Rusting Car Bumper

She was already caught. Further, you really don't know her attitudes and intentions. You know messages posted on a message board.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't think any of this is as clear as you make it out to be. To hash it out will result in hair splitting I'm afraid and mere side issues.

I don't think you and I differ very much.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Your example hangs you. The two conditions were AUTOMATIC and ABSOLUTE.

What counts as racism and or whether a particular incident is racism is, IMO, never automatically or absolutely known. It requires an examination which automatically (chuckle) prevents it from being automatic.

Quote:

Malignant, active sociopathology is absolutely wrong

OK. Explain that so that I AUTOMATICALLY and ABSOLUTELY will recognize it.

This is a problem that ethics has been battling since Socrates and I don't think it was solved here.

DC

Gurdur

Bollocks.
You're making two fallacies:
1) the first one (already corrected) as to whether "absolute" is used as a description inside or outside the moral system (I was using it inside, you outside)

2) more importantly, here,
you are making the claim that perfect information is necessary before making moral judgments.

Pardon me, but codswallop, stuff and nonsense, bilgewater, and any other synonyms I can think of.

Perfect information is itself an impossiblity (unless you build a computer to calculate the cosmos, a computer perforce bigger than the whole cosmos).

It is perfectly OK to make moral judgments acting on limited information, as long as one fulfills all one's moral obligations in doing so.

Otherwise, all moral decisions would be impossible.

99Percent

Gurdur:
Are these principles your opinion, or can I understand them myself? How did you develop them? Out of sheer subjectivity? Or is there a logical, plausible, rational sequence I might be able to follow and reason, with you?
Absolutely That is why I pronounced my judgement on just two principles relevant to the discussion: You should not steal, and you should not lie.And who is to dictate what are our responsibilities, in fact what would they be if I subjectively declare them irrelevant according to your opinion of what is acting responsibly?The moment you cast judgement you are necessarily being self-righteous, there is no way to escape it. You sentence is contradictory.Principles cannot be arbitrarily chosen if they are to be respected. If you admit that a principle is arbitrarily chosen then that principle can then be arbitrarily broken, which makes the idea of principles irrelevant.This is an interesting statement, coming from Gurdur since he denies absolutism. I would argue that racism isn't in itself absolutely wrong but discussing that here is off topic.

Gurdur

First off, see my last post just above.

Second off, bollocks again. Balls.
I have a reasonably large experience of people; you might criticise me on my basis of judgment, or my judgment, or my experience, or my conclusions, or the amount of data practically ......
but you cannot try getting away with this half-baked Libertarian crap (*) about not knowing or being able to figure out a person's intentions when given practically enough information.
Human social life would be impossible if we were not able to draw inferences about others' intentions.
_____________

(*)
Sorry if I sound aggro.
It's just that this elementary stand of ideological simplisticness against all reason and experience gets on my wick, it really does.
Nothing against you personally, I've just seen the same fallacy come up time and time again in other cases from others.

99Percent

Yes, in fact that is precisely why we are moral beings.

See Gurdur, I do agree with you once in a while

Gurdur

I'll do the most important bit first:
99Percent, go back and read what I actually wrote.

As I made incredibly clear, I was using the word "absolute" within a moral system.

My moral system makes no claim to being absolutely correct (unlike yours falliciously does); the presence of absolute bedrock principles within my subjective moral system does not in any way make any claim for absolute legitimacy outside my own moral system.

Let me guess; Are you really interested in the argument itself ?
These little rhetorical barbs won't help; while I'm passionately interested in the whole area of debate, I'm none too interested in an exchange of personal provocations.

I'll let you make clear as to whether you are interested in the argument itself.
Oh, and yes, there is a logical progression --- and a rigorous one --- to the development of my own ethics.
Nonsense.
The average person on the street is well able to differentiate on a practical basis between making judgments and what is called "self-righteousness".

Stuff and nonsense.
Arbitrarily-chosen principles such as "No racism" are often respected for their basis of feelings of natural justice and their consequences all the time.

Gurdur

An Elementary Fallacy Regarding Bedrock Principles, Absolute Application and Absoluteness

First off,

1. since human morals are subject to human perception, interpretation and continuing development, and are thus not given by an external, objectively-existing world, then human morals are essentially subjective and intersubjective
   
2. Therefore no moral system can claim an externally-granted legitimacy over all others
   
3. This realisation often leads people to a kind of moral helplessness, to a kind of moral defeatism. It's not necessary, not at all necessary.
   
4. It is entirely possible to build up a coherent moral system that is non-trivial, and which contains bedrock principles applied absolutely within that moral system.
   
5. Now how do you go about choosing those principles ? Obviously, they must be in coherent agreement with your other principles, and they must be non-trivial, and helpful to the entire aim of your moral system.
   
6. Furthermore, people confuse the word "absolute" here, since it's used in two different ways:
   
   A) "Absolutism" is the term given to moral systems that pretend to an externally-granted legitimacy over all others
   
   B) and "absolute", or better said "absolutely applied" is the phrase I use here to denote that that principle is applied without exception throughout my entire moral system.
   
7. Now how do I either think my own moral system is either more or less worthwhile than other moral systems ?
   Not in terms of any externally-given legitimization; there is none.
   No, on the comparative bases I have arbitrarily chosen but which do make sense to other people, then I make comparative judgments by:
   the internal coherency of the moral system,
   the aims of that moral system,
   the non-trivial practical applicability of the moral system,
   and the comparative consequences of that moral system

In one way, morality can be seen as a tool; it's a question of picking the right tool to do the job.

Gurdur

The next problem: What Happens When Moral Systems Come Into Collision ?

First off,

1. Given life, and given the limitations of the intellect, as well as the contradictory impulses built into us by evolutionary psychology, it is inevitable that moral systems will come into collision --- and do that daily.
   This thread is an extremely good example of tha.
   
2. When moral systems do come into collision, then the question of "Who's right ?" comes into play.
   
   Obviously, from all that was said in my last post, no ultimate decision can be made --- there is no such thing as ultimate rightness or wrongness.
   
3. However, unless we want to be moral cowards, we must come to some kind of decision as to which moral system is better
   
4. and IMHO, the best way of doing that is to see which moral system (as said above in my last post) fits the facts of the situation best, has the best aims (*), has the best internal coherence, and has the best consequences.
   
5. One of my own aims is, where possible, mutual coexistence of differing moral systems --- as long as it doesn't degenerate into nihilism.

______________

* Please do not atempt to tease me here by making remarks as to self-referential loops, otherwise I will be forced to mention Gödel at great length.

‡ My apologies to everyone here for being so horribly longwinded; my only excuse is that the subject matter demanded such long explanation, and also a couple of questions from people demanded further long answers.

I know, I know, I'm just a boring young fart.