for now.

What doesn't change (or changes very, very slowly) is the need for community. How a group or town or region or civilization achieves such "community" changes all the time. the human need for community is a multi dimensional affair and a large complex community may have many smaller communities within it. The rules of those different communities may not be the same at all. A big city community may have laws against murder and associated penalties, but within that city gang communities will have rules that encourage and promote murder.

This is not a problem if communities don't simply formulate moral laws for themselves.

In each case the goal is to preserve the community and keep members working together for the benefit of the group.

That's great, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality.

If you are looking for some "absolute", then it would have to be whatever force keeps us wanting to be with and interact with one another. How we do that is very dependent upon time and place. Now, some standards of behavior may be more successful at keeping a community united than others, but I cannot see how you make the case that they are permanent, universal or absolute since history has shown us that are not. Inthe case of community, we have 10,000 years of evidence that people seek out and persist in living in larger and more diverse communities in spite of the failure of those communities to protect them from people who do not conform to the rules.

I don't know how this answers anything. In my very recent posts I highlighted certain fundamental characteristics of human beings/the human experience, and these include certain needs. That people seek to live in communities is one of those, so I don't see how your account disproves anything that I've said.

The standards, as which I consider the basic rules governing the attainment of the good life, are universal. The behaviour that arise from these standards are not. So how we interact with one another might indeed be dependent on circumstances (with the caveat that some actions based on certain intentions are probably always wrong). That we need to be truthful and caring to each other, with one or the other taking precedence in the event of a clash at times, for example, are not as far as trying to attain the good life, which is our greatest purpose, is concerned. That, I suspect, has a lot to do with the "force" that you mentioned.

 

[Greizer85]

@Aelf: I'll let mr. Birdie take it from here. I suspect he's a better debater than I am; this was my first major debate on any English forum, and it didn't help that I didn't know that much about the subject. I must admit that I rely on my intuition too much; it's remarkable how two people can talk so far past each other. I have some more things to say but for now I'll be silent. I still think that there is some way to reconcile our arguments. We seemed to be close at one point. Not that it has value in itself (heh), but it's always nicer to agree to agree than to disagree, which is what we'll have to do here.

Whether you believe it or not, I am going to give your points some more thought. I would love to discover a system of absolute morals that does not rely on a tyrannic God. Then again reading about morality is fairly boring and frankly pointless since my conscience and common sense together tell me what to do in 99% of everyday situations. Maybe when that 1% hits me, I'll 'tune in' on virtue ethics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is not a problem if communities don't simply formulate moral laws for themselves.

But they do. Each community makes its own moral laws based on the situation and experience of its members. One example is the moral laws practiced by the Catholic church.

That's great, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality.

Morality is all about how we behave, and the rules that shape our behavior represent our moral code. A community that accepts murder as an option has made a moral statement.

I don't know how this answers anything. In my very recent posts I highlighted certain fundamental characteristics of human beings/the human experience, and these include certain needs. That people seek to live in communities is one of those, so I don't see how your account disproves anything that I've said.

We agree so far.

The standards, as which I consider the basic rules governing the attainment of the good life, are universal. The behaviour that arise from these standards are not. So how we interact with one another is indeed dependent on circumstances. That we need to be truthful and caring to each other, with one or the other taking precedence in the event of a clash at times, for example, are not as far as trying to attain the good life, which is our greatest purpose, is concerned. That, I suspect, has a lot to do with the "force" that you mentioned.

I think where we differ is that you seem to want to establish specific cultural norms as universal and somehow inherent in all people or societies. Things like "being truthful and caring for one another" are fine, but clearly not universal. If such ideaas were truely univesal, then why would we need to have laws against lying and being cruel?

Of the six billion people in the world, how many do you think have lied more than five times? How many do you think have been deliberately cruel and uncaring to another person or animal? Now how many of those instances were committed to people outside of the perptrators community?

They may be nice goals and great standards to have that would improve life for all, but they are hardly universal.

 

[aelf]

I think where we differ is that you seem to want to establish specific cultural norms as universal and somehow inherent in all people or societies.

No, the norms themselves fall under manifest behaviour. Or at most I would call it applied rules, certainly a step below the fundamental or basic rules.

Things like "being truthful and caring for one another" are fine, but clearly not universal. If such ideaas were truely univesal, then why would we need to have laws against lying and being cruel?

The fact that our actual behaviour often fails to adhere to such rules and the principles (the fundamental rules) behind those rules doesn't prove that the latter do not exist. In fact, in seeming affirmation of them, the very common rules against lying and cruelty are based on the fundamental principles that we should be truthful and caring to each other. Again, what is universal are those principles, not people's behaviour or even the mechanical rules that people formulate to govern it directly.

Of the six billion people in the world, how many do you think have lied more than five times? How many do you think have been deliberately cruel and uncaring to another person or animal? Now how many of those instances were committed to people outside of the perptrators community?

Fortunately, a better society is where even people outside our communities are subject to the same principles that we at least try to adhere to within.

They may be nice goals and great standards to have that would improve life for all, but they are hardly universal.

I can't think of how else you would live the good life. Accumulation of material wealth? Through pleasure gained from the suffering of others? These do not lead one into the good life, as you would surely agree.