Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[Tony Jay]

Actually, I am not trying to "prove" that appealing to a transcendental morality is logical.
That is a completely different discussion.

What I have said, and continue to say is that your view is illogical because its internal argument is contradictory.
A moral viewpoint that devolves to individual opinion, whether expressed individually, or corporately, is not morality, it is an opinion, and as such, sits alongside every other opinion with equal validity, whether they are compatible or not.

To say that there is no absolute good or evil does your argument a disservice - there is no good or evil period - according to your belief system. That can be the only logical conclusion to draw.
The theory of evolution knows no concept of good or evil, the moral or immoral.
There are merely events that discriminate between evolutionary success and failure - no more and no less.
As I said these concepts (morality, good and evil) are non-things - non-sense in an evolutionary context.
You appear to be the one assigning value to concepts that actually have absolutely no place in your worldview!

Tony Jay

[Rob C]

I wonder if anyone is still able to keep track?

From conflicting versions of creation we have trawled the Bible; realised, with flashes, petards and a roll of thunder, the atavistic thought behind the Israeli settlements in Arab lands and the "divine" logic prevailing there; appreciated that slavery is only slavery when defined in a particular manner and that, clearly, all people are indeed not created equal if they can be morally and legally enslaved and/or their lands simply taken from them under the very noses of the rest of the civilized world which seems incapable unwilling to care enough to say stop! enough, already. But then they wouldn't would they? Even, of course, if what's going down is morally reprehensible, for morality is but a concept like any other, isn't it?

We've learned that morality is absolute, that morality is comparative; that morality has a divine provenance; that morality is but an artificial and convenient concept to facilitate survival; that ¡t does not exist - indeed that, possibly, we do not exist either but as figments of a single or, alternatively, group dream. (My own dreams are turning out to be rather expensive in real/absolute/imaginary terms. I do hope there's a waking up call at some time, at least before the money tree falls down or bursts into flame and/or turns out to have been just another low shrub with a glow behind it, which it seems might have been the case all along, whether I approved, realised it or not. Parlous times.)

As HC-B said: "geometry!" Without geometry there is no art, there is no picture; and boy, do we have geometry here: circles.

And to think the genesis of all of this was a bout of rotten weather sweeping Mallorca.

Rob

[Farmer]

Tony:

Hardly.

Morality concerns principles that distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad (behaviour, being, systems, whatever you want to cover).  It presents a system of principles and values to govern (or just guide) conduct.

Once there is no absolute morality (and there is no evidence to support such a conclusion, only belief - and you haven't addressed whether the lack of presentation of an absolute morality by a transcendent source is moral or not), then yes, of course, morality is opinion.  That's the point.  It evolves as we have evolved.  That's why it can differ from group to group.  Of course, all claims of absolute morality currently are also subject to differences and variances - which really makes it difficult to accept that any of them are absolute, of course.  Gee, it would seem they were nothing more than opinions, perhaps even shared ones by large groups...

Anyway, my point is entirely logically consistent.  Our species evolves general moral principles which contribute to survival.  As the environment (general, not just ecological) changes, so our species adapts and evolves and so does morality.  The bible is one of the great proofs of this evolution, ironically, because it details so clearly matters of morality that are now different and that at the time would have been argued as absolutely right but are now considered absolutely wrong.

Now, to move on from here, we need to look at ethical lenses to understand the basis for viewing or believing certain moral principles and for a process by which to effectively validate or rank them.  There are many schools of thought in this area, each presenting different focuses and processes.

[Tony Jay]

With respect there is no moving on.

If you wish to skip over the contradictions in the argument you put forward that is fine.
However, the issues are not adequately addressed.

I have no wish to try and batter you into submission, to execute, or try, a form of intellectual assassination - particularly in the fashion that I have seen employed on this forum.
It is not my style.
Perhaps you or others may mock me for giving up, being weak, being wrong, whatever.
I have made a particular point, and in the same way as when offering technical advice, anybody can accept or reject it as they see fit. It doesn't matter to me - I am prepared to help, as I can, but I am not really interested in forcing people to my point of view.

Maybe N80 will continue to debate the issue but obviously that is his prerogative.

Tony Jay

[Farmer]

I wouldn't consider you weak for not responding or anything of the kind.  This a message board. It's not important.

However, if you truly believe there are issues which I have not addressed, then feel free to list them and I'll probably respond, but just saying my point is not logical isn't going to cut it.  I've shown a causal nexus and a logical progression and link between concepts.  They may be wrong, but just saying so doesn't make them so.  You need to be able to show how those links and causal relationships are either wrong or subject to different interpretation that is more acceptable or more likely.

Until then, I'm sorry, but you've said very little beyond "I believe", and there's no logical in that.  So if that is indeed your point, then of course I have no argument - if you say you believe then I believe you, but it doesn't make you right and it isn't the basis for any philosophical discussion, only theological (and I have little interest in what I consider to be largely fairy tales (in their true and original intent, certainly, but still fairy tales)).

[Rob C]

Cameroon won. Isn't that nice?

Rob C

[Rand47]

With respect there is no moving on.

If you wish to skip over the contradictions in the argument you put forward that is fine.
However, the issues are not adequately addressed.

I have no wish to try and batter you into submission, to execute, or try, a form of intellectual assassination - particularly in the fashion that I have seen employed on this forum.
It is not my style.
Perhaps you or others may mock me for giving up, being weak, being wrong, whatever.
I have made a particular point, and in the same way as when offering technical advice, anybody can accept or reject it as they see fit. It doesn't matter to me - I am prepared to help, as I can, but I am not really interested in forcing people to my point of view.

Maybe N80 will continue to debate the issue but obviously that is his prerogative.

Tony Jay

Well said, Tony.  I agree with your earlier comment on internal inconsistency in the arguments presented.  It is also important to remember that the intent of the questioner is perhaps as, or more, important than the content of the question.  To those who posit that there are no absolutes, I would only ask, "Are you absolutely sure about that?"  And if so, on what grounds?

Rand

[Alan Goldhammer]

Cameroon won. Isn't that nice?

Rob C

And last season's EPL Champions, Leicester, may soon be in a relegation battle!

[Farmer]

Well said, Tony.  I agree with your earlier comment on internal inconsistency in the arguments presented.  It is also important to remember that the intent of the questioner is perhaps as, or more, important than the content of the question.  To those who posit that there are no absolutes, I would only ask, "Are you absolutely sure about that?"  And if so, on what grounds?

You're asking to prove a negative, which is a fallacy.  If there is an absolute, then prove it.  Until you can do that, there is no evidence to show that there is an absolute morality and it is therefore logically consistent to refute such a claim.

As to the "internal inconsistency in the arguments presented" - list them.

[Rand47]

You're asking to prove a negative, which is a fallacy.  If there is an absolute, then prove it.  Until you can do that, there is no evidence to show that there is an absolute morality and it is therefore logically consistent to refute such a claim.

As to the "internal inconsistency in the arguments presented" - list them.

Hi Phil,

But don't you see that claiming that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement?  And, therefore, logically circular? Making the claim "no absolutes" is, in itself, a claim to total knowledge.  That was my point.  I believe there is an inference to absolutes, I offered earlier that "killing infants only for the fun of it" comes pretty close in human experience.  While there have been societies that sacrificed children in rituals, etc., there was at least an "intended efficacy" in those rituals.  "Only for the fun of it" puts it in a context that, to the best of my knowledge, "transcends" mere human preference and infers a transcendent moral.  Now, one might claim that evolutionary forces got us to this place, but in competing tribal situations, killing for the fun of it might indeed have a survival benefit for the tribe who would embrace this notion.

Rand

[Ray]

But don't you see that claiming that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement?

Has anyone claimed in this thread that there are no absolutes, period? If so, I must have missed that.

Those of us with even a very basic knowledge of Physics would probably accept that there is an absolute minimum temperature, known as 'absolute zero', or -273.15 degrees C. Apparently, this is the point at which the fundamental particles of nature have minimal vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion.

Now it's quite in order for someone to speculate or hypothesize that there might exist an 'absolute morality'. However, demonstrating the existence of such an 'absolute morality' would be very problematical, and perhaps impossible, without a very clear and precise definition of what morality is.

Without such a clear and precise definition, we can have no more than a range of unsubstantiated opinions. For example, a number of individuals in a group at a particular location on a particular day would probably express different opinions about the temperature. Some might say it feels rather hot and uncomfortable. Others might say it feels just right, and yet others who are used to living in the hot, steamy tropics might express the opinion that it's rather cool. So who's right?

If there's an accurate thermometer in the room, we can determine that the temperature is approximately 28 degrees C, for example. There can be no argument about that.

Tony Jay seems to be of the view that 'certain things are wrong at all times in all circumstances', and that this is the basis for the existence of a transcendent, absolute morality. But can such a view be substantiated with practical examples?

In science, if one finds exceptions to any particular theory, then the theory is considered to be faulty, inaccurate or even plain wrong, without another satisfactory explanation for the exceptions.

Let's consider the example of slavery. Is it right or wrong? Is it moral or immoral? To answer 'yes' or 'no' to such questions is to fall into the false duality of either/or, like, for example, it's either hot or its cold.

Slavery has existed for millennia. Most ancient civilizations depended upon it. But is all slavery wrong at all times and in all circumstances, as Toy Jay implies?
It is reasonable to presume that there have been many instances throughout history when certain individual slaves have considered themselves to be very fortunate to have been the 'property' of a wealthy and benevolent owner who took good care of his slaves and provided them with the comfort and security that other free, but penniless, people could only dream of.

Which activity is more immoral, the practice of a wealthy business man employing poor people at a 'near starvation' wage, but giving them the freedom to leave their employment despite there being no better options available to them; or the practice of a similarly wealthy person insisting on owning his workers but providing them with a level of comfort, security and accommodation far above the circumstances of the others in the community where they came from?

In other words, whilst slavery in principle can be considered 'less than ideal' and a generally defective law, the more important moral issue is the way people with power and wealth treat those who are poor and less privileged.

Here's an interesting story relevant to this issue. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/06/slaves-who-liked-slavery/58678/

[Tony Jay]

Ray: please read all my posts properly.
My points have nothing do with what I believe, but everything to do with what others were saying about their beliefs on the origin and nature of morality.

Tony Jay

[Ray]

Ray: please read all my posts properly.
My points have nothing do with what I believe, but everything to do with what others were saying about their beliefs on the origin and nature of morality.

Tony Jay

Wow! That comment in itself is very confusing. You write things that have nothing to do with what you believe???

Are you presenting arguments based upon a rationality which you do not believe in?

Please clarify your position.

[Tony Jay]

Ray, there is nothing confusing or irrational in what I said.

I was never defending my position on the subject under discussion but very clearly querying the logic of arguments put forward by others.
Perhaps you don't get this - but that is not my problem.

The reason I bailed out of this thread was because I was being wilfully misinterpreted, just as you seem hellbent on doing now.
I am disinclined to try and argue the toss.

My post to you was a simple request, so I thought, based on a simple courtesy.

Tony Jay

[Ray]

I don't mean to offend, Tony. I can only respond to what I interpret from what I read. If I've misinterpreted your views, then I apologise.

Your comments which were the source of my response, are in your post #219, as follows.

Morality is just not a product of evolution.
Rights do not exist just inside "evolutionary requirements for survival" - your words.
Unless you meant that in evolutionary terms that there are no rights!
To try and describe morality in terms of evolution is the ultimate oxymoron - a complete contradiction in terms.
Evolutionary theory, by its definition, cannot recognise events in terms of good and evil, justice and injustice, morality and immorality.
In evolutionary theory these concepts have no meaning, they are non-things - non-sense.

For morality to be morality there has to be a transcendent base - in other words certain things are wrong at all times and in all circumstances. Public opinion, by definition, cannot change that.

Without the transcendent quality, morality actually not only devolves merely to opinion, but also to the unpalatable situation of "might is right." In other words any person and group who actually has the power to enforce their opinions on others automatically governs the "moral" status quo.

[Tony Jay]

Maybe you should properly investigate the meaning of the word "morality".
You are going to find may different definitions based on philosophical viewpoint.
Then you need to ask yourself how and why we have any concept of the idea of morality in the first place - not just you yourself, but humankind through the ages.

The line that you have highlighted, may or may not represent my personal point of view (that was irrelevant to my argument), but rather represents an historical understanding of the word morality. And that in contradistinction to a presented viewpoint of morality that is relative and that can change with one's underwear (somewhat overstated but not by much).

Look at what I said, not as my personal opinion (because I have not ventured that) but rather what it was: a challenge to an illogical argument.

I am not going to add new points - but my request still stands: read the whole thread - a single line out of one post can be made to say anything.

Tony Jay

[Ray]

Tony,
I have investigated such issues and formed an opinion which I believe is based upon rationality.

The word 'morality' is a human concept that goes back thousands of years to the times when nobody knew that the earth was a ball encircling the sun, or had any knowledge of the vastness of the earth's surface and its many continents and oceans, and no inkling of the vastness of the universe with it's billions of galaxies and trillions of stars.

I imagine, rightly or wrongly, but with justifiable reason, that our early ancestors who lived in small communities, would have fought with each other for resources, and in particular, the males would have fought to the death for the privilege of exclusively mating with the females.

As the brain size of these early homo sapiens sub-species increased, and language began to form, allowing a degree of conceptual thought, the Albert Einsteins of the times would have realised that a survival advantage could be achieved if the constant bickering, and fighting over females in the group, was subdued.

So those in charge, who were chieftains of the groups with the smartest advisors, gradually realised that in order to expand the size of the group and make it more successful, they would have to impose certain rules of behaviour, such as forbidding males to kill their rivals for a female, or for any other purpose within the group. Murder became immoral.

In order for the group to expand and prosper, and to reduce infighting, there would have been created rules about marriage, and punishment for adulterers, and so on. Rules which are now described as morality would have been created in order to encourage people to behave in a way which enhanced the prosperity and effictiveness of the group.

However, there's always been a huge problem with enforcing rules. The police force is a modern development. Just a few hundred years ago in England, if your house was burgled, or a relative murdered whilst trekking through the forest, you'd probably have to hire your own detective to find the culprit. If you couldn't afford that, then probably nothing would be done.

Announcing the existence of a divine authority, or Creator God, and the concept of a punishment of 'everlasting hell' for those who broke the rules, plus the inducement of an everlasting heaven for those who obeyed the rules, was a very practical way of controlling people in the absence of an effective police force.

All morality has a practical foundation based upon what was deemed by the 'thinking' members of the group to be the most advantageous behaviour for the group or society to flourish.

Hope I've managed to dispel confusion and muddled thinking on this issue. 

[N80]

In regard to the rest of your response, you keep invoking logic.  However, not once have you shown a logical nexus to support your point (or to speak against mine).  Just saying that something is logical because it fits your paradigm does not, unsurprisingly, make it logical.

That cuts both ways, no? Logical is logical.

Notwithstanding that, your appeal to a transcendent moral source is, by definition, not logical.

It has been stated ad nauseum that I am not appealing to a transcendent source here. I am only stating, as others have more elegantly, that without a transcendent source there are no moral absolutes. Whether I believe in a transcendent source is immaterial. Neither you nor anyone else has made any substantial refutation to this idea. It is as if you can't get past the idea that my beliefs have anything to do with this. They do not.

Again(squared). If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no moral absolutes. That's all that is really at stake here. The logic is incontrovertible. If you think not then disprove it. You do not need to bring my beliefs into it because my beliefs do not affect or inform the logic behind this statement. I'm not the target. The logic is your target. If it is illogical, show me how.

To answer your question about slavery.  Yes, slavery was authoritatively moral at various times and places in history (and was, at the same time, relatively moral and immoral).

Good answer. That means that under certain times and conditions anything can be moral. Again, you're making my point for me. Thanks.

Of interest, despite your refusal to discuss it, is that even your transcendent (theological) source accepted slavery as moral.

I did not refuse. You are just bound and determined to misappropriate almost everything I say. I'm happy to discuss it. It is a complex topic..........that has nothing to do with the logical argument that confronts you. Absolutely nothing.

I'll leave you with this:  Is it moral for a transcendent authority to not make every one equally aware of the absolute morals that exist?

Red herring. Easy answer. It depends on whether the moral authority is wholly powerful and completely good or not.

[JNB_Rare]

I have investigated such issues and formed an opinion which I believe is based upon rationality.

There seems to be a growing consensus in psychology and philosophy that there are two classes of moral process: 1) rational, effortful and explicit, and 2) emotional, quick and intuitive. The controversy remains in how they interact. Certainly, the neural underpinnings of morality are not yet well understood.

I think that (healthy) Theists, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists alike have notions of what is moral and what is not moral. These notions are certainly not universal; anyone might find him/herself at odds with another person (even when they both believe in an absolute moral authority), or general societal mores, or society's laws.

Most are untroubled by the origins of these notions, or whether they are logical or not, except when those notions are challenged, or when the moral issue becomes personal.

In my lifetime, I have known both devout theists and ardent atheists who have grappled with, and sometimes changed their minds on, such issues as premarital sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, corporal punishment, assisted suicide, and even the morality of proselytizing (not an exhaustive list, to be sure). My father and I used to debate such questions often. One of the most erudite men I've ever known was an ex Dominican Priest who used to say "I have not abandoned my God, but I have left my church and the institutionalization of religion". I wish I had been able to discuss that statement with him further, but such was not the nature of our relationship.

I do think it's important that we do not entirely dismiss the emotional, intuitive processes of morality (altruism, empathy, etc.). We've all seen when "rationalized" is touted as rational. We've all seen what happens when someone with a deficient sense of empathy is allowed to take power.

[Farmer]

It has been stated ad nauseum that I am not appealing to a transcendent source here.

I did not refuse. You are just bound and determined to misappropriate almost everything I say.

Except, N80, that I was replying to Tony, and not you.  I never said that YOU were appealing to a transcendent source nor that you refused to do anything.  I most certainly did not misappropriate almost everything you said, because I wasn't responding to you.

I have said all along there are no moral absolutes.  As an aside, I also say there is no proof of an absolute authority (and, as you say, there can therefore be no moral absolutes).

So, perhaps you'd like to try again after realising that my reply came after Tony's and was in respond to him?