Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

ptw


but what is watching

[birdy51]

Morality seems to follow the most accepted truth of it's society. Something is only wrong when we call it wrong, and something can be either more wrong or less wrong in the eyes of others. That or it's acceptable.

That said, the moral man is then one who constrains himself the fabric of our collective moral reality. Whether that means he loves killing babies and eating their soft flesh is irrelevant , so long as he plays by our collective rules, which would bar him from baby killing. If he is outside of our moral society, then he is likely to either forced to assimilate into the greater whole or face potential persecution.

But on a less heavy note, I like Kant. The idea that eating babies is morally irresponsible pleases me because without babies, we as a human race will sort of stop existing. It's a very simple way of pointing out why it's poor form to eat your children or your neighbor's children.

[saigo]

Wouldn't that make slavery moral, prior to the 18th century?

[Reelya]

Well it's considered o.k. to kill the babies of other species, in fact most people think you're weird if you make a fuss about it. But of course it totally depends on the species in question. Killing lambs is ok because lamb tastes better than mutton. Killing puppies is not ok, unless you're in some particular societies where dog is a food.

So the morality of animal baby killing is definitely tied to economics more than anything (economics in the broadest sense: survival and procreation). A sheep baby needs less resources than a dog baby. That could be stretched to include human babies. The resources needed to produce human babies for consumption would be counter-productive, especially when you factor in the lost economic output of the pregnant woman. Naturally, any instinctive morals would line up with the survival aspect.

[Angle]

Posting to watch!

[feelotraveller]

Hm, so a couple of questions...

Are we sure - how are we to know - that morality exists at all (that it is not an illusionary concept)?  Yeah peer pressure exists, but morality...

And, if not an illusion, what makes it a property of groups and not individuals (or below...)?

That is - in more technical speechmaking - why not nihilism?  (I.e. what could moral relativism invoke to make itself 'right' whilst remaining relativist?)

[NRDL]

Moral relativism is more practical in day to day survival.  Moral nihilism, absence of meaning and all that, by definition doesn't provide any framework.  What kind of sentient species could reproduce and survive whose only reaction to external stimuli is "literally none of this matters in the end, and any belief is false or imaginary."

[feelotraveller]

Huh?  Since when did bumping into a door become a 'moral' matter?  Doors and pain don't stop being real just because morality might never have a meaning.  And it is morality we are discussing.  (Not sure how 'none of this matters' would equate with 'peer pressure exists', perhaps you could explain?)

Anyway, the main point is the challenge raised to moral relativism - how does it stop itself from being moral nihilism without introducing a universalist basis?

[BFEL]

Moral relativism is more practical in day to day survival.  Moral nihilism, absence of meaning and all that, by definition doesn't provide any framework.  What kind of sentient species could reproduce and survive whose only reaction to external stimuli is "literally none of this matters in the end, and any belief is false or imaginary."

The kind that reads xkcd?

But yeah, as an existentialist (I.E. Nihilism, but happier) the "literally nothing matters" thing doesn't make me suddenly wanna jump in a woodchipper.

[NRDL]

how does it stop itself from being moral nihilism without introducing a universalist basis?

Define universalist basis, in the context of philosophy, my brain and google isn't working properly.  Plus, when I said day to day survival, I meant a more general "overcoming the existential angst of daily drudgery" sort of thing.

[birdy51]

Wouldn't that make slavery moral, prior to the 18th century?

Unfortunately, yes. Societies build their own moral code. Which isn't always a good thing since people can often not be a good thing.

That said, human beings also have the capacity to convince others to their point of view, which is something I blissfully ignored in my own ramblings. This acceptance of new ideas can also lead to a morality shift as people experience varying 'new awakenings' of moral thought.

Well it's considered o.k. to kill the babies of other species, in fact most people think you're weird if you make a fuss about it. But of course it totally depends on the species in question. Killing lambs is ok because lamb tastes better than mutton. Killing puppies is not ok, unless you're in some particular societies where dog is a food.

So the morality of animal baby killing is definitely tied to economics more than anything (economics in the broadest sense: survival and procreation). A sheep baby needs less resources than a dog baby. That could be stretched to include human babies. The resources needed to produce human babies for consumption would be counter-productive, especially when you factor in the lost economic output of the pregnant woman. Naturally, any instinctive morals would line up with the survival aspect.

I can accept this as a counter-argument, though it doesn't quite touch on the point I was trying to make. Animals tend to fall outside most moral lines and fall into a troublesome world of 'Ok, how do we treat this cow if it's not human?' I don't see them as equals to humans, so it is difficult for myself to make leap where I would consider them as anything but food, threats, or potential companions.

[TempAcc]

(I'm going out of a limb here and consider that when people say babykilling they also mean abortion, for the purpose of the second part of the argument)

It is reasonable, considering only a species' own collective survival instinct, to think killing babies ia very bad thing. The whole comparison with animals is innocuous as human beings are intrinsically different than any other lifeform we know, and animals are not considered persons or actual members of our society, although they can have some rights. If killing some animal's baby is useful for our survival in one way or another, then it can be considered a good thing morally. Killing your own babies, however, is a pretty terrible thing in regards to how evolution and survival works in nature, since you're essentially preventing your genes from being passed on, which is terrible both on a collective and individual evolutionary level. As a consequence its not surprising at all that society has, in general, naturally opposed these actions. Aditionaly, while killing of babies does happen in nature, this does not essentially mean that it is a good thing for the species that practices it, as many animals have developed many terrible and self destructive habits through their evolution.

One could argue that babykilling can be considered morally good if it is done to preserve the life of a person that is already formed and is contributing to society and the species as a whole, which is why abortion is legal if its done solely to preserve the mother's own life (this is one of the few examples in which its possible to infer that the right to live is relative, not absolute, and that equality is also, legally, a relative concept, as the mother's life is considered more valuable than the baby's potential life, to the point that sacrificing that for the benefit of the mother's life is considered preferable to risking losing both the mother and the baby). This is why legislations across the world that criminalize abortion often have exceptions such as these. Another one is abortion in pregnancies that result from rape.

However, these exceptions are accepted because these are dire situations involving individual rights that, under a modern civilized outlook, are not considered reasonable to sacrifice in exchange for absolute preservation of a baby's right to live. This does not mean that, under normal circumstances, one could just sacrifice a baby's life to serve the whims of one person or another, because under normal circumstances such sacrifices are not considered legally reasonable. This is because the arguments against babykilling in general are not purely religious (unlike some people like to believe), but also sociological, bioethical and, of course, legal.

[NJW2000]

Hm, so a couple of questions...

Are we sure - how are we to know - that morality exists at all (that it is not an illusionary concept)?  Yeah peer pressure exists, but morality...

And, if not an illusion, what makes it a property of groups and not individuals (or below...)?

That is - in more technical speechmaking - why not nihilism?  (I.e. what could moral relativism invoke to make itself 'right' whilst remaining relativist?)

I think morality is the feeling one gets about an action or an outcome: positive or negative. While this is unique to individuals to some extent (minor differences will emerge) human beings, at least in our society, have a vague but mostly agreed on "morality": e.g. people dying is generally a pity, so is pain, life should be fair to some extent, etc etc. I'll explain why.

Ofc, morality isn't a physically discernible thing like gravity or sodium, or even a rigid mathematical/logical concept like subtraction or truth that is almost unavoidable in maths/language. So moral nihilism is right in that there is no way to work out morality logically or from the universe really.

BUT: torturing old people for sport is wrong. Anyone who disagrees is damaged. Whatever they say, most moral nihilist would balk at actually doing that. So the "there is no real morality" idea, while correct in some ways, isn't very useful in the search for a definition of morality. Because something stops most people, or tries to stop them, doing stuff like torturing old people for sport, and denial of this thing, which we call "morality", is incorrect.

[Max™]

Torturing old people for sport isn't very entertaining unless the prize is significant, look at the election this year, neither of those are spring chickens by any stretch, tough and stringy, not like a delicious infant.

Whether that means he loves killing babies and eating their soft flesh is irrelevant

Good lookin' out, dawg, you need support for an abhorrent stance you've taken, I got your back. *chest thump and point*

[birdy51]

Ayayaya!

Fight the babies. Seize the day!