Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Moral Sense Theory

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality. It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong. These are objective morals. I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I keep hearing theists talking about objective morality, but I'm puzzled. If this objective morality exists, how is it communicated to us so that we can all agree? You would expect that if there was a god and this god was the source of objective morality then it would have been a top priority to relay this code for behaviour to all humankind from the very outset. Yet no such effort seems to have been made. There are numerous examples of societies throughout history with widely varying ideas about moral behaviour (human sacrifice for example). How could this possibly happen?

Now theists are going to say that a code for moral behaviour exists in the holy texts of their religion. If that were the case, then why isn't this code exactly the same across all religions? Instead of being objective, it demonstrates the exact opposite, that moral behaviour is highly subjective in nature. It simply reflected the customs and beliefs of the particular religious/ethnic group at the time. This is quite apart from the fact that a lot of the morality espoused in the Bible or Quran is abhorrent to us today. What Christian today would call for the stoning to death of an unfaithful wife? It's absurd to believe that any holy text contains a blueprint for moral behaviour. Christians, at least, would be hypocrites if they thought the biblical moral code was objective but failed to follow it to the letter.

Some theists (as in the OP) might argue that objective moraility is instilled into us (somehow), and that we intuitively know what is right and wrong. This is a clear fallacy. Again I would point to the widely varying customs of different societies throughout human history. Tribes of cannibals ate their foes after battle as a way of absorbing their 'spirit' and showing respect for their bravery. It was highly moral behaviour in their eyes. American Indians scalped their fallen adverseries. Chinese families killed female babies. And so the list goes on. Right and wrong seem, by all the evidence, to be very much relative. Trying to make a case for an inherent, universal sense of right and wrong fails.

Btw, there is probably no such thing as "unjustified murder". A murderer can usually justify his/her actions. A rapist too can, in his own head, justify his rape. They might know that their actions are wrong (by societal standards) at some level, but they convince themselves that their own imperatives outweigh whatever empathy they may feel for the victim. Sometimes it is just a brutish capitulation to animal desires, but there is still some self-justification there.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:37:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality. It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong. These are objective morals. I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

So from your prespective all long history humans knew that slavery is wrong but it was practical until 9 century yeah? or the nazis knew that eliminating "lower" people is right? if you brainwash your self by something, tomorow your wrong and right will change.

Dude we are just animals without religion with some intelligence.. look in to nature and evolution the strong survives the weak extincting (in somecases its difference but you know what i mean). you say murdering is wrong, but someone thinks the opposite, killing humans for owns benefit is right for others, your rights and wrongs are not the same.
Never fart near dog
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.

It's hard to put my finger on the objective sense of morality, but I believe it exists. Contrary to popular belief, I'm an atheist. I believe this inherent sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that aided in our survival.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:12:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

Do you seriusly think that a rapist thinks that what he is doing is morally correct?

IMHO, some people freely choose immorality, knowing full well that it is the worng thing. Some are duped into it as well. the vast majority of rapists take precautions against getting caught precisely because they realize that its wrong, and wrong enough that if they are caught someone will throw their butts in jail (in lawless countries, you are caught and disappeared).

Witness Mai Lai. The Soldiers engaged in wanton criminality and rape. Many made excuses at the time. Yet I had an opportunity to meet some of the 'survivors' and in many cases they were reduced to ... they were broken ... no other way to explain that.

We can fool ourselves with rationalization, but if we value honor, ethics, or the idea of being a good person, the standards are intrinsic - the only way to escape the inevitable conscience is through forgiveness or the overt acceptance of evil and the idea that you are not, and never will be, a 'good' person.

People can and do choose evil, knowing fell well that it is evil.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:59:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.


No rapist and murderers justify in their hearts to do what they do, just as people justify in their own hearts to do whatever they do that would seem up-right. The rapist may know that if he was found out by the society he is in, that he would be punished, but wrong not necessarily. Not so much today but bands of pillaging and raping were SOP back in the day. And within that group such things a raping was a part of the acceptable activity. Your view of morals Not exactly inerrant there, is it? The more I see people go on about morals the more is seems to be a man made concept to blind the truth of what an agreement with in a society is, and muddy if you will the need for ethical thinking and doing. The sense of right and wrong or good and evil is relative if anything at all.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:20:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:45 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.




No rapist and murderers justify in their hearts to do what they do, just as people justify in their own hearts to do whatever they do that would seem up-right. The rapist may know that if he was found out by the society he is in, that he would be punished, but wrong not necessarily. Not so much today but bands of pillaging and raping were SOP back in the day. And within that group such things a raping was a part of the acceptable activity. Your view of morals Not exactly inerrant there, is it? The more I see people go on about morals the more is seems to be a man made concept to blind the truth of what an agreement with in a society is, and muddy if you will the need for ethical thinking and doing. The sense of right and wrong or good and evil is relative if anything at all.

The fact that you would need to justify an action implies a sense of morality, does it not?

If it didn't then no need to justify would come about. If you have tribes raping and pillaging than they would view it as moral because it's their enemy. So the justification is what applies to the higher inherent sense of morality.

They're justifying it to that inherent sense of right and wrong. Just like the bible can be interpreted in 100 different ways, the inherent sense of right and wrong is the same in everyone, but can be interpreted in 100 different ways so that the end result is what may appear to be several different systems of morality, but those several different systems are still based around that inherent sense of right and wrong.

here is an objective moral.

1. Unjustified murder is wrong.

Now you can argue this all day, but the fact is everybody agrees that murdering merely for fun or in an unjustified way is wrong. This is an inherent moral value that aided in the continuity of the human species.

Now you'll see a bunch of different civilizations interpret what counts as justification differently, but you won't find a civilization cool with unjustified homicide.

You see, morality looks different after interpretation, but at the core level it's all the same.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:28:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:12:45 AM, neutral wrote:
People can and do choose evil, knowing fell well that it is evil.

Is that what you see as evil, or what the doer sees as evil? They may choose to do, but is it evil to the doer or the one who is at the receiving end of the act? What is good for the doer in the doer"s own judgement may not be what is good for the receiver of the act, in the receiver"s own judgement of what is good. What is good for the hungry pack of wolves, and what is good for the elk they see?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:32:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You mean something like moral intuitionism?

I think some version or another of it is obviously correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:40:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But I don't see how non-theists can account for moral knowledge though. I talked about this in my most recent debate. I sharon street's arguments are pretty decisive here, imo.

https://files.nyu.edu...

https://files.nyu.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:53:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:40:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
But I don't see how non-theists can account for moral knowledge though. I talked about this in my most recent debate. I sharon street's arguments are pretty decisive here, imo.


https://files.nyu.edu...

https://files.nyu.edu...

It is the reason you are alive after 200k yrs. The fact that you people can't understand that is evidence that the development of morality by societies is the real reason that Humans have become the dominant species on this planet.

We actually protect and defend the poorly developed, the intellectually disabled, the religious, it is how mankind has evolved.

One of the advantageous of that is that we have evolved to a level that we no longer need a non existent boogieman to control us.

In a hundred years you and your lot won't exist except as a footnote in history.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:17:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:53:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:40:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
But I don't see how non-theists can account for moral knowledge though. I talked about this in my most recent debate. I sharon street's arguments are pretty decisive here, imo.


https://files.nyu.edu...

https://files.nyu.edu...

It is the reason you are alive after 200k yrs. The fact that you people can't understand that is evidence that the development of morality by societies is the real reason that Humans have become the dominant species on this planet.

We actually protect and defend the poorly developed, the intellectually disabled, the religious, it is how mankind has evolved.

One of the advantageous of that is that we have evolved to a level that we no longer need a non existent boogieman to control us.

In a hundred years you and your lot won't exist except as a footnote in history.

Cool story bro. None of you what you said has anything to do with what I said.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:17:53 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:53:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:40:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
But I don't see how non-theists can account for moral knowledge though. I talked about this in my most recent debate. I sharon street's arguments are pretty decisive here, imo.


https://files.nyu.edu...

https://files.nyu.edu...

It is the reason you are alive after 200k yrs. The fact that you people can't understand that is evidence that the development of morality by societies is the real reason that Humans have become the dominant species on this planet.

We actually protect and defend the poorly developed, the intellectually disabled, the religious, it is how mankind has evolved.

One of the advantageous of that is that we have evolved to a level that we no longer need a non existent boogieman to control us.

In a hundred years you and your lot won't exist except as a footnote in history.

Cool story bro. None of you what you said has anything to do with what I said.
Of course not sweety.

On your planet only an invisible friend can tell you what is.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:46:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:28:43 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:12:45 AM, neutral wrote:
People can and do choose evil, knowing fell well that it is evil.



Is that what you see as evil, or what the doer sees as evil? They may choose to do, but is it evil to the doer or the one who is at the receiving end of the act? What is good for the doer in the doer"s own judgement may not be what is good for the receiver of the act, in the receiver"s own judgement of what is good. What is good for the hungry pack of wolves, and what is good for the elk they see?

The question was: does a rapist know that his raping someone is 'not good'?

In almost all cases, save insanity, the answer to that question is yes - its an assumption that underpins our entire judicial system and theories of jurisprudence. There is right (good) and wrong (bad). People know this.

Only atheists seem to think that this process needs to be knocked down.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:51:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:20:50 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:45 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.




No rapist and murderers justify in their hearts to do what they do, just as people justify in their own hearts to do whatever they do that would seem up-right. The rapist may know that if he was found out by the society he is in, that he would be punished, but wrong not necessarily. Not so much today but bands of pillaging and raping were SOP back in the day. And within that group such things a raping was a part of the acceptable activity. Your view of morals Not exactly inerrant there, is it? The more I see people go on about morals the more is seems to be a man made concept to blind the truth of what an agreement with in a society is, and muddy if you will the need for ethical thinking and doing. The sense of right and wrong or good and evil is relative if anything at all.

The fact that you would need to justify an action implies a sense of morality, does it not?

If it didn't then no need to justify would come about. If you have tribes raping and pillaging than they would view it as moral because it's their enemy. So the justification is what applies to the higher inherent sense of morality.

They're justifying it to that inherent sense of right and wrong. Just like the bible can be interpreted in 100 different ways, the inherent sense of right and wrong is the same in everyone, but can be interpreted in 100 different ways so that the end result is what may appear to be several different systems of morality, but those several different systems are still based around that inherent sense of right and wrong.

here is an objective moral.

1. Unjustified murder is wrong.

Now you can argue this all day, but the fact is everybody agrees that murdering merely for fun or in an unjustified way is wrong. This is an inherent moral value that aided in the continuity of the human species.

Now you'll see a bunch of different civilizations interpret what counts as justification differently, but you won't find a civilization cool with unjustified homicide.

You see, morality looks different after interpretation, but at the core level it's all the same.

No, what a man is taught is wrong or incorrect, he needs to justify doing, to do it. If he has agreed to one thing then he needs to justify braking the agreement. He doesn"t need justification for what he already agrees to, or is at peace with. It could be something a common as a repair of a car and what is agreed to, and what is seemingly justified to do. There is no need for justification in what is agreed to. In most societies you don"t have to justify not stealing.

It takes an agreement for something to be wrong for, or to, more then one person. Otherwise, it"s all about individual survival, desire and the fulfillment thereof. And that is what is good for the individual in his own judgement that isn"t in agreement with others.

And the only thing that interpretation is for, is the unethical use of an agreement. And agreement is what it is. Don"t steal can be an agreement. Interpretation is to deice those in the agreement.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:15:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.

It's hard to put my finger on the objective sense of morality, but I believe it exists. Contrary to popular belief, I'm an atheist. I believe this inherent sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that aided in our survival.

Your thinking is too euro-centric. There are societies right now who do not view sex and marriage to a 9 year old girl as wrong in any way. They don't have to hide and feel no need to. America is not the world. I personally know people who have participated in mob justice (common here) and actually killed someone. The person is not ashamed and feels no guilt. No one in his society thinks he is guilty of any evil at all. In Palestine, young men who blow themselves up in marketplaces are viewed as heroes.

People who believe that all men have this core of similar morality are mostly westerners who have been so long sheltered by their technology that they have come to believe their society is the world, and that how they feel and think is not only right but "normal".

If Americans were forced to travel, and not just to "little America" tourist traps in other countries, we would have a lot fewer atheists and a lot more civility on this board. You wouldn't find a single thread on the PoE if that were the case.

I know you are reluctant to have it discussed, but you are using a personal definition of "objective". That in itself is fine, but if it is innocent, why are you trying to hide it?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:41:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:15:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Your thinking is too euro-centric. There are societies right now who do not view sex and marriage to a 9 year old girl as wrong in any way. They don't have to hide and feel no need to. America is not the world. I personally know people who have participated in mob justice (common here) and actually killed someone. The person is not ashamed and feels no guilt. No one in his society thinks he is guilty of any evil at all. In Palestine, young men who blow themselves up in marketplaces are viewed as heroes.

People who believe that all men have this core of similar morality are mostly westerners who have been so long sheltered by their technology that they have come to believe their society is the world, and that how they feel and think is not only right but "normal".

If Americans were forced to travel, and not just to "little America" tourist traps in other countries, we would have a lot fewer atheists and a lot more civility on this board. You wouldn't find a single thread on the PoE if that were the case.

I know you are reluctant to have it discussed, but you are using a personal definition of "objective". That in itself is fine, but if it is innocent, why are you trying to hide it?

Well said
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 12:16:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:33:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:17:53 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:53:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:40:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
But I don't see how non-theists can account for moral knowledge though. I talked about this in my most recent debate. I sharon street's arguments are pretty decisive here, imo.


https://files.nyu.edu...

https://files.nyu.edu...

It is the reason you are alive after 200k yrs. The fact that you people can't understand that is evidence that the development of morality by societies is the real reason that Humans have become the dominant species on this planet.

We actually protect and defend the poorly developed, the intellectually disabled, the religious, it is how mankind has evolved.

One of the advantageous of that is that we have evolved to a level that we no longer need a non existent boogieman to control us.

In a hundred years you and your lot won't exist except as a footnote in history.

Cool story bro. None of you what you said has anything to do with what I said.
Of course not sweety.

On your planet only an invisible friend can tell you what is.

Do you EVER have anything constructive to add?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 12:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:15:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.

It's hard to put my finger on the objective sense of morality, but I believe it exists. Contrary to popular belief, I'm an atheist. I believe this inherent sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that aided in our survival.

Your thinking is too euro-centric. There are societies right now who do not view sex and marriage to a 9 year old girl as wrong in any way. They don't have to hide and feel no need to. America is not the world. I personally know people who have participated in mob justice (common here) and actually killed someone. The person is not ashamed and feels no guilt. No one in his society thinks he is guilty of any evil at all. In Palestine, young men who blow themselves up in marketplaces are viewed as heroes.

People who believe that all men have this core of similar morality are mostly westerners who have been so long sheltered by their technology that they have come to believe their society is the world, and that how they feel and think is not only right but "normal".

If Americans were forced to travel, and not just to "little America" tourist traps in other countries, we would have a lot fewer atheists and a lot more civility on this board. You wouldn't find a single thread on the PoE if that were the case.

I know you are reluctant to have it discussed, but you are using a personal definition of "objective". That in itself is fine, but if it is innocent, why are you trying to hide it?

I think your thinking is too Euro-Centric.

Having been in places where nine year olds are married off, the reasons for it are not 'moral' they are hard realities of poverty. A family struggling to survive will marry off a daughter to a wealthier family who offers her a better life. We see the negative stories in the 'Western' Press, but we don't see the positive stories.

In any event, do you actually think the vast majority of Father's and Mothers WANT to separate from their children when they are only nine? Do you think that a man who 'buys' a nine year old, taking advantage of poverty purely for sexual conquest thinks he's doing the 'right' thing?

Its in, in such cases, a demonstration of power and elite status, that someone can engage in that kind of exploitation and there is nothing you can do about it.

Do know what eventually happens in places where it occurs? Insurgencies. Rebellion. Open warfare.

If no one thought there was any injustice in these things, no one would revolt would they.

I am afraid it is you who view these situations through the 'Euro-Centeric' lens brother. And that does not mean people actually believe rape is morally acceptable. I have shot my way into rape and torture rooms, and can tell you from seeing people engaged in these acts to 'control' the population - they knew it was wrong.

You do the wrong thing long enough, consequence catches up - and the illusion of evil is that men who choose it believe that consequences will never arrive. It does. Its no different from a village warlord in Afghanistan who takes advantage of a young girl, than it is for a rapist in the US who drags a teenager into the woods to rape them. They both know its wrong, but potential consequences for the wrong arrive in very different timelines and with very different consequences.

It takes police to arrest a rapist in the US.

It takes a rebellion to unseat a warlord.

Both happen.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 12:31:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:15:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.

It's hard to put my finger on the objective sense of morality, but I believe it exists. Contrary to popular belief, I'm an atheist. I believe this inherent sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that aided in our survival.

Your thinking is too euro-centric. There are societies right now who do not view sex and marriage to a 9 year old girl as wrong in any way. They don't have to hide and feel no need to. America is not the world. I personally know people who have participated in mob justice (common here) and actually killed someone. The person is not ashamed and feels no guilt. No one in his society thinks he is guilty of any evil at all. In Palestine, young men who blow themselves up in marketplaces are viewed as heroes.

People who believe that all men have this core of similar morality are mostly westerners who have been so long sheltered by their technology that they have come to believe their society is the world, and that how they feel and think is not only right but "normal".

If Americans were forced to travel, and not just to "little America" tourist traps in other countries, we would have a lot fewer atheists and a lot more civility on this board. You wouldn't find a single thread on the PoE if that were the case.

I know you are reluctant to have it discussed, but you are using a personal definition of "objective". That in itself is fine, but if it is innocent, why are you trying to hide it?

I think your thinking is too Euro-Centric.

Having been in places where nine year olds are married off, the reasons for it are not 'moral' they are hard realities of poverty.

Well, I can't speak to your experience but I know people for whom it isn't poverty at all. They are in fact quite rich. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that there are people who have a vastly different idea of what is right than westerners.

A family struggling to survive will marry off a daughter to a wealthier family who offers her a better life. We see the negative stories in the 'Western' Press, but we don't see the positive stories.

That is sometimes the case, but there are cultures also for whom it isn't evil. They don't think of it as immoral at all.

In any event, do you actually think the vast majority of Father's and Mothers WANT to separate from their children when they are only nine?

No. But that isn't the point. The point is that there are some who view it as good and proper because of their culture.

Do you think that a man who 'buys' a nine year old, taking advantage of poverty purely for sexual conquest thinks he's doing the 'right' thing?

Some clearly are that morally bent. I have met them.

Do know what eventually happens in places where it occurs? Insurgencies. Rebellion. Open warfare.

Yes, all cultures with corrupt morals eventually fail. But that if off point.

If no one thought there was any injustice in these things, no one would revolt would they.

I didn't say injustice. I said immorality. Plus, there are places where they don't revolt, and have not been revolting for years. The fact is that not everyone agrees with your morality. Thinking that all who do such things feel guilt and are aware that the behavior is wrong is simply na"ve. Not all of them do.

I am afraid it is you who view these situations through the 'Euro-Centeric' lens brother. And that does not mean people actually believe rape is morally acceptable.

They don't see it as rape. So they have no reason to think it is morally unacceptable. people don't all agree on one definition of rape.

I have shot my way into rape and torture rooms, and can tell you from seeing people engaged in these acts to 'control' the population - they knew it was wrong.

Well then, I guess that proves it is universal that people always know it is wrong.

You do the wrong thing long enough, consequence catches up - and the illusion of evil is that men who choose it believe that consequences will never arrive. It does. Its no different from a village warlord in Afghanistan who takes advantage of a young girl, than it is for a rapist in the US who drags a teenager into the woods to rape them. They both know its wrong, but potential consequences for the wrong arrive in very different timelines and with very different consequences.

I said nothing about consequences. My only point is that some people, some cultures, do not have the same definition of rape and slavery as is common in the west. As such, they do not believe what they are doing is rape or slavery. Since they don't think it is rape, they feel no guilt or shame.

It takes police to arrest a rapist in the US.

It takes a rebellion to unseat a warlord.

Both happen.

Errr.... Ok.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 3:17:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 2:37:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:


Well, I can't speak to your experience but I know people for whom it isn't poverty at all. They are in fact quite rich. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that there are people who have a vastly different idea of what is right than westerners.

Are you claiming there are a 'bunch' of rich families marrying off their nine year old daughters into situations where they are likely to be sexually abused? Marriage is different in cultures, but a betrothal of a nine year old, who is not married until she is sexually mature (i.e. MUCH older) is not the same thing.


That is sometimes the case, but there are cultures also for whom it isn't evil. They don't think of it as immoral at all.

Oh, and these cultures are?

Again, I've been right in the middle of them. Th acceptance of desperation and accepting it as morally right are not the same thing. The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, driven by the same impoverishment in inequality is 'tolerated' but its also widely held as wrong and the boys who escape ... often have to recreate their entire identities because its ... moral?


No. But that isn't the point. The point is that there are some who view it as good and proper because of their culture.

And you have failed to provide any example. Again, in the places were this happens, its system of tribes of Byzantine Complexity and constant infighting. You are asking me to just accept that it is on faith ... go there. See what I saw.



Some clearly are that morally bent. I have met them.

So, like I said, they chose evil, eh?


Yes, all cultures with corrupt morals eventually fail. But that if off point.

So the claim is that its accepted as moral, but it causes rebellion - openly so and often - so its ALSO corrupt morals which breeds this action?

So the POINT Is that he behavior is immoral - it is NOT accepted, because if it was, as you say, there would be no rebellion would there?


I didn't say injustice. I said immorality.

quibble.

Plus, there are places where they don't revolt, and have not been revolting for years. The fact is that not everyone agrees with your morality. Thinking that all who do such things feel guilt and are aware that the behavior is wrong is simply na"ve. Not all of them do.

Please provide an example. Somalia? Seriously? Pakistan Tribal Belt? Afghanistan? Syria? Sudan?

ALL of them do. Some take longer than others, but there is ALWAYS a consequence to immorality eventually. ALWAYS.


They don't see it as rape. So they have no reason to think it is morally unacceptable. people don't all agree on one definition of rape.

Agh yeah, they do. The ones doing it might rationalize it, but that is no different than an American rapist (which happens far more frequently in this culture BTW) rationalizing his rape ... as something else.

Again, are you just disagreeing with everything I say, or going to attempt to make a case that a rapist doesn't know he's raping ... because he married a nine year old girl and raped her repeatedly, along with other village daughters, until they rise up in open rebellion because of his excesses? Which happens COMMONLY?

Oh I am sure all involved though the action was kosher.


Well then, I guess that proves it is universal that people always know it is wrong.

I suppose your faith statement that it does not proves the opposite - no need for experience or proof.


I said nothing about consequences.

You don;t have to say my case kiddo - it retains its value because its the case made - your personal speaking of the words is not important.

My only point is that some people, some cultures, do not have the same definition of rape and slavery as is common in the west. As such, they do not believe what they are doing is rape or slavery. Since they don't think it is rape, they feel no guilt or shame.

With zero examples except some rich dude ... maybe. And not not rape.


It takes police to arrest a rapist in the US.

It takes a rebellion to unseat a warlord.

Both happen.

Errr.... Ok. Yet its normal and should not happen. Yet it does.

You are no case kiddo, simply stated, "I am unconvinced because I have an excuse to ignore anything! Rape is sometimes not wrong! You see - THAT I said!"

Hmmm ... argumentation is not taught well in our schools.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 4:06:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:15:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:05:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:45:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:11:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:07:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:45:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with moral sense theory, and willing to discuss it?

If so please start discussion immediately.

Sounds like an open invitation to expand your thoughts and tell us what YOU think.

I think that inherently we all have the same sense of morality.

I doubt you can support this.

It's the interpretation of that inherent sense of morality that makes it appear that we have different morals.

We all know unjustified murder is wrong. We all know that rape s wrong.

No we don't. Any issue of a newspaper would prove this comment incorrect.

These are objective morals.

You must be using a private definition of "objective". Can you share it with us?

I was trying to hold back, because I don't have the energy to debate this right now, but wanted to see everyone's opinions on it.

My 2 cents.

I'd say that rapists know what they're doing is wrong and still have that inherent sense of morality. The murderers also know they're wrong. The ones that don't will justify their action by appealing to the inherent sense of morality.

It's hard to put my finger on the objective sense of morality, but I believe it exists. Contrary to popular belief, I'm an atheist. I believe this inherent sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that aided in our survival.

Your thinking is too euro-centric. There are societies right now who do not view sex and marriage to a 9 year old girl as wrong in any way. They don't have to hide and feel no need to. America is not the world. I personally know people who have participated in mob justice (common here) and actually killed someone. The person is not ashamed and feels no guilt. No one in his society thinks he is guilty of any evil at all. In Palestine, young men who blow themselves up in marketplaces are viewed as heroes.

People who believe that all men have this core of similar morality are mostly westerners who have been so long sheltered by their technology that they have come to believe their society is the world, and that how they feel and think is not only right but "normal".

If Americans were forced to travel, and not just to "little America" tourist traps in other countries, we would have a lot fewer atheists and a lot more civility on this board. You wouldn't find a single thread on the PoE if that were the case.

I know you are reluctant to have it discussed, but you are using a personal definition of "objective". That in itself is fine, but if it is innocent, why are you trying to hide it?

Whooooaaaaaa. So you are saying that less atheism = more civility. That is somewhat silly when you just describe a scene of vigilant mob justice killings. Is the mob religious or atheist?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:58:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:26:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
I keep hearing theists talking about objective morality, but I'm puzzled. If this objective morality exists, how is it communicated to us so that we can all agree? You would expect that if there was a god and this god was the source of objective morality then it would have been a top priority to relay this code for behaviour to all humankind from the very outset. Yet no such effort seems to have been made. There are numerous examples of societies throughout history with widely varying ideas about moral behaviour (human sacrifice for example). How could this possibly happen?

It's more important to specify rules of weaving materials, killing animals, preparing altars, and delineating genocide and human trafficking than to outline any "objective morality," as far as the "holy" text is concerned.

Now theists are going to say that a code for moral behaviour exists in the holy texts of their religion. If that were the case, then why isn't this code exactly the same across all religions? Instead of being objective, it demonstrates the exact opposite, that moral behaviour is highly subjective in nature. It simply reflected the customs and beliefs of the particular religious/ethnic group at the time. This is quite apart from the fact that a lot of the morality espoused in the Bible or Quran is abhorrent to us today. What Christian today would call for the stoning to death of an unfaithful wife? It's absurd to believe that any holy text contains a blueprint for moral behaviour. Christians, at least, would be hypocrites if they thought the biblical moral code was objective but failed to follow it to the letter.

Well stated.

Some theists (as in the OP) might argue that objective moraility is instilled into us (somehow), and that we intuitively know what is right and wrong. This is a clear fallacy. Again I would point to the widely varying customs of different societies throughout human history. Tribes of cannibals ate their foes after battle as a way of absorbing their 'spirit' and showing respect for their bravery. It was highly moral behaviour in their eyes. American Indians scalped their fallen adverseries. Chinese families killed female babies. And so the list goes on. Right and wrong seem, by all the evidence, to be very much relative. Trying to make a case for an inherent, universal sense of right and wrong fails.

Ever has it. Ever shall it.

Btw, there is probably no such thing as "unjustified murder". A murderer can usually justify his/her actions. A rapist too can, in his own head, justify his rape. They might know that their actions are wrong (by societal standards) at some level, but they convince themselves that their own imperatives outweigh whatever empathy they may feel for the victim. Sometimes it is just a brutish capitulation to animal desires, but there is still some self-justification there.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 2:05:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 3:17:05 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 2:37:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Well, I can't speak to your experience but I know people for whom it isn't poverty at all. They are in fact quite rich. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that there are people who have a vastly different idea of what is right than westerners.

Are you claiming there are a 'bunch' of rich families marrying off their nine year old daughters into situations where they are likely to be sexually abused?

No. I'm saying that there are some cultures where it is considered normal and good to marry of a 9 year old.

Marriage is different in cultures, but a betrothal of a nine year old, who is not married until she is sexually mature (i.e. MUCH older) is not the same thing.

I didn't say it's the same thing. I'm saying that there are some people who think it is.

That is sometimes the case, but there are cultures also for whom it isn't evil. They don't think of it as immoral at all.

Oh, and these cultures are?

Cultures where the female needn't give her consent to sex. Some cultures in India, Africa, and the Middle East. Her parents can marry her off and she has no say. But if a girl has not given consent, sex with her is rape. But the culture does not view it as rape.

Again, I've been right in the middle of them. Th acceptance of desperation and accepting it as morally right are not the same thing.

I didn't say it was. You think it's always acceptance of desperation, I know it isn't always.

The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, driven by the same impoverishment in inequality is 'tolerated' but its also widely held as wrong and the boys who escape ... often have to recreate their entire identities because its ... moral?

I did not say it was moral. I said some people see it as moral because their cultures see it as moral.

No. But that isn't the point. The point is that there are some who view it as good and proper because of their culture.

And you have failed to provide any example. Again, in the places were this happens, its system of tribes of Byzantine Complexity and constant infighting.

Ok, it's a system of tribes of Byzantine Complexity and constant infighting, but it still happens. And all I'm saying is ..... it happens.

You are asking me to just accept that it is on faith

I'm not asking you to accept anything.

... go there. See what I saw.

I live in Africa.

Some clearly are that morally bent. I have met them.

So, like I said, they chose evil, eh?

No. A person must know what he chooses is evil to call it a choosing evil. They don't think it's evil. So they don't think they are choosing evil. But non-the-less, people do choose evil. All of us do it sometime.

Yes, all cultures with corrupt morals eventually fail. But that if off point.

So the claim is that its accepted as moral, but it causes rebellion - openly so and often - so its ALSO corrupt morals which breeds this action?

Perhaps that is your claim. All of those things were things YOU brought up. My only point is that it happens. Come cultures have accepted behaviors which are very immoral but the culture doesn't see it as immoral. FDM is a typical case.

So the POINT Is that he behavior is immoral - it is NOT accepted, because if it was, as you say, there would be no rebellion would there?

No I didn't say that. Rebellion has nothing to do with what I'm saying. There are cultures which see some things which are immoral, as moral. So when members of that culture take part in the behavior, they have no guilt of shame because they do not think they have been immoral.

I didn't say injustice. I said immorality.

quibble.

Well, I don't think they are the same thing. Especially in a discussion about morality.

Plus, there are places where they don't revolt, and have not been revolting for years. The fact is that not everyone agrees with your morality. Thinking that all who do such things feel guilt and are aware that the behavior is wrong is simply na"ve. Not all of them do.

Please provide an example. Somalia? Seriously? Pakistan Tribal Belt? Afghanistan? Syria? Sudan?

ALL of them do. Some take longer than others, but there is ALWAYS a consequence to immorality eventually. ALWAYS.

And no one has said there isn't a consequence to immorality. Did you think someone said that?

They don't see it as rape. So they have no reason to think it is morally unacceptable. people don't all agree on one definition of rape.

Agh yeah, they do.

Well, I disagree. I know several cultures who believe a husband cannot rape his wife. In such a culture, a husband could force his wife into sex and feel no guilt after because he does not believe has has committed rape.

The ones doing it might rationalize it,...

But only people who think they might have committed rape rationalize. People who do not consider action to be rape have no need to rationalize.

Again, are you just disagreeing with everything I say,....

I'm not. You simply keep saying things I didn't say and introducing things that are not in the topic.

....or going to attempt to make a case that a rapist doesn't know he's raping ...

A rapist only knows he's raping if he believes what he's doing is rape. If he sincerely does not think his action is rape because of his culture, then he wouldn't consider himself a rapist.

...because he married a nine year old girl and raped her repeatedly, along with other village daughters, until they rise up in open rebellion because of his excesses? Which happens COMMONLY?

All the village daughters and rebellions was brought up by you. My only point is that people usually get right and wrong from their culture. If their culture says sex with your 9 year old wife is acceptable, they will likely think so too.

Oh I am sure all involved though the action was kosher.

Perhaps you're also arguing someone other than me.

Well then, I guess that proves it is universal that people always know it is wrong.

I suppose your faith statement that it does not proves the opposite - no need for experience or proof.

If you think everyone in the world has the same morality on rape as you do then I know that no "proof" will work for you.

I said nothing about consequences.

You don;t have to say my case kiddo - it retains its value because its the case made - your personal speaking of the words is not important.

Errrr.... ok.

My only point is that some people, some cultures, do not have the same definition of rape and slavery as is common in the west. As such, they do not believe what they are doing is rape or slavery. Since they don't think it is rape, they feel no guilt or shame.

With zero examples except some rich dude ... maybe. And not not rape.

Yeah. Ok.

It takes police to arrest a rapist in the US.

Err.... ok.

It takes a rebellion to unseat a warlord.

If you say so.

Both happen.

Errr.... Ok.

Yet its normal and should not happen. Yet it does.

???... ok.

You are no case kiddo, simply stated, "I am unconvinced because I have an excuse to ignore anything! Rape is sometimes not wrong! You see - THAT I said!"

I didn't say rape is not wrong. I said some cultures do not consider what YOU call rape, wrong.

Hmmm ... argumentation is not taught well in our schools.

lol.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 5:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
from what ive read so far i cant realy tell what is being posited here. are you trying to say that there exists objective morals which our moral sense somehow picks up on, or are you simply saying that it is an objective fact that we all attempt to make moral judgements?

if its the former, then you have the BOP, even if we do feel that there are objective morals, that does not necessarily mean that there are. if its the latter, then all i would have to do is point to a true sociopath or psychopath, they do not have the intrinsic sense of morality that we do, in fact, thats what makes them socio or psychopaths. if your trying to say that the average person has some sense of morality, even if it doesn't line up with other peoples senses, then i would agree, but calling it 'objective' is to general, you should be saying we have an innate biological sense or something along those lines. using the term 'objective' anywhere near the term 'moral' will almost immediately insight skepticism in those who are familiar with the problems of objective morality. so its best to be precise.