Darth Dane

IMO, there is no rational basis for anyone to impose their moral system on another. There are, however, rational bases to argue why humans can (and should) agree on a moral system and there are also rational bases to argue why one moral system might be superior to another


yes it would be more practical if we didn't have to spend time developing weapons, or creating defenses.

Love seems like the best way to do things, whether or not you believe on God.





DD - Love & Laughter

Normal

I'm not talking about laws in this case, I'm talking about individuals. If you agree moral systems are dependant on consciousness, and each consciousness is necessarily dependant on the individual, then what are you presupposing by claiming one system is superior to another?

In the case of imposing a moral system on others. In the case you believe it is wrong for another to commit murder.

How do you rationally demonstrate this? You would need a "measuring stick" of morality in order to show your moral system is "more complete". In fact, you would need a complete moral system, otherwise yours would be incomplete as well, and you would be unjustified in criticizing someone else’s incomplete system. Unless you can rationally show how your system is "more complete", but again, you'd need a complete system for any of these concepts to have any meaning.

The problem with these examples is that it is strongly rooted in materialism. A chair is a chair for material properties. But killing is wrong because of what properties?

Llyricist

Exactly when did I say it was wrong for a person on the other side of the world to kill??? I must have blacked out on that one Fact is, I think there are degrees of wrongness in killing...in fact, under certain circumstances, I don't think it is wrong at all, along with most other people in the world I might add, though you would be hard pressed to find any two people who would agree on the "degree of wrongness" for any given circumstance, so wherefore the "objective" standard?

Normal

You didn't, I presupposed you thought it was wrong

Why do you select those circumstances, and what makes you the authority on those circumstances? If someone kills for different reasons then you, by what do you measure if he did it for the "right" reasons, or the "wrong" reasons? When you condemn someone else for killing, you are borrowing an objective standard of morality, and "speaking for god".

Llyricist

[QUOTE]Why do you select those circumstances,[QUOTE]
Because I have an ability called reason...
Absolutely nothing, I never claimed any authority, I just volunteered my own thoughts on the matter.
As I pointed out in the previous post I do not think that MY beliefs are authoritative, or indeed that there are any authoritative standards, as rarely would two people agree on what would constitute justification.
So please stop putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, what I did say was that there is no such thing as any absolute, objective moral standard, the closest we can get is an agreement or concensus.

I cannot condemn anyone in any meaningful way, only the society's Justice system can. I freely ADMIT that my opinions do not constitute an authority, so I cannot be said to be speaking for god. I am borrowing No such thing as an objective standard.

Bill Snedden

That's what I thought. "Impose" seems to me to have legalistic overtones and I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Actually, I didn't say that one system was superior to another. I said that I could make a rational case (an argument) for why one should be considered superior to the other.

In doing so, I'm presupposing that I can identify a value that the other system or its adherents hold(s) (or say they hold) and then demonstrate how the other system or adherents is/are:

a) inadequate or inconsistent in support of that value, or
b) inferior to another system in support of that value.

I didn't say it would be easy...

I am aware of no moral systems of any human culture or society that do not believe murder is wrong, so I'm unsure of why I would ever need to impose that belief on any others.

Remember, "murder" is defined as "unjustified killing." All cultures seem to recognize that there are times when killing is justified (e.g., self-defense), it is the nature of the justification that often is at odds between cultures or moral systems.

What needs to be demonstrated to "impose" a moral system on others is that their "justification" for killing falls prey to one of the situations I mentioned, above: inconsistency, inadequacy, or inferiority.

The "measuring stick" or standard, is a value or values upon which there is wide intersubjective agreement.

I wasn't trying to draw that kind of analogy, merely to show that intersubjective agreements occur quite commonly; it shouldn't be surprising, therefore, to see one occur here, if the value in question is indeed held subjectively by all those who appear to agree to it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Wyz_sub10

I was going to split the thread, but it seems clearly to have taken an MF&P turn, so I will simply move it there.

Joe V.

Well, I tried to keep it on-topic. Darn hijackers.

- Joe

Normal

I'm not talking about the justice system, or laws in place, I'm talking about your personal views on morality.

Do you feel that someone else committing murder is wrong?

Llyricist

Asked and answered.