Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Establishing an Absolute Moral Code
 Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/7/2013 12:06:40 AM Posted: 6 years ago Let's say that, right now, we are going to establish the absolute moral code for humanity. What provisions should be a included?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org... Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder |
 Posts: 587
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/7/2013 2:28:33 AM Posted: 6 years ago Hi Robert, I followed your link over here from: http://www.debate.org....
Here are my same observations more clearly expressed: When we conduct a conversation about what is moral, the topic at hand is immediately concerned with a certain way the world should be, even if it is not. Now, if we were to remove ourselves from that kind of conversation, as you suggested, and begin discussing the way "morality" should be, even if it isn't that way (e.g. absolute, objective, etc.), then we haven't altered the nature of the discourse in making that topical transition: the topic remains concerned with the way that some parts of the world should be, even if they are not that way. The two conversations are not materially different. So, if I believe that we can successfully determine the way morality should be, then I have no reason to deny that we can legitimately talk about how morality is; the second kind of conversation seems to be possible and legitimate if the first kind is also possible and legitimate. Does this speak to your concerns, or past them? "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 |
|
Posts: 587
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 4:32:18 PM Posted: 6 years ago Well, it seems like this thread died quickly. I don't know if this will resuscitate it, but the foremost moral rule that I would personally put on an "absolute" code would be:
It is obligatory that one does not harm others. I think that if a given person can be reasonably persuaded at all, then that person can be persuaded of this rule. "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 |
 Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 6:32:38 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/16/2013 4:32:18 PM, Poetaster wrote: By buying goods from shops such as Primark, or even buying petrol, you are funding corporations which are harming others. In other words, your shopping habits harm others. Or, as my favourite response to this goes: "Your idiocy offends me." You have harmed my sensibilities. Therefore, you are morally wrong for posting this. Usually good =/= Always good =/= moral principle. Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org... |
 Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 6:35:18 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/16/2013 6:32:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 7/16/2013 4:32:18 PM, Poetaster wrote: lol so british "A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault |
|
Posts: 587
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 6:54:48 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/16/2013 6:32:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 7/16/2013 4:32:18 PM, Poetaster wrote: This response demonstrates exactly what I meant in my first post on this thread: a dispute about what should be morally codified under hypothetical conditions is not materially different from a dispute directly concerned with what is moral in actuality. Every disagreement within a concretely moralistic conversation will carry over to a conversation about hypothetical moral codes; the added degree of separation changes nothing about the character of the discourse. "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 |
|
Posts: 587
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 6:57:10 PM Posted: 6 years ago Even if the response was a quasi-trollish post.
"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 |
 Posts: 678
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 7:01:08 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/16/2013 6:32:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:Yes, and thus it is wrong to do so.At 7/16/2013 4:32:18 PM, Poetaster wrote: Sure you might have been wrong, but what is the punishment? Verbal abuse. That's a penalty that might well be worth it to some people. Also, there was no mention as to how the notion of harm was to be decided, you decided in this case but that might not always be a viable option. |
 Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/16/2013 9:21:41 PM Posted: 6 years ago Smoke weed err' day.
Grand Poobah of DDO |
|
Posts: 587
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/17/2013 2:42:00 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/16/2013 9:21:41 PM, FREEDO wrote: Thus spake the Lord. "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 |
 Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/18/2013 8:36:23 PM Posted: 6 years ago Axioms.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign! http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... - Running for president. http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president. May the best man win! |
 Posts: 54
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
7/19/2013 5:35:05 AM Posted: 6 years ago At 7/7/2013 12:06:40 AM, ClassicRobert wrote: In order for there to be justice and morals, there can be no absolutes. I could write a LOT on why this is, but I believe this quote sums it up nicely - "I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions." Any absolute morality ends up contradicting itself. |
