The death of critical theory/analysis?

[Capt Dizle]

Ned cracks me up. Period.

[Dracon II]

the death of the death of the author?

[Whaleboy]

The idea of a foundation of a moral system says absolutely nothing about the objectivity of morality

Agreed. I say it is down to our emotional state and thus create "my way of doing things*. That lends itself to subjectivism. Thats my way of concurring, not in confusion .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly, for example, I can never reason with creationists because the subject is so emotional and thier denial so strong.

They can probably say likewize with you . Atheists have great emotions as well.

[Whaleboy]

Logic for use of convincing all but those with the strongest and practiced sense of logic is useless. Thats not what critical thinkers should be out to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I guess my bluff has been called.

My opposition to war has nothing to do with how I feel about war, but rather, certain ethical principles. For example, I start with a belief in human life having intrinsic worth and value, apart from that of society, and that this value for all intents and purposes ought to be infinite.

Now this prevents some wars, but not in the case of self-defense. To go further requires a few other beliefs, and these are more radical.

First of all, there is the belief that "be afraid not of the one who can claim the body, but rather him that can claim both body and soul in hell. " The principle can be generalised, that self-preservation is much less valuable than right moral conduct. For if a Christian can expect eternity, it makes little sense to fear death.

But we're not quite there yet. What we need is an overriding principle, such as "love your enemy, do good to him who curses you," From this perspective it makes little sense to strike back at an assailant.

Now, there are some increasingly difficult moral situations that test these beliefs, but I'm not going to go into futher detail. I challenge Whaleboy to find any indications of distaste towards war, confirming his assessment of emotivism.

[Whaleboy]

My opposition to war has nothing to do with how I feel about war, but rather, certain ethical principles. For example, I start with a belief in human life having intrinsic worth and value, apart from that of society, and that this value for all intents and purposes ought to be infinite.

It is your belief in human life that is overlaying the emotional response. Any disdain for war on top of that is based upon that premise. Needless to say I dispute your use of the word intrinsic when regarding humans as an objective statement, accordingly your use of absolutes but we agree on conclusion so its all good! .

For if a Christian can expect eternity, it makes little sense to fear death.

You'll find philosophy to be far more rewarding if you ignore Christianity

But we're not quite there yet. What we need is an overriding principle, such as "love your enemy, do good to him who curses you," From this perspective it makes little sense to strike back at an assailant.

That is not, in my opinion of course, the killer logical argument against violence. Mine is the hatred of the pointlessness (even by existentialist standards as it defiles human subjectivity) of the suffering caused thereof, for nothing more than glorified penis envy.

I challenge Whaleboy to find any indications of distaste towards war, confirming his assessment of emotivism.

Indications where? I'm sorry I don't understand your question, can you rephrase?

[Mr. Harley]

Nice thread.

To stir the pot a little more.

Moral systems have as one premise that the "sacred writings" are the source of "truth". Since most sacred writings have multiple authors, or authors who were not from a rationalist perspective (almost tautological statement, that) then they are going to have to attempt to reconcile them, often at the cost of logic.

Ethics attempts to develop a self-consistant set of beliefs. While they can be valueless, you find that an "evil" set of ethics usually falls apart. The premise, for example, of free unregulated markets are good is fine, until you suddenly discover that it is your family member who is maimed or dead, and that the company has already gone bankrupt. Social-darwinists are even worse, never wanting the bigger fish to eat THEM

This misses the issue of emotional factors, succinctly put by many posters here. While rationalists design their dry set of ethics, the leader who understands the power of emotion instead gets his moral system imposed. Then you have morality legislation, attempting to impose standards on internal or consenting behavior, using the definition of "BAD" to further these aims. In the US you have one good example, the villification of homosexuals. Let's not even discuss Sharia....

James P. Hogan wrote "Voyage from Yesteryear" in 1982, positing exactly a rationalist society. It's a nice read. Implicit to his choice of setting is that it cannot happen here. At most we can hope for people using rational arguments to examine their emotional premises. However, the more likely result is the one from an earlier poster, sadly: "People are stupid."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue

No, pacifists would form them into one premise. It is wrong to kill except in self defence. If someone believes it is always wrong to kill, then that is what they believe. You are right that you cannot believe in both of those above as written, but its a question of semantics. Simply run them together and add an "except" to join them.

Drogue, I agree. The if the premise, logically analyzed, results in an unacceptable result, the premise must be modified to accommodate the exception.

But the end result, I submit, must be acceptable in order for the premise to be a statement of morality.

On war, one can argue that there would be no advance in civilization at all, ever, if the people had not taken up arms to overthrown tyrannies. Thus the statement that no war is ever justified must be false.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, when one is passionate about a belief it is because one substitutes emotion for logic, faith for reason.

[Mr. Harley]

There is one alternative model for that though. You can use passion to ignite your interest, and use rationality to investigate it. The best of both worlds. Almost never happens, but I just had to bring up the exception that proves the point, and a few philosophers have actually achieved it. Unless we're using passion differently here. Which we have been know to do (use a word differently) .