StarGateWars Forums

Jedi~Tank wrote:Morality cannot be measured, and cannot be created, and cannot be scientifically explained. Morality is the compass of ones being that guides them to the right or wrong. There is no religious basis for morality, religion is based on morality

Laws do not give us morality, morality gives us our laws..as with conduct and other things...for out of the wellspring of things we say and do is an indicator of our morality, not the creation of it.

i agree about laws being the off-springs of morality, i can see your point about religion (although, i don't thing any half decent system lord in SG-1 will see it that way...), but i still have one problem with that.
where does morality stem from?
what do you mean cannot be created?
is it the basis for everything?
is it merely an illusion of our minds (that's how i read "compass of ones being"...)?
can you not make moral decisions, since they are inforced on you by said compass (keep in mind that kant, for one, states than an action that is not against a personal desire cannot by definition be moral)?

you see, the philosophical method is pretty much a rigouros process of math-like logic (when at it's best). it starts at a couple of basic assumptions (a-priory axioms, if you like), and builds over these axioms.
to say something about moral, you need a definition of "Good". if you can't clearly define what is good, or moral, you can't build a real philosophy.

now, this thread isn't ethics, it's meta-ethics. still, you need some basic assumptions to carry your argument. your only giving your conclusions.

oh, and it didn't answer the original question, which (and correct me if i'm wrong) was: is moral headed in a ploralist direction or in a dogmatic direction?

hitchkok wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:Morality cannot be measured, and cannot be created, and cannot be scientifically explained. Morality is the compass of ones being that guides them to the right or wrong. There is no religious basis for morality, religion is based on morality

Laws do not give us morality, morality gives us our laws..as with conduct and other things...for out of the wellspring of things we say and do is an indicator of our morality, not the creation of it.

i agree about laws being the off-springs of morality, i can see your point about religion (although, i don't thing any half decent system lord in SG-1 will see it that way...), but i still have one problem with that.
where does morality stem from?
what do you mean cannot be created?
is it the basis for everything?
is it merely an illusion of our minds (that's how i read "compass of ones being"...)?
can you not make moral decisions, since they are inforced on you by said compass (keep in mind that kant, for one, states than an action that is not against a personal desire cannot by definition be moral)?

you see, the philosophical method is pretty much a rigouros process of math-like logic (when at it's best). it starts at a couple of basic assumptions (a-priory axioms, if you like), and builds over these axioms.
to say something about moral, you need a definition of "Good". if you can't clearly define what is good, or moral, you can't build a real philosophy.

now, this thread isn't ethics, it's meta-ethics. still, you need some basic assumptions to carry your argument. your only giving your conclusions.

oh, and it didn't answer the original question, which (and correct me if i'm wrong) was: is moral headed in a ploralist direction or in a dogmatic direction?

I disagree with Kant on that point, their is nothing wrong with enjoying bringing happiness to others. I believe that the enjoyment derived is an important and inherent trait if a person is to make moral decisions. This is because i also believe shared happiness and prosperity is the goal underlining any ethical principles. Desire is the push that keeps the forward momentum of human progress. Without desire we might as well not exist.

Also, I think Jedi is talking about moral intuition, basically an ingrained quality of our species to make moral choices in order for us to better live as a group. That they were derived through the ascension of our species and its roots lay in the changes of our world and essentially the universe over time.

Basically in attempting to adapt to ever changing circumstances in this world we derived ethical principles. So i think one could make the argument, that ethical principles were derived over time from the fabric of the space with live in; inherent principles of how to function in this reality.

Thriller wrote:I disagree with Kant on that point, their is nothing wrong with enjoying bringing happiness others. I believe that the enjoyment derived is an important and inherent trait if a person is to make moral decisions. This is because i also believe shared happiness and prosperity is goal of underlining any ethical principles. Desire is the push that keeps the forward momentum of human progress. Without desire we might as well not exist.

i think kant's point is more subtle, and it does have some merit to it.
but my main question is about the second part

Thriller wrote:Also, I think Jedi is talking about moral intuition, basically an ingrained quality of our species to make moral choices in order for us to better live as a group. That they were derived through the ascension of our species and its roots lay in the changes of our world and essentially the universe over time.

Basically in attempting to adept to ever changing circumstances in this world we derived ethical principles. So i think one could make the argument, that ethical principles were derived over time from the fabric of the space with live in; inherent principles of how to function in this reality.

so, different set of moral values are indicative of different levels of develompent?
and i'll return to my example, is it wrong for one society to force it's set of moral values on another?
is it enlightning that society, or forcing your own perspective?
i believe that answering this question will answer the "absolute/relative" dichotomy

hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I disagree with Kant on that point, their is nothing wrong with enjoying bringing happiness others. I believe that the enjoyment derived is an important and inherent trait if a person is to make moral decisions. This is because i also believe shared happiness and prosperity is goal of underlining any ethical principles. Desire is the push that keeps the forward momentum of human progress. Without desire we might as well not exist.

i think kant's point is more subtle, and it does have some merit to it.
but my main question is about the second part

Thriller wrote:Also, I think Jedi is talking about moral intuition, basically an ingrained quality of our species to make moral choices in order for us to better live as a group. That they were derived through the ascension of our species and its roots lay in the changes of our world and essentially the universe over time.

Basically in attempting to adept to ever changing circumstances in this world we derived ethical principles. So i think one could make the argument, that ethical principles were derived over time from the fabric of the space with live in; inherent principles of how to function in this reality.

so, different set of moral values are indicative of different levels of develompent?
and i'll return to my example, is it wrong for one society to force it's set of moral values on another?
is it enlightning that society, or forcing your own perspective?
i believe that answering this question will answer the "absolute/relative" dichotomy

Well if some of kant does have merit and i would be more than happy to discuss that as well.

I can't remember who's work discussed ethics as tyranny, could remind me? I think it was Nietzsche?

but anyway

the battle of superior morality is and old one and fuel of many conflicts in history. Its the victor that desides new morality. I would much rather that battle be fought through reasoned discussion like we are doing now, than through bloodshed. But, it still remains that when moral ideals conflict one will trump the other.

I suppose you are getting that morality is always subjective since it is always changing through cultural clashes. Where even the worst acts of depravity have been justified by the victors. That, it is in itself, a tool of subjugation to the group where justice is only used in enforcing the balance of power. A cutler's ethos is used to maintain the ethical principles through which the advocates seized power.

was this what you were getting at?

Thriller wrote:I can't remember who's work discussed ethics as tyranny, could remind me? I think it was Nietzsche?

you might mean machiavelly?

Thriller wrote:but anyway

the battle of superior morality is and old one and fuel of many conflicts in history. Its the victor that desides new morality. I would much rather that battle be fought through reasoned discussion like we are doing now, than through bloodshed. But, it still remains that when moral ideals conflict one will trump the other.

I suppose you are getting that morality is always subjective since it is always changing through cultural clashes. Where even the worst acts of depravity have been justified by the victors. That, it is in itself, a tool of subjugation to the group where justice is only used in enforcing the balance of power. A cutler's ethos is used to maintain the ethical principles through which the advocates seized power.

was this what you were getting at?

i'm not actually getting at anything.
more like playing devil's advocate.
personally, i don't think there are "universal moral values", so you might call me a relativist.

Thriller wrote:Well if some of kant does have merit and i would be more than happy to discuss that as well.

the way i read it, kant states that to be considered truly moral, a decision has to be made when encountering a dillema beetwen your desires and your moral belief. decision that are not made via such dillema aren't neccesery i-moral, rather a-moral.
it means true moral is overcoming yourself. a sort of mind over matter if you will. while desires do play a great role in the progree of the human race, the ability to overcome them can at times play a greater one.
kant also brings into play the "level of gratification" argument (since he wrote german, i learned it in hebrew, and this discussion is in english, some difference in terms is unavoidable, but if you learned kant you can figure out what argument i am reffering to) stating that, basicly man's advantage over the beast is his ability to feel higher levels of gratification. while a pig can only enjoy his food (and an occasional mate), man has many higher levels.
this relates to overcoming yourself, since a gratification in choosing the moral choice is unavoidable, but it is of a higer level, and does not mean you didn't overcome youre basic desires.

my problem with Kant is more over the semantic. It could probably be a loss in translation or maybe not, but ill just clarify why i do not agree with his view of morality.

Kant thinks morality is the overcoming of desire, while i believe morality is a desire unto itself. The appetitive side of human nature, or as kant would consider our baser instincts, is a constant fluctuation of sometimes competitive or counterproductive motives and behaviors. From this disorder is where i believe the desire to control these appetites derives itself. So morality is of a higher class of desire but still of the same category as the other "lower" motivators.

Basically my take is that Kant believes one must overcome yourself to be moral while i believe morality is achieved through understanding oneself and controlling your baser desires. You can only ever understand through your own perspective, I think it also follows that any choice moral or immoral must align with that perspective. With views of Good and Evil also following as extensions of personal understanding every choice made has come with some lvl of self gratification.

Kant was also a theist if i remember correctly so i believe the churches ideas during his time of man as inherently sinful and unholy and the importance being lade upon over coming our nature instead of understanding it. May account for the differences in our understanding.

Ultimately, morality is dependent upon assumptions.

If we are willing to assume certain things, certain conclusions about what is right and what is wrong will follow.

If one assumes that all humans are created by an omnipotent divinity, any individual distinction between right and wrong will rest upon one's understanding of:

1. The divinity's intent.
2. The divinity's word.

If one assumes that humanity must work towards a given purpose, any individual distinction between right and wrong will rest upon one's understanding of:

1. The purpose towards which humanity must work.
2. The specific contribution that the individual must make towards that purpose.

And so forth...

Essentially, morality is comprised of the conclusions that result from certain assumptions. Morality is relative to those assumptions. The reality of the individual assumptions may, however, be absolute, but is there a way to distinguish?


Agapooka

Thriller wrote:Kant thinks morality is the overcoming of desire, while i believe morality is a desire unto itself. The appetitive side of human nature, or as kant would consider our baser instincts, is a constant fluctuation of sometimes competitive or counterproductive motives and behaviors. From this disorder is where i believe the desire to control these appetites derives itself. So morality is of a higher class of desire but still of the same category as the other "lower" motivators.

Basically my take is that Kant believes one must overcome yourself to be moral while i believe morality is achieved through understanding oneself and controlling your baser desires. You can only ever understand through your own perspective, I think it also follows that any choice moral or immoral must align with that perspective. With views of Good and Evil also following as extensions of personal understanding every choice made has come with some lvl of self gratification.

kant did not define morality as overcoming desires.
he stated that for an action to be moral, it must over come desires.
the difference is subtle: while in the first line, overcoming your desire is a sufficient term to define an action as a moral one, in the later it neccesery term, but NOT a sufficient one.
appart from that, that is very well put.

Agapooka wrote:Ultimately, morality is dependent upon assumptions.

If we are willing to assume certain things, certain conclusions about what is right and what is wrong will follow.

If one assumes that all humans are created by an omnipotent divinity, any individual distinction between right and wrong will rest upon one's understanding of:

1. The divinity's intent.
2. The divinity's word.

If one assumes that humanity must work towards a given purpose, any individual distinction between right and wrong will rest upon one's understanding of:

1. The purpose towards which humanity must work.
2. The specific contribution that the individual must make towards that purpose.

And so forth...

Essentially, morality is comprised of the conclusions that result from certain assumptions. Morality is relative to those assumptions. The reality of the individual assumptions may, however, be absolute, but is there a way to distinguish?


Agapooka

this is very well put.
however, for the sake of playing devil's advocate, it just brings us back to square one.
basicly, you said there is no such thing as morality. or, more precisely, that it is a means to an end, a conclusion, rather than an assumption.
that it is, in effect, an invention, a figment of our imagination.
what if i were to suggest that humanity's goal is to be moral?
or that humanity has no goal?
by taking your definition, what is to stop humanity from becoming nihilist? or hedonist? are those not the more logicals paths to take, considering this?
as a meta-ethics argument, yours is an excellent one. only thing is, it annihiltes the entire branch of ethics itself.

An assumption must not necessarily be without any basis whatsoever.

Also, if one is willing to make the assumption that humanity's goal is to be moral, it is reasonable to assume that that morality, which it is believed it is humanity's goal to pursue, rests upon other assumptions.

There is even the possibility of a tautological assumption. For example, if one assumes that the purpose of humanity is to be moral, they may use this to infer that interfering with the wellbeing of another human being also interferes with their ability to fulfil their purpose, therefore it is immoral to do so.

I am not willing to claim that the most logical conclusion to come to is a nihilistic one. Essentially, morals are but conclusions that spring forth from assumptions. I believe that we should start by understanding the assumptions, which may or may not be absolute, as opposed to the relative conclusions drawn therefrom.

In the end, it may very well be that some assumptions are more justifiable than others. It may be that some assumptions are false and some are true. Which are true and which are false will determine the most logical conclusion to come to. Considering the nature of those assumptions, it may be very difficult to determine which are true and which are false. It is likely that an individual who attempts to do this will use assumptions of their own to come to *their* conclusion on the nature of others' assumptions.


Agapooka