Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Kyo · 11-19-2003, 10:50 PM

Points:
- There are no a priori morals. Your own morals, then, are the result of what you have been taught, what you have observed, what you have felt, and, most importantly, how your mind has arranged and combined all of the above.

- I argue that there is no such thing is a 'correct' or 'right' moral. No one has any more or any less moral authority than anyone else - so long as they are consistent in their moral system I believe it is impossible to tell them that they are wrong, no matter how much at odds their ideas may be with the general consensus.

- Laws are systems of crime and punishment, rather than representations of right and wrong. Their very form indicates this - the wording of the laws say absolutely nothing except for the exact nature of the crime and the agreed punishment to be inflicted for said crime. In order for a law to remain in effect, however, it is usually necessary for a majority of the population it affects to agree to it - though this is not always the case (such as in a dictatorship). The similarities between laws and morals in the United States and much of the West is merely a happy coincidence, a 'victory of democracy,' for the patriots amongst us - it is not an indication of the relationship between laws and morals.

- There do exist moral systems which revolve only around logic, starting from a minimal set of general assumptions or laws, from which all else is built. The ever-popular doctrine of Utilitarianism, for instance, is based on the overriding principle of maximizing happiness. The assumption, of course, is that happiness is the ultimate goal of human existance, and that there exists absolutely nothing else which could possibly trump happiness in any situation. At this point, the task is twofold - to prove, or at least convince a large majority, that happiness is, indeed, really that important, and to narrow the broad rule of maximizing happiness down to specific examples so that it can be applied in practical situations where the concept of 'happiness' may not be so clear.

- The safest and most productive way to discuss morals is to first establish a base of assumptions and axioms which all involved in the discuss agree upon. From there, you can build a system of morals and discuss moral implications in the context of those axioms. It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to disclaim that cows are sacred. However, I, myself, do not believe that they are, and as such I consume quite a large quantity of their body parts on a daily basis. For me to hold a discussion on this topic with someone who holds cows sacred is absurd - from the very start our viewpoints are exactly opposed, with no justification possible to reconcile the disagreement.

11-19-2003, 10:50 PM	#7 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	Points: - There are no a priori morals. Your own morals, then, are the result of what you have been taught, what you have observed, what you have felt, and, most importantly, how your mind has arranged and combined all of the above. - I argue that there is no such thing is a 'correct' or 'right' moral. No one has any more or any less moral authority than anyone else - so long as they are consistent in their moral system I believe it is impossible to tell them that they are wrong, no matter how much at odds their ideas may be with the general consensus. - Laws are systems of crime and punishment, rather than representations of right and wrong. Their very form indicates this - the wording of the laws say absolutely nothing except for the exact nature of the crime and the agreed punishment to be inflicted for said crime. In order for a law to remain in effect, however, it is usually necessary for a majority of the population it affects to agree to it - though this is not always the case (such as in a dictatorship). The similarities between laws and morals in the United States and much of the West is merely a happy coincidence, a 'victory of democracy,' for the patriots amongst us - it is not an indication of the relationship between laws and morals. - There do exist moral systems which revolve only around logic, starting from a minimal set of general assumptions or laws, from which all else is built. The ever-popular doctrine of Utilitarianism, for instance, is based on the overriding principle of maximizing happiness. The assumption, of course, is that happiness is the ultimate goal of human existance, and that there exists absolutely nothing else which could possibly trump happiness in any situation. At this point, the task is twofold - to prove, or at least convince a large majority, that happiness is, indeed, really that important, and to narrow the broad rule of maximizing happiness down to specific examples so that it can be applied in practical situations where the concept of 'happiness' may not be so clear. - The safest and most productive way to discuss morals is to first establish a base of assumptions and axioms which all involved in the discuss agree upon. From there, you can build a system of morals and discuss moral implications in the context of those axioms. It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to disclaim that cows are sacred. However, I, myself, do not believe that they are, and as such I consume quite a large quantity of their body parts on a daily basis. For me to hold a discussion on this topic with someone who holds cows sacred is absurd - from the very start our viewpoints are exactly opposed, with no justification possible to reconcile the disagreement. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.