by logansrun 62 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There is no objective standard for right and wrong even if a God did exist. God's morality is nothing more than an opinion backed up by absolute power. Might does not make right. Nothing makes "right." Our ethics are a branch of our aesthetics -- personal preferences nothing more.
Discuss.
Bradley
"Might doesn't make right." True.
"Nothing makes right." I don't think so, unless you can argue that murder and theft are justifiable.
Your thesis oversimplifies, and if universally applied would lead to anarchy.
Some ethics are reasonable and necessary.
"Nothing makes right." I don't think so, unless you can argue that murder and theft are justifiable.
I don't argue that at all. I only argue that there is no objective standard outside of ourselves (both as individuals and as a species) that we can look to for values and morality. Can I prove in a logical way through some type of equation that what we normally consider heinous crimes are immoral and "wrong"? No, I cannot, and neither can anyone else. We make those decisions based on our own volitions and preferences, nothing more.
Your thesis oversimplifies, and if universally applied would lead to anarchy.
Not if we prefer a non-anarchistic society. It's a choice, though. Think about it.
Some ethics are reasonable and necessary.
Agreed. But that only says that to function as a society we need to be pragmatic and set some rules. There is nothing that forces us to set those rules and there are no rules we can look to outside ourselves. Ethics is a human construct. We created it.
B.
to function as a society we need to be pragmatic and set some rules.
That's what forces us to make rules. For example without traffic signals and rules to accompany them, we'd never get to where we're going. We absolutely need rules so that people don't wipe each other out.
Same goes for the laws against murder and taking personal property. Society couldn't function if those things went unpunished.
It may be based on pragmatism, but the needs are universal (maybe "absolute" isn't the correct term).
Can I prove in a logical way through some type of equation that what we normally consider heinous crimes are immoral and "wrong"? No, I cannot, and neither can anyone else.
Yea....ya can. It's called common frickin sense! Put that college bullshite in the garbage and take a look at reality. If you screw another man wife......he's gonna be pissed, your wife will be pissed, and your kids will be mad at you. That's fact. That's reality. That's common sense of how man behaves whether he's been indoctrinated or not. If you take something from someone that wants that "something".....their gonna be pissed. Thats fact. No equation needed.
Sometimes I'm glad I never went to college.
Gumby
Gumby,
*sigh* There is a big difference between what you call "common sense" and logic. The point of my bringing this up is not to "bash" common sense (it's more important to have than intelligence, really) but simply to foster discussion to help us think differently.
There is no absolute, logically coherant reason as to why we should do anything -- whether God exists or not. We are, as Sartre put it, "condemned to be free."
B.
log·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l
n.
Sounds like plain ol 'common sense to me.
Cannot common sense be considered a system of reasoning?
Is common sense....Valid reasoning?
Gumby
gumby,
Pick up any introductory college textbook on "Logic" and you will find that it really has nothing to do with "common sense." For that matter, I'm not too keen on using the term "common sense" as this implies there is some sort of universal viewpoint as to how we should live our lives. A quick perusal at the cultures of the world will find a virtual cornecopeia of different forms of "common sense." (In some cultures all young men are to perform oral sex on their elders. They think it's "common sense.")
Methinks you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
B.
addendum: I will grant that there are generally common human desires, such as the drive to reproduce or to survive. From these desires grow our system of ethics and what you probably call "common sense." All the same, there is no overriding reason as to why this must be the case.
Common sense
, according to Sir W. Hamilton: (a) ``The complement of those cognitions or convictions which we receive from nature, which all men possess in common, and by which they test the truth of knowledge and the morality of actions.'' (b) ``The faculty of first principles.'' These two are the philosophical significations. (c) ``Such ordinary complement of intelligence, that,if a person be deficient therein, he is accounted mad or foolish.'' (d) When the substantive is emphasized: ``Native practical intelligence, natural prudence, mother wit, tact in behavior, acuteness in the observation of character, in contrast to habits of acquired learning or of speculation.''
Your proly right bradley....I don't fully inderstand.....but I have an idea.
I started a similar thread which dealt and why we percieve the things we do. If mans enviroment and influences were changed........would our "logic" be the same as now? Some logic is cultural for sure.
Gumby
Gumbastard
logansrun
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
D Dog
