good and evil, what is greater?

[Mark Chance]

So are these moral principles truly universal truths, or are they just really good ideas if you want your society to thrive?

Why "or"? Why not?: These moral principles truly universal truths, and therefore they are really good ideas if you want your society to thrive.

The observation you make is quite cogent. It stands at the heart of natural law philosophy. According to natural law philosophy, moral proscriptions such as "Do not murder" are part of human nature itself. They are the laws of human nature, which is what natural law is all about.

As an interesting contrast, 20th century existentialist philosophers such as Sartre (or the Marquis de Sade in the 18th and 19th centuries) prop up their denial of objective moral principles by first denying that there is any such thing as human nature. Once this is done, it becomes child's play to rationalize any form of behavior, no matter how horrible or destructive, as Sartre demonstrated in his role as a Stalinist apologist (that sounds funny) while teaching political science to Pol Pot at the University of Paris, but that's political and should probably be avoided.

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?

On one hand, the answer to your question is, "No, we wouldn't notice." We recognize abundance by comparison with absence, for example. OTOH, since I am at least mostly convinced that there is a natural law innate to human nature, we would notice the difference upon sufficient reflection, for we also recognize ought by comparison with is.

I've seen this in action with severely abused children. What the child knows is abuse. That is the norm for the child. But, even still, there is something interior that at least hints that what is ought to be different. You can see the same thing in action in Socrates's philosophizing about the shortcomings in the religious beliefs of his time and place.

Of course, these are imperfect examples of your hypothetical, but since no perfect examples exists....

[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!

Admittedly, but there are career advancement considerations since my profession is teacher (which explains why I am criminally underpaid). If not for those considerations, I'd be content to audit classes until the cows come home. It'd certainly be much cheaper.

Plus, if I ever actually get to the point of getting a doctorate, I'm going to make everyone call me Doctor Chance.

 

[kirinke]

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.



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.



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.

as far as the moral thing goes.
There is no one true way. All ways are valid. Even if you personally don't agree with them.

 

[MerakSpielman]

kininke: While that opinion is perfectly valid, I doubt it will have much impact on Mark Chance here unless you can argue it philosophically.

Mark: You have a problem with the statement "All beliefs are equally valid," correct? There is a problem whereby, logically, two contrasting beliefs cannot both be true. However, two contrasting beliefs can both be untrue. Following this train of thought, all beliefs can be equally valid if they are all untrue.

The only two paradigms that you seem to be able to accept rationally are then either 1) there is one, correct belief set or 2) There are no correct belief sets. Both of these scenarios seem to work, without internal contradictions.

(This, of course, assumes that logic and reasoning are the correct tools to use. Remember, humanity came first, logic came later.)

There might be a possibilty of constructing an argument for all belief systems being equally valid, and all of them containing elements of truth. Going even further, there might be a possibility of constructing an arguement for all belief systems containing separate, distinct truths. I don't have any such arguments prepared, however.

 

[kirinke]

kininke: While that opinion is perfectly valid, I doubt it will have much impact on Mark Chance here unless you can argue it philosophically.

There might be a possibilty of constructing an argument for all belief systems being equally valid, and all of them containing elements of truth. Going even further, there might be a possibility of constructing an arguement for all belief systems containing separate, distinct truths. I don't have any such arguments prepared, however.

philophosy always gave me a bloody headache. *gets out the Pict war-paint, paints herself blue, grabs a mace and short-sword and goes on a rampage. "Thou shall get along!" lol

 

[Mark Chance]

There is no one true way. All ways are valid. Even if you personally don't agree with them.

That's easy to say, but no one ever really seems to believe it or live it. Even the most ardent moral relativist still cusses when he's cut off in traffic, to use a facetious example.

Question, Kirinkle: Do you never experience anger or disgust at man's inhumanity toward man?

Mark: You have a problem with the statement "All beliefs are equally valid," correct? There is a problem whereby, logically, two contrasting beliefs cannot both be true. However, two contrasting beliefs can both be untrue. Following this train of thought, all beliefs can be equally valid if they are all untrue.

Something that is untrue is not valid.

But ultimately the idea that all moral principles (as opposed to beliefs, which obviously can be all wrong) are equally untrue can't fly because of the law of noncontradiction. Incest, to take one of your examples from earlier, cannot be both virtuous and not virtuous.

The only two paradigms that you seem to be able to accept rationally are then either 1) there is one, correct belief set or 2) There are no correct belief sets. Both of these scenarios seem to work, without internal contradictions.

There is a third option which more accurately reflects what I believe (Uh oh! Now I'm using that word!): There is one, correct belief set and there are many other beliefs sets, all of which contain a differing degrees of correctness.

But, more to the point (since I'm trying not to argue about what we believe to be true but rather what actually is true), I also believe (d'oh!) that there are universal, objective moral principles based in natural law, and that to act contrary to those principles is destructive to human life and community.

(This, of course, assumes that logic and reasoning are the correct tools to use. Remember, humanity came first, logic came later.)

That is an assumption both a theist and an atheist can readily disagree with. The rules of logic, just like the rules of mathematics, are part of the structure of reality itself. Humanity did not invent them; we discovered them.

There might be a possibilty of constructing an argument for all belief systems being equally valid, and all of them containing elements of truth. Going even further, there might be a possibility of constructing an arguement for all belief systems containing separate, distinct truths. I don't have any such arguments prepared, however.

Neither do I. In my experience (which admittedly does not encompass everything, so I may very well be ignorant on this point), no one has any such arguments prepared.

 

[Malcolm]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by MerakSpielman
There might be a possibilty of constructing an argument for all belief systems being equally valid, and all of them containing elements of truth. Going even further, there might be a possibility of constructing an arguement for all belief systems containing separate, distinct truths. I don't have any such arguments prepared, however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither do I. In my experience (which admittedly does not encompass everything, so I may very well be ignorant on this point), no one has any such arguments prepared.

I do.
Death.
To date No human being has died and returned to the point that the entire population of the world can objectively examine their statements and say "yes, this is the Truth".
Even if such did happen, there is no proof that death gives access to the final Truths of existence. But, as per the human way, we often have to work on "close enough".

Until such a time All forms of belief systems are equally valid logically and empirically as truth. Skipping a debate on phenomenalogical theory and use, this leads to one (possible) conclusion: Live and let live.
There is no proof that anyone has that their system, no matter how meticulously complex, is any better than the next person's.
Which means that your arguments and stated beliefs are just as wonderful as mine.
So what do we turn to?
Faith.
Which is ultimately subjective. And so are arguments about it.

 

[MerakSpielman]

You're saying that all belief systems have equal levels of unprovability. I'd agree with that.

But what about one person with a belief system that says all belief systems are as wonderful as yours, and another person who with a belief system that states, "I'm right, you're wrong, and no matter what you say, you can't change this from being true"? Can both of these belief systems have equal validity?

I'm arguing that yes, they do have "equal" validity, because neither of them has any validity at all outside the individuals who believe them.

 

[MerakSpielman]

That's easy to say, but no one ever really seems to believe it or live it. Even the most ardent moral relativist still cusses when he's cut off in traffic, to use a facetious example.

Question, Kirinkle: Do you never experience anger or disgust at man's inhumanity toward man?

Well, this question wasn't for me, but I knew a fellow who said he thought he might be getting too accepting of other people's beliefs when he saw a bumper sticker that said "Hatred is not a family value" and automatically - and seriously - thought "Well, it isn't in my family, but who am I to say what you do and do not consider a value in your family?"

Something that is untrue is not valid.

Sure. But two untrue things are equally non-valid, and thus can be said to be equally valid. The "validity" that is equal just happens to be zero.

But ultimately the idea that all moral principles (as opposed to beliefs, which obviously can be all wrong) are equally untrue can't fly because of the law of noncontradiction. Incest, to take one of your examples from earlier, cannot be both virtuous and not virtuous.

That's an ultra-inflamitory topic - I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. But just because a behavior is counter-productive for purposes of the survival of a species does not, in itself, make the behavior inherently wrong. First, you have to prove that the survival of the species is somehow a morally/ethically superior situation to the non-survival of the species.

There is a third option which more accurately reflects what I believe (Uh oh! Now I'm using that word!) (Sheesh, now we've gotten him doing it, too!) There is one, correct belief set and there are many other beliefs sets, all of which contain a differing degrees of correctness.

Yes, I missed that one. There are many people with that belief. The only problem is they all seem to believe that their belief set is the one that is correct, and everybody else's are the ones that have differeing degrees of correctness. How is a third party supposed to make heads or tails of this mess?

But, more to the point (since I'm trying not to argue about what we believe to be true but rather what actually is true), I also believe (d'oh!) that there are universal, objective moral principles based in natural law, and that to act contrary to those principles is destructive to human life and community.

We're getting into natural law and human nature. As you well know, most of the great philosophers described what man was like in a "state of nature" or what have you, and built their philosophy up around that assumption. Ulness you can prove that your interpretation of natural law is correct, your whole argument is resting on an assumption.

(on the subject of logic being a human invention)That is an assumption both a theist and an atheist can readily disagree with. The rules of logic, just like the rules of mathematics, are part of the structure of reality itself. Humanity did not invent them; we discovered them.

Interesting. You can't prove that, of course, without using logic. Any system that requires its own rules to prove its own existance is fundamentally flawed. I mentioned this a while back, but if something existed that didn't obey logical rules, logic would be useless to describe it. You can't use logic to prove the existance of something illogical, even if that something exists. It's a narrowly bounded explanation of things that claims it can explain everything, but can't prove it can explain everything. You might, then, challange me to produce something that logic can't explain, but (gotcha!) that's using logical methodology.

Neither do I. In my experience (which admittedly does not encompass everything, so I may very well be ignorant on this point), no one has any such arguments prepared.

I believe there are some very fat tomes on the subject (and the thicker the book, the more true it is, right?) in my church library. I'll see if I can give you some titles.

 

[Mark Chance]

I do.
Death.
To date No human being has died and returned to the point that the entire population of the world can objectively examine their statements and say "yes, this is the Truth".

An argument from silence proves nothing.

 

[kirinke]

Question, Kirinke: Do you never experience anger or disgust at man's inhumanity toward man?

Of course I experience anger and disgust at man's inhumanity towards man. That is because I am not evil or at least I do not consider myself evil. But there is really very little we can do about it, except stay true to our own personal code of honor and morality.