Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

pure morality is worth discussing?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 11:28:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is right, and what is wrong is purely up to the subjection of the person with the moral(s) in question.

The class would devolve very quickly into what person A thought was right, even though person B things that it is wrong. Neither have any objective basis for it, so nobody can persuade the other.

It would be about as intelligent of a discussion as deciding whether the Greek pantheon is real, or if the Roman pantheon is real. You can't prove or disprove either, because there is no evidence for either.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:55:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 11:28:26 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
What is right, and what is wrong is purely up to the subjection of the person with the moral(s) in question.

The class would devolve very quickly into what person A thought was right, even though person B things that it is wrong. Neither have any objective basis for it, so nobody can persuade the other.

It would be about as intelligent of a discussion as deciding whether the Greek pantheon is real, or if the Roman pantheon is real. You can't prove or disprove either, because there is no evidence for either.

My point is that if morality is not back with any materials factor would it has any meaning on material world. It is not whether you can prove a point of morality or not, but if such morality is beyond physical world would it has any meaning.

Let's say we're discussing afterlife, a people say if you steal while you're living, you'll have your hands cut-off in hell. Now if I am spirit, obviously I would not have a hand to be cut, I probably can't even feel pain any more as my entire nerves are death with my body. Could I say that there is nothing wrong with stealing because it consequence cannot be realized in this world or any world?

Or alternatively, can I say that stealing is wrong even if there will be nothing wrong happened to the person who is stealing?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 3:39:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to how to best live, then it would.

Fixed
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 1:55:52 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 11:28:26 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
What is right, and what is wrong is purely up to the subjection of the person with the moral(s) in question.

The class would devolve very quickly into what person A thought was right, even though person B things that it is wrong. Neither have any objective basis for it, so nobody can persuade the other.

It would be about as intelligent of a discussion as deciding whether the Greek pantheon is real, or if the Roman pantheon is real. You can't prove or disprove either, because there is no evidence for either.

My point is that if morality is not back with any materials factor would it has any meaning on material world. It is not whether you can prove a point of morality or not, but if such morality is beyond physical world would it has any meaning.

Let's say we're discussing afterlife, a people say if you steal while you're living, you'll have your hands cut-off in hell. Now if I am spirit, obviously I would not have a hand to be cut, I probably can't even feel pain any more as my entire nerves are death with my body. Could I say that there is nothing wrong with stealing because it consequence cannot be realized in this world or any world?

Or alternatively, can I say that stealing is wrong even if there will be nothing wrong happened to the person who is stealing?

Again, what you think is wrong (or right) somebody else might think is right (or wrong). Not to mention in your afterlife example, who's to say that such a consequence exists? We have no way of determining that, so your situation would have to revolve around a hypothetical afterlife.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 2:45:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.

It is not. It will not effect materialistic universe in any sens. Goal is to see if morality can be independent of material influence or not.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 2:48:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Again, what you think is wrong (or right) somebody else might think is right (or wrong). Not to mention in your afterlife example, who's to say that such a consequence exists? We have no way of determining that, so your situation would have to revolve around a hypothetical afterlife.

Again, we're not discussing whether morality can be made valid universally or subjectively . If at least there is one individual who can logically said that morality can be independent of physical need and nature, I would to hear that logic.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:13:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 2:45:59 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.

It is not. It will not effect materialistic universe in any sens. Goal is to see if morality can be independent of material influence or not.

Well what exactly are you calling "morality?"

I have a hard to envisioning a "moral choice" that does not involve actions (if not the act of choosing).
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 11:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I often wonder, when I see moral relativists at play, whether they could be forced to concede their arguments if tied down and tortured. If right and wrong are so subjective, then they should be able to pull through the pain and maintain their views in a relative fashion...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 12:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 11:58:40 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
I often wonder, when I see moral relativists at play, whether they could be forced to concede their arguments if tied down and tortured. If right and wrong are so subjective, then they should be able to pull through the pain and maintain their views in a relative fashion...

or I can simply change my view according to the torturer, its subjective anyway so let's make it the most convenient for us all :D
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 12:39:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:13:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/31/2013 2:45:59 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.

It is not. It will not effect materialistic universe in any sens. Goal is to see if morality can be independent of material influence or not.

Well what exactly are you calling "morality?"

I have a hard to envisioning a "moral choice" that does not involve actions (if not the act of choosing).

classification of right and wrong. It not necessarily contain physical action, let's say if right means white and wrong means black, things that are white are automatically white without any required action see?

Although, I think most of moral obligation will involved material distribution in someway . It makes me wonder, if moral choice is any different than just another fancy name for economy.

That's actually the whole point, to distribute certain kind of resource is always a matter of economy then the same economic principle can be applied to one. If it's not, I don't see a prove if they can be independent of materialistic economy.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 12:33:40 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/31/2013 11:58:40 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
I often wonder, when I see moral relativists at play, whether they could be forced to concede their arguments if tied down and tortured. If right and wrong are so subjective, then they should be able to pull through the pain and maintain their views in a relative fashion...

or I can simply change my view according to the torturer, its subjective anyway so let's make it the most convenient for us all :D

If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 5:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 12:39:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:13:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/31/2013 2:45:59 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.

It is not. It will not effect materialistic universe in any sens. Goal is to see if morality can be independent of material influence or not.

Well what exactly are you calling "morality?"

I have a hard to envisioning a "moral choice" that does not involve actions (if not the act of choosing).

classification of right and wrong. It not necessarily contain physical action, let's say if right means white and wrong means black, things that are white are automatically white without any required action see?

Although, I think most of moral obligation will involved material distribution in someway . It makes me wonder, if moral choice is any different than just another fancy name for economy.

That's actually the whole point, to distribute certain kind of resource is always a matter of economy then the same economic principle can be applied to one. If it's not, I don't see a prove if they can be independent of materialistic economy.

What would it mean to you if you actually classified things that are white as good and things that are black as bad?

Would your daily interactions with white objects be no different from your interaction with black objects?

If so, then a material effect has taken place.

If not, then why use the classification criteria "good/evil" and not "pragmatic/not pragmatic" or "greater evil/lesser evil?"

However, this arbitrary procedure can be skipped if we were to go beyond criteria like "good" and "evil" and instead see creation as a singular form non-different from the individual. Participation in that reality leads to moral action. Spiritual withdrawal allows for a lifestyle beyond moral choices.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 5:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 5:29:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:39:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:13:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/31/2013 2:45:59 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/30/2013 3:39:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am just wondering if morality can be subject in its own right, would it be mattered at all if it is not tie by physical nature?

For example, if there is a school of moral philosophy that do not affect a distribution of physical resources in anyway, doesn't aid the physical suffering of the poor, doesn't increase the pleasure of the rich, doesn't improve the production of resources in any matters and only concern with a question of right and wrong, just for the sake of right and wrong, nothing more. Would there be any worth in studying this school of thought?

If this "right and wrong" could at least inform individuals as to have to best live, then it would.

It is not. It will not effect materialistic universe in any sens. Goal is to see if morality can be independent of material influence or not.

Well what exactly are you calling "morality?"

I have a hard to envisioning a "moral choice" that does not involve actions (if not the act of choosing).

classification of right and wrong. It not necessarily contain physical action, let's say if right means white and wrong means black, things that are white are automatically white without any required action see?

Although, I think most of moral obligation will involved material distribution in someway . It makes me wonder, if moral choice is any different than just another fancy name for economy.

That's actually the whole point, to distribute certain kind of resource is always a matter of economy then the same economic principle can be applied to one. If it's not, I don't see a prove if they can be independent of materialistic economy.

What would it mean to you if you actually classified things that are white as good and things that are black as bad?

Would your daily interactions with white objects be no different from your interaction with black objects?

If so, then a material effect has taken place.

If not, then why use the classification criteria "good/evil" and not "pragmatic/not pragmatic" or "greater evil/lesser evil?"

However, this arbitrary procedure can be skipped if we were to go beyond criteria like "good" and "evil" and instead see creation as a singular form non-different from the individual. Participation in that reality leads to moral action. Spiritual withdrawal allows for a lifestyle beyond moral choices.

Sorry, other way around.

If it effects your daily interaction with objects, material effect has taken place.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 10:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

If you really thought torture was wrong, then you wouldn't carry it out. Thus, upon carrying it out, you will have already forsaken your own principles before causing them to forsake theirs. You've made them renounce at the expense of renouncing your own position first.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 1:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 10:13:46 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

If you really thought torture was wrong, then you wouldn't carry it out. Thus, upon carrying it out, you will have already forsaken your own principles before causing them to forsake theirs. You've made them renounce at the expense of renouncing your own position first.

Then, for the sake of argument, the torture will be conducted by the resurrected dead body of Micheal Jackson, just like the "Thriller" video but instead actually a zombie this time. Micheal promises to deliver (and for the sake of argument has the means and initiative) painful biting to the soft tissues of any moral relativist he encounters, lest you admit that what he is about to do to you is wrong. If there is no such thing as "wrongness," then you shouldn't have any problem with him eating the bottom half of your body while his highly-paid doctors keep the top half of you alive to experience it. I have a feeling you will become a moral absolutist very quickly!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 1:48:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'Right' and 'wrong' are only discussable in relation to some other thing; it would not make sense to ask a question like "Is the number eight right?" .. because 'right' is by it's nature relational. However we could, for instance, ask "Is '7 = 8' right?" because there are two elements. In the same way, morality only makes sense in relating to a goal; all we are really doing is asking whether certain actions work for or against some ideal.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.

Although, if morality in your paradigm is absolutely subjective, your scenario doesn't seem to change anything. If morality is absolutely depend on the view of the person, it is entirely possible that you would think of your action as right (you have fun) but at the same time I am thinking that is wrong (I am hurt) because in the end morality is depend on each person view so we can see things different isn't it?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 5:04:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.

In other words, you would need to argue that all depraved activity is a mere lapse in understanding. I don't this could reasonably be defended.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 5:04:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.

In other words, you would need to argue that all depraved activity is a mere lapse in understanding. I don't this could reasonably be defended.

I'm not passing moral judgement on the action (as "depraved " or otherwise); his action of torture would simply be an equal formal renouncement as the one forced by the torture. If the "relativist" recants under torture, this is a secondary concession to that of the "moral realist" who has performed the torture to extract the concession.

The realist has caused the "relativist" to violate "relativist" principles, but only by first violating supposed "realist" principles in carrying out the torture. This is the self-defeat.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 7:28:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 6:12:58 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:04:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.

In other words, you would need to argue that all depraved activity is a mere lapse in understanding. I don't this could reasonably be defended.

I'm not passing moral judgement on the action (as "depraved " or otherwise); his action of torture would simply be an equal formal renouncement as the one forced by the torture. If the "relativist" recants under torture, this is a secondary concession to that of the "moral realist" who has performed the torture to extract the concession.


Why couldn't he engage in torture while still regarding it as morally depraved? If it is true that we only do what we think is right, then every human would be the embodiment of moral perfection.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 7:28:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:12:58 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:04:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.

In other words, you would need to argue that all depraved activity is a mere lapse in understanding. I don't this could reasonably be defended.

I'm not passing moral judgement on the action (as "depraved " or otherwise); his action of torture would simply be an equal formal renouncement as the one forced by the torture. If the "relativist" recants under torture, this is a secondary concession to that of the "moral realist" who has performed the torture to extract the concession.

Why couldn't he engage in torture while still regarding it as morally depraved? If it is true that we only do what we think is right, then every human would be the embodiment of moral perfection.

The extracted concession of the tortured "relativist" could be cancelled and excused on analogous grounds. It remains moot; the symmetry of the scenario persists; the proposal does not favor either party. It defeats both as much as either concedes.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:29:08 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:28:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:12:58 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:04:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:46:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:49:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:59:51 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 11/1/2013 6:26:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:54:19 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
If there's nothing "wrong" with the torturer causing you pain, then why even concede your views to him?

And if you had a good argument, why would you need to coerce someone into concession through physical torture?

That's beside the point completely. I'll restate my argument so you may understand it. If you tell me that there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong," and then I say "well I guess if I torture you for fun there's nothing wrong with it," then, provided I had the means to carry out said torture, you'd likely change your tune when I started torturing you because you'd see that I'm doing something wrong and want me to stop.

I see, so that is your point.
...

His point is simply self-defeating, because performing the torture itself would require him to sacrifice his position first (that torture shouldn't be done), and to the same extent as the "relativist" who would might subsequently concede the wrongness of the torture while being subjected to it.

It's a kamikaze proposal: he takes his opponent down at the cost of destroying his own position to the same degree.

You would first need to be establish that all action intends rectitude before concluding that his argument is self-defeating.

In other words, you would need to argue that all depraved activity is a mere lapse in understanding. I don't this could reasonably be defended.

I'm not passing moral judgement on the action (as "depraved " or otherwise); his action of torture would simply be an equal formal renouncement as the one forced by the torture. If the "relativist" recants under torture, this is a secondary concession to that of the "moral realist" who has performed the torture to extract the concession.

Why couldn't he engage in torture while still regarding it as morally depraved? If it is true that we only do what we think is right, then every human would be the embodiment of moral perfection.

The extracted concession of the tortured "relativist" could be cancelled and excused on analogous grounds. It remains moot; the symmetry of the scenario persists; the proposal does not favor either party. It defeats both as much as either concedes.

Oh, I see. So by engaging in the depraved act, the torturer would thereby concede the disconnect between belief and action, and thus cannot maintain that the confession is necessarily indicative of anything genuine.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 9:10:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:48:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Oh, I see. So by engaging in the depraved act, the torturer would thereby concede the disconnect between belief and action, and thus cannot maintain that the confession is necessarily indicative of anything genuine.

Yes, this is basically one way of seeing the symmetry at play here.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 9:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 9:10:10 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:48:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Oh, I see. So by engaging in the depraved act, the torturer would thereby concede the disconnect between belief and action, and thus cannot maintain that the confession is necessarily indicative of anything genuine.

Yes, this is basically one way of seeing the symmetry at play here.

With the caveat that we needn't pass moral judgement on the act of torture (in designating it "depraved") in order to realize this.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker