Academic Freedom Bill of Rights: or, Doesn't Everyone Love Orwellian Language?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon
OK.

Mos tpe opl eth ink tha tmo ral ity has tod owi the mot ion sbe cau set hey hav bee nfo ole dby cra pph ilo sop hyt hat has mad eth emd oub tth eob vio usw ays wed eli ber ate mor all y.

ok. translate it out of 3 letter words.

[Agathon]

"Most people think that morality has to do with emotions because they have been fooled by crap philosophy that has made them doubt the obvious ways we deliberate morally".

For example: if confronted with a brutal and senseless murder, many people believe that it is intelligible to ask the question "is this really wrong?". That in my view is like asking whether a leaf is "really green".

Morality is a practice with obvious rules that everyone knows and follows. Disputes only really arise in difficult cases and when people are trying to justify immoral behaviour.

People have also been affected by religion and relativism. Neither has anything to do with morality but tends to skew people's opinions a bit.

For example: many people have convinced themselves that a life of mindless promiscuity can be beneficial to you. Generally, most people who say this kind of crap either do it in an attempt to justify a particular act of wrongdoing or say it, but would never dream of doing it themselves because they know it is wrong.

One result of this is that moral arguments become unnecessarily tedious as people deny the obvious in order not to lose. As I said, it is rather like if someone constantly denied that a green object was in fact green or that the rules of chess weren't what they are. In 99% of cases they are lying.

Fortunately, people tend to do the right thing more often than they think it.

Our core basic understanding of morality (what we actually do) is mostly Aristotelian, although with more emphasis on sympathy and compassion than he had. However, most people's explicit understanding of morality (what the say) is closer to Mill.

[Odin]

I am not a Nihilist, other than that, I don't know what the hell I am. prehaps some type of Humanist, maybe...

[Agathon]

I am not a Nihilist, other than that, I don't know what the hell I am. prehaps some type of Humanist, maybe...

People say they are nihilists, but if they really were they'd immediately kill themselves.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon

I am not a Nihilist, other than that, I don't know what the hell I am. prehaps some type of Humanist, maybe...

People say they are nihilists, but if they really were they'd immediately kill themselves.

[Agathon]

It proves my essential point. People say and believe all sorts of garbage about morality, but they all believe much the same thing when it comes to actually doing stuff.

[Odin]

I took a SelectSmart poll and got this:

#1 Kant
#2 Nietzsche
#3 Hume
#4 Aristotle
#5 Sextus Empiricus
#6 Protagoras
#7 Plato
#8 Aquinas
#9 Augustine

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

I also do think that it is very reasonable to say that relativism moves one towards amorality. I mean if "wrong" is just a conciet, than what's the big deal with murder?

The basis for my morality is derived from my emotions, so isn't a purely intellectual conceit that can be dismissed at will (like, say, a mathematial axiom could be). I feel very strongly about the morality of killing. I also know that people can feel differently than myself about killing (say, some people believe that the state killing out of revenge can be moral), but that doesn't diminish my beliefs.

Why do you belive in an absolute morality?

You're accounting for differences in moral beliefs with differences in people's feelings. I remember you once saying that you prefer to use reason to determine right from wrong to using your feelings. If everyone used reason to compensate for their feelings wouldn't they all come to the same conclusions.

[Ramo]

I don't think I've said that, Kid. I may have said that I use reason to distill a coherent basis for my morality, from my emotions.

Well if you don't, then rationally there is no problem with murder.

Yes, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with murder. For there is no intrinsic definition for which social interactions are "wrong." Can you tell me where this definition comes from, and what it is?

For example: if confronted with a brutal and senseless murder, many people believe that it is intelligible to ask the question "is this really wrong?". That in my view is like asking whether a leaf is "really green".

[...]

One result of this is that moral arguments become unnecessarily tedious as people deny the obvious in order not to lose. As I said, it is rather like if someone constantly denied that a green object was in fact green or that the rules of chess weren't what they are. In 99% of cases they are lying.

I strongly feel that the death penalty is extremely immoral; some conservatives feel that it is perfectly moral. Who's the liar?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't think I've said that, Kid. I may have said that I use reason to distill a coherent basis for my morality, from my emotions.

Why is it moral to punish children? We get a negative feeling from it, but we consider it moral because we've used reason to determine that it's the best thing to do. Sometimes we're wrong and we punish too hard or too little, but there is an absolute correct amount to punish the child, although people will disagree about the amount of punishment to be given. The absolute right amount of punishment is the amount that will help the child the most.

[Agathon]

Yes, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with murder. For there is no intrinsic definition for which social interactions are "wrong." Can you tell me where this definition comes from, and what it is?

Did you not read what I said? Claiming that it is a matter of definition is already to make the mistake I was railing against.

[Ramo]

1. That was responding to GP.
2. Proof by bald assertion may pass muster in "philosophy" but not with me. You haven't justified it.
3. We tend to share similar emotions wrt some basic social interactions, but we also tend to place different levels of value on such interactions. That's why we have political parties instead of precisely the same ideology. And then there are sociopaths.

Why is it moral to punish children? We get a negative feeling from it, but we consider it moral because we've used reason to determine that it's the best thing to do. Sometimes we're wrong and we punish too hard or too little, but there is an absolute correct amount to punish the child, although people will disagree about the amount of punishment to be given. The absolute right amount of punishment is the amount that will help the child the most.

As I said, we use reason to distill a logically coherent basis for your morality from your emotions, to help resolve conflicting emotions.

We certainly don't use pure reason wrt punishing our kids. Since we don't even have a rational basis on which to say that helping our kids is even moral. Our moralities are based on an emotional foundation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

Why is it moral to punish children? We get a negative feeling from it, but we consider it moral because we've used reason to determine that it's the best thing to do. Sometimes we're wrong and we punish too hard or too little, but there is an absolute correct amount to punish the child, although people will disagree about the amount of punishment to be given. The absolute right amount of punishment is the amount that will help the child the most.

As I said, we use reason to distill a logically coherent basis for your morality from your emotions, to help resolve conflicting emotions.

We certainly don't use pure reason wrt punishing our kids. Since we don't even have a rational basis on which to say that helping our kids is even moral. Our moralities are based on an emotional foundation.

I'm not talking about the basis of morality. I'm talking about the conclusions we reach. We don't reach different conclusions because we have different levels of feelings about social interactions. We reach different conclusions because we either use reason properly, improperly, or not at all.

Those of us who use reason properly don't trust our feelings completely. We only have some control over our feelings and they often decieve us. We shouldn't come to conclusions over motality just because it is based on our feelings.

[Agathon]

2. Proof by bald assertion may pass muster in "philosophy" but not with me. You haven't justified it.

What if it is incapable of justification? (Particularly conceptual justification) What more can you do to show that something is green to someone else other than point at it? That is ultimately what morality is like.

As I said before, people's behaviour betrays their Aristotelianism, whatever they might say. That's not a conceptual proof, but that is all you can really expect.

You're asking for a sort of proof that doesn't really exist and isn't applicable to morality. Perhaps you should think about whether your question makes sense before you ask it.