good and evil, what is greater?

[Mark Chance]

To personally subscribe to a submission/acceptance paradigm totally and completely renders you True Neutral. No matter how hideous things get, you don't interfere, and no matter how good they get, you don't celebrate. It's all the same to you - just part of the big plan.

That assumes the big plan has no plans for the individual to take an active hand in things. If the Good is indeed good, it must necessarily include good-will, which means that the Good actively seeks what is best for others (whether they recognize what is best for themselves or not).

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Illogical. This and similar lines of thinking (i.e., "There is no universally accepted definition of evil" sorts of sentiments) conflate opinion with fact. The truth of X is not dependent on what people's opinions pro or contra X happen to be at any particular moment. If X is true, then X remains true even if the whole world objects. Likewise, if X is false, then arguments to the contrary are sheer sophistry.

The crux of the problem. I simply do not believe in a universal moral compass. I don't see why X cannot be an act which is good in some societies and not in others?

For example - the construction of graven images - the centerpiece of some religions. One of the top 10 crimes according to the 10 commandments. It doesn't seem to have any absolute good/evil value to me?

What is the logical reason that such a moral compass must exist?

In what way does it "conflate opinion with fact" if there is not one?

Again, the same category error. Just because the Aztecs viewed intercine warfare, kidnapping, and human sacrifice (read: murder) as acceptable means to ends does not show that, in fact, the Aztecs' point-of-view was true.

I don't think kidnapping and intercine warfare were included in my initial argument as a good thing: Just human sacrifice.

I contend they may well have held that to be a 'good' thing rather than simply "acceptable means to ends".

People in their society that did not agree with that particular behaviour were evil by their cultural compass and beliefs.

And surely, our current viewpoint does not necessary prove that theirs was wrong.

Although I'm pretty glad that we view it as wrong now. I imagine sacrificial slaughter is not a lot of fun. And I really wouldn't want to be stabbed to death as an offering.



As for the Greeks - I quite agree, that was a hot potato topic for them. However, have you noticed the views from that time that get repeated as 'wise' are the ones that gel with our current moral ideas? Nobody in todays society can go around espousing the opposite side of that argument without a lynching?

 

[Mark Chance]

Regarding Aztecs:

I don't think kidnapping and intercine warfare were included in my initial argument as a good thing: Just human sacrifice.

Then you've ignored a good hunk of the historical situation that made so many human sacrifices possible.

The crux of the problem. I simply do not believe in a universal moral compass. I don't see why X cannot be an act which is good in some societies and not in others?

(emphasis added)

*snip!*

In what way does it "conflate opinion with fact" if there is not one?

The conflation occurs because you apparently equate what you believe to be true with what actually is true. Positions that do not conform with your belief are excluded a priori as possible (or so it can easily appear).

By the same token, consider arguments that state: Culture A believed Y; and culture B believe not-Y; therefore, there are no objectively true moral judgments. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it does not consider the possibility that in fact either culture A is right and culture B is wrong, or vice versa, or that neither culture is right. In any event, since is quite likely absurd to say Y and not-Y are both true, the fundamental flaw in the argument should be obvious.

What is the logical reason that such a moral compass must exist?

Assume for a moment that the following statement is true: There are no universal, objective moral principles.

Is that statement itself a universal, moral principle? If so, it is a self-contradiction; it is meaningless. If it is not a universal, moral principle, then it is false because it cannot said to completely govern the realm of moral principles.

Still, assume that, despite the self-contradiction, the statement is still true. Then there is no morality at all. If all moral principles are equally true, then all are equally false. Both reductio ad absurdum and simple common sense show the ridiculousness of such a position.

Nobody in todays society can go around espousing the opposite side of that argument without a lynching?

The threat of violence prompted by a particular form of expression is not a good way to judge the truth of that expression.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I do not believe (there's that word again!) that, if there IS a universal moral compass, that we can ever determine what it is. There are lots of people who belive there is a universal moral compass, and few of these moral compasses agree with each other on every single point. In fact, each of these people assumes their version of the universal moral compass is correct and all the other ones are false. (In that one respect, their beliefs are identical.) If there were a hypothetical somebody with no moral-ethical code who is trying to determine what the absolute moral compass is, and he goes around talking to all these people, how is he supposed to decide which is correct? All of them seem to have equal validity. If only one of them is true, how does it stand out from the others? As I mentioned before, what if the one person who got it right died a long time ago and nobody would believe him? If nobody on this earth followed the universal moral compass, would we notice the difference? How do we know that is not the current situation?

 

[kirinke]

compasses break easily....
good and evil, right and wrong. well.
life is full of uncertainties. we simply must do what we feel is right for us and take the consequences for our actions like adults.

 

[Mark Chance]

I do not believe (there's that word again!) that, if there IS a universal moral compass, that we can ever determine what it is. There are lots of people who belive there is a universal moral compass, and few of these moral compasses agree with each other on every single point.

So what if no two people agree 100% of the time about what is right and what is wrong? Unanimous assent is not an absolutely reliable guide to what is true and what is false. Neither is unanimous disagreement a reliable indicator that there is no such thing as moral truth at all or that it is impossible to at least get some of the answers right some of the time.

What's more, it is very doubtful anyone knows 100% of everything there is to know about any thing. Does it therefore follow that there is no such thing as knowledge at all? Of course not. Imperfect knowledge of a subject (such as the objective truth of a moral principle) is still knowledge. It is still more than ignorance, even if it is less than full comprehension.

Furthermore (and this is a point I cannot elaborate on without violating ENWorld's rules), it may also be the case that, as you hypothesize, that some one person did get all the rules straight. It may also be the case that there is one being who is actually the one source of all that is true, the ground of all reality. If such a person and/or being exists, then his or her teachings would be 100% reliable, at least insofar as that person and/or being chose to teach about any particular question.

No one with any sense in his head can ever stop wondering about these questions or stop seeking the real answers to them. A life unexamined, and all that.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Why do you think I minored in Religious Studies?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

The conflation occurs because you apparently equate what you believe to be true with what actually is true. Positions that do not conform with your belief are excluded a priori as possible (or so it can easily appear).

Believe was a bad term for me to choose, it's loaded with overtones of faith and dogma. Better put as 'I have an idea'. I'm quite willing to change it if I find one that either appeals more, or makes more sense.

By the same token, consider arguments that state: Culture A believed Y; and culture B believe not-Y; therefore, there are no objectively true moral judgments. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it does not consider the possibility that in fact either culture A is right and culture B is wrong, or vice versa, or that neither culture is right. In any event, since is quite likely absurd to say Y and not-Y are both true, the fundamental flaw in the argument should be obvious.

I think I got bogged down in specific examples and didn't manage to convey my point properly.

I'm failing to understand why there has to be absolute right and wrong involved?

Why can Y and not-Y both simply be beliefs of their respective cultures... neither has any more significance than the other.

Assume for a moment that the following statement is true: There are no universal, objective moral principles.

Is that statement itself a universal, moral principle? If so, it is a self-contradiction; it is meaningless. If it is not a universal, moral principle, then it is false because it cannot said to completely govern the realm of moral principles.

Still, assume that, despite the self-contradiction, the statement is still true. Then there is no morality at all. If all moral principles are equally true, then all are equally false. Both reductio ad absurdum and simple common sense show the ridiculousness of such a position.

I don't reject the idea that absolute moral principle may exist. However, I do not see why they have to.

The statement: 'There are no universal, objective moral principles.' is a comment on the concept of universal moral principles. It is not one in and of itself.

RE: the final paragraph of your argument: The true/false argument does not come into the discussion of each moral. None of the beliefs are true or false. It's trying to assign a value to a property that an object does not have.

 

[Mark Chance]

Believe was a bad term for me to choose, it's loaded with overtones of faith and dogma. Better put as 'I have an idea'. I'm quite willing to change it if I find one that either appeals more, or makes more sense.

Very commendable of you. There are few things more distressing than a dogmatic skeptic. Of course, I cannot help but note that we ought to believe things that are true because they are true, not because they are appealing.

Why can Y and not-Y both simply be beliefs of their respective cultures... neither has any more significance than the other.

Because of the law of noncontradiction. Y and not-Y cannot both be true, all things being equal (and that is an important qualifier). Now, this doesn't rule out the possibility that different contexts can affect the morality (or at least moral culpability) of certain actions, but the basic logic still stands.

I don't reject the idea that absolute moral principle may exist. However, I do not see why they have to.

And since you admit that that migh be a defect in your vision, at least there's still hope for you.

The statement: 'There are no universal, objective moral principles.' is a comment on the concept of universal moral principles. It is not one in and of itself.

Then it is a statement that speaks beyond its competency. It's akin to someone using, for example, a religious text which was not intended to be a scientific account as a tool for refuting a scientific text, or vice versa someone trying to use a scientific text to refute a religious text as a religious text.

The true/false argument does not come into the discussion of each moral. None of the beliefs are true or false. It's trying to assign a value to a property that an object does not have.

But, to me at least, that sounds like question begging. It can be demonstrated that it is at logical that there could be such a thing as a universal moral principle. Therefore, the existence of such a thing is not impossible. OTOH, it seems that arguments against the existence of any universal moral principles at all are circular, illogical, or based on perception.

I've puzzled over this question for many, many years. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument supporting the proposition 'There are no universal, objective moral principles.' OTOH, I've heard plenty of solid arguments refuting that proposition. Of course, there are difficulties with all arguments, but it does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that there are at least some universal moral principles, even if our knowledge of said principles is shoddy at best.

Why do you think I minored in Religious Studies?

Degree in history with minors in philosophy, theology, and English here. Desparately trying to find a way to pay for furthering my education, but I'm so underpaid it ought to be a crime.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I've puzzled over this question for many, many years. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument supporting the proposition 'There are no universal, objective moral principles.' OTOH, I've heard plenty of solid arguments refuting that proposition. Of course, there are difficulties with all arguments, but it does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that there are at least some universal moral principles, even if our knowledge of said principles is shoddy at best.

I take it you mean that there are some moral principles that are held universally like "murder, stealing, and incest are wrong." You'll notice that all these beliefs that are held by the vast majority of cultures happen to be the beliefs that promote the long-term healthy survival of that culture. If there were a culture that attempted to state that the above items were morally acceptable, the culture would die out in short order from people murdering, stealing, and screwing up their bloodlines. So are these moral principles truly universal truths, or are they just really good ideas if you want your society to thrive?

My question from above still stands - suppose nobody in the world believed even one of the "true" things from the list of "Ultimate Truths." You would argue that that list still exists, I'm sure. But would we, on earth, notice the difference? Would we have any indication that we were going about everything wrong?

Degree in history with minors in philosophy, theology, and English here. Desparately trying to find a way to pay for furthering my education, but I'm so underpaid it ought to be a crime.

Degree in English, here.
[stern lecture]And just to remind you of something you probably know but don't seem to want to admit - you don't need to be getting credentials to be expanding your education! Check out some course outlines online and go to the library. Special order books they don't have. There's no excuse for not being as educated as you want to be in this country, even if you don't have the slip of paper to prove it. (and if you don't have time, well, you can make time for anything you really want to do. If you don't make time, you probably don't really want to do it badly enough.) I went to the library the other day with my wife and she was mortified that I checked out the complete works of Lord Byron. "Didn't you just graduate?" she asks, "I thought you'd be sick of that stuff by now."[/stern lecture]