While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Jehoshua]

@ Christos: Because of objective right and wrong Christos. A LoE noted if you are to appeal to morality at all then you must accept that there is a universal moral code (and a reality and universal principle underpinning that code) and accept that right is right even if no one is upholding it. Your position is effectively moral relativism, which if you boil things down is really the position that there is no morality at all, and only the autonomous agency and opinion of individuals acting in their own self-interest. Which of course would make discussion of morality meaningless, since all positions would be equally valid (which of course they are not, as any reasonable person intuitively understands).

The only aspect of your argument that can possible be considered valid is your position on democracy. But this is only if you consider democracy a morally neutral concept (ergo purely as a mode of choosing a government, rather than some inherent right as the liberals do). If it is morally neutral than cultural differences and the like are perfectly reasonable grounds to oppose its imposition, if however it has a moral dimension than again you must appeal to some higher order to justify a particular position (or at least argue your point and try and convince the opposition that democracy is not intrinsically good or bad)

 

[Daftpanzer]

I believe that, while we have our human minds, we are all fundamentally part of the same consciousness. I think further exploration of quantum physics will have a few surprises for us in that regard.

We know that ultimately everything is energy, and some speculate that there might actually only be one particle in the universe, morphing and looping back on itself through time to weave the fabric that we perceive as reality.

To me, it make sense intrinsically that the universe is part of a whole being in the act of exploring itself from every possible angle, rather than there being an aloof 'God' that creates things separate to itself and then starts judging them for whatever reason.

While the laws of physics explain mostly everything, there is still the question of how unlikely it is that the laws of physics came about through random chance; generally, it seems, any changes to the laws of physics result in there being no interesting physical matter in the universe at all. Whereas, the universe we have seems to be the perfect mechanism for generating a near-infinite variety of galaxies, stars, planetary bodies, physical environments, and - presumably - life forms that inhabit them. Its like a vast, artistic self-expression of matter, energy and consciousness, one that operates and expands autonomously.

At the risk of a kind of chauvinism, we might speculate that there was a conscious process that occurred above and beyond the physical laws of the universe, in which the desire was set, to set in motion such a universe. At the same time, it makes sense that there is no ultimate point to existence except for self-expression and exploration; existence is fundamentally neutral, except that we might speculate that there is an innate bias towards the emergence of 'interesting things' and greater freedom to create 'interesting things'.

We might say that we are living actors in the ultimate NES.

Therefore, it makes sense to respect yourself to the highest degree, and to allow yourself to explore and express yourself to the fullest extent.

Therefore it also makes sense to respect others to the highest degree and fully allow them to express themselves in whatever manner, provided that they do no harm to others.

While there may not be any overarching moral order to the universe, there may well be an innate bias towards 'good' actions, in that suppressing others is inherently related to the suppressing of yourself, and vice-versa.

 

[christos200]

Because of objective right and wrong Christos. A LoE noted if you are to appeal to morality at all then you must accept that there is a universal moral code (and a reality and universal principle underpinning that code) and accept that right is right even if no one is upholding it. Your position is effectively moral relativism, which if you boil things down is really the position that there is no morality at all, and only the autonomous agency and opinion of individuals acting in their own self-interest. Which of course would make discussion of morality meaningless, since all positions would be equally valid (which of course they are not, as any reasonable person intuitively understands).

I believe that each culture has it's own morals. There is no universal morality.

The only aspect of your argument that can possible be considered valid is your position on democracy. But this is only if you consider democracy a morally neutral concept (ergo purely as a mode of choosing a government, rather than some inherent right as the liberals do). If it is morally neutral than cultural differences and the like are perfectly reasonable grounds to oppose its imposition, if however it has a moral dimension than again you must appeal to some higher order to justify a particular position (or at least argue your point and try and convince the opposition that democracy is not intrinsically good or bad)

I see democracy as a type of government. It has nothing to do with morality and it is not an inherent right. I myself, I am not a believer in the current system of democracy, because it allows idiots to vote.

 

[Crezth]

I don't see why political/moral/social discussions are unsuited to this thread. We are NESers and such things are a big part of our hobby. Right?

 

[Terrance888]

Hobby? BIATCH PLEASE :3

 

[JohannaK]

I agree with Daftpanzer in his core conclusions. I'd expand upon it, but typing on a phone is terrible.

 

[Jehoshua]

I agree with Daftpanzer in his core conclusions. I'd expand upon it, but typing on a phone is terrible.

His position doesn't address the crux of the philosophical matter, and it also seems to me to be logically incoherent. But since Birdjaguar has yet to give his blessing I'm attempting (rather poorly I might add) to restrain myself.

 

[Daftpanzer]

His position doesn't address the crux of the philosophical matter, and it also seems to me to be logically incoherent. But since Birdjaguar has yet to give his blessing I'm attempting (rather poorly I might add) to restrain myself.

Looking back on what I wrote, I take your point - I overstep the mark in trying to prove I'm 'right'. All I've got are beliefs and opinions. To clarify that: I do see a universe that is fundamentally a whole thing, neutral, non-judgemental, and interested in experiencing itself from every possible angle. And I think its up to us to create any further meaning or complications on top of that.

 

[JohannaK]

I mean I agree on the vague moral of mutual respect sketched at the end of the post.

 

[North King]

The idea that objective morality can only exist with a deity handing it to us is both laughable and insulting. Of course, since I can only access the forums via a mobile device I have little desire to type out the essays that seem to be proliferating here.

 

[das]

I am yet to encounter any internally consistent arguments for absolute morality that do not stem from some sort of religious ideal, whether consciously or not. Of course, absolute morality is not the only option on the table, and objective relativistic morality is a whole different beast.

 

[Crezth]

Jehoshua convinced me in PM's that God exists without the shadow of a doubt. You should all PM him and see for yourself the light of Allah.

 

[das]

About time.

 

[Oruc]

Jehoshua convinced me in PM's that God exists without the shadow of a doubt. You should all PM him and see for yourself the light of Allah.

Worshipping desert Gods

 

[Terrance888]

I read it as well! Ahura Mazda is obviously the One and Only God!

 

[North King]

I am yet to encounter any internally consistent arguments for absolute morality that do not stem from some sort of religious ideal, whether consciously or not. Of course, absolute morality is not the only option on the table, and objective relativistic morality is a whole different beast.

Well, like I said, I'm not entirely willing to write a lot on this phone. I will say, though, that deity-centric arguments are no less flawed and must rely entirely on unsatisfying circular logic. "We know what good is because God gave it to us -- God is good because he is God." Essentially, moral deeds are moral because we derive them from a being who we define to be moral. They are moral, then, because they are moral.




Edit: terrance, what about Ahriman? Don't tell me you buy into that crypto-Christian monotheistic crap!

 

[das]

I don't think that's the only version of argument from God, but I'd rather leave any others to Jehoshua for now. I have no disagreement with you on this particular argument though - my point was that most non-religious arguments for absolute morality tend to rely on either the same circular logic with Hegelian progress or whatever used in place of God or to just leave their logic unexplained. Which leaves us with different forms of relativistic morality (which need not be cultural relativism, i.e. "what's good for Russians is death for Germans"; it may also be "some things are good in such circumstances for such and such specific reasons and are bad in other circumstances for different specific reasons").

EDIT: I should add that, having considered this, I don't see that claim as either laughable or insulting. I do not think that anything short of a perfect being would be able to come up with a truly objective system of morality. It is, I think, realistic. However, people can come up with workable approximations of objective morality that, while imperfect, may well be enough for most of our day to day purposes. *shrug*

 

[North King]

Well, it's getting a bit out of my depth (frankly, I simply never bother with philosophy), but I'd be curious about other religious rationalizations for objective morality.

 

[Angst]

Moralism-curious amoralistic agnosticist-Abrahamist signing in. Questions?

 

[Birdjaguar]

In regards to the argument that this discussion should be held in OT... I disagree entirely. OT is subject to its own odd cliques and personalities that will turn this into some kind of state vs. individual discussion, or divide it into camps alongside people who support Popular Liberal Poster #1 or Popular Conservative Poster #5. If we are going to have an earnest and fruitful discussion about ethics and morals we are only ever going to do it here.

Constrained as I am by my agreement with Jehoshua that we ought to wait for Birdjaguar to give his blessing before resuming this discussion (or whatever) in earnest, I should qualify that I have a hard time taking seriously the proposition that advocating for the equality of all men and the fair treatment of people of all beliefs, races and sexual orientations is "shrill". You may want to reexamine your beliefs if you find the idea of reliving the 13th century as enticing.

There are a couple of reasons to avoid OT discussions in WWW. The first is that we already have a place for them: OT and its related forums. By bringing those kinds of topics into NESing, we will bring many of the OT moderation issues here as well. They can be passionate topics with strong willed posters. In addition once such discussions get established, we will see non NESers migrate over here to participate. When I established the first WWW thread it was to provide a casual, more chatty environment for folks to wait for updates and not a place for serious minded discussion. I see it as a NES community oriented #NES with rules and civility. Adding such discussions will carry us outside of our original scope.

Since we already have a forum for highly charged political, religious, and societal issues, I see no beneficial reason to bring those topics here.

What I would suggest is that when you play a game you bring your religious/political and cultural beliefs into the game and create nations that are strange and interesting. You can fight your ideological battles in a game rather than in a discussion that will most likely go nowhere.