Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-30-2002, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
It doesn't make any sense to say that just because X is a source of morality that doesn't imply that you should be moral. By definition, morality is what you 'should' do, so if there is a source of morality (I think there is), then the question of why you should be moral is answered - you only need to point to that source of morality. I don't see that there's any distinction, unless you assume that morality is just defined in a subjectivist way.

Thomas,

It seems you are simply trying to deny that the question "Why be moral" can be asked by putting it into a special category.

If morality implies that I shoudl be moral then its circular. Morality becomes justifies itself. You are claiming that I should do A because A says so.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-30-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by idiom
God doesn't ask that you be moral. Just that you would decide one way or the other and stick to that decision.

Also, what is wrong with slaughtering innocents?

There is a funny line of thought that says that God is not moral because he does immoral deeds. Who says he does immoral deeds? Well the know-it-all-philosopher of course.

Many a would be philosopher creates a moral scheme to suit himself and denounces God for not following it.

Please follow the thread. The thread isnt about the nature or morality and god. Its about issues revolving around the question "Why be moral"?

DC

Oxymoron · 12-30-2002, 09:28 AM

Could we broaden the scope of the question: Why have a system at all?

Arbitrary, "random" behaviour would lead to... what exactly? We could never tell because it's arbitrary! So the reason we have a system is that we can model the consequences of our actions more readily (though not neccesarily more accurately).

There's something then about our ability to predict and control the consequences of our actions in the decision to be moral. One might equally say the same thing about choosing to be immoral, but perhaps the uncertainty of the response from others (will it be fight or flight?) means that being moral leads to the most predictable, controllable and beneficial outcomes.

Eek, I'm coming over all Utilitarian...

DRFseven · 12-30-2002, 10:05 AM

by Ash:

I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you?

What do you mean by this statement? Of course you can, in just the same way that millions of people say things like, "I totally accept that I should always be patient, avoid overeating, never lie or cheat, etc.", and then proceed to be impatient, to overeat, etc.

Kachana · 12-30-2002, 10:13 AM

I don't think anyone responded to my answer.

What if we were to say that we accept it axiomatically that it is rational (not morally good, which would make it circular, but rational) to follow what God commands, as he is the source of all that is rational (etc. etc.), and if we don't follow him (and his moral promulgations), we are acting wrongly.

It now comes down to whether acting rationally is an acceptable axiom to hold, and it would seem to me that it is, one can't argue someone out of acting irrationally since they would need to accept ratioanlity to be persuaded.

DRFseven · 12-30-2002, 10:19 AM

by Kachana:

I don't think anyone responded to my answer.

What if we were to say that we accept it axiomatically that it is rational (not morally good, which would make it circular, but rational) to follow what God commands, as he is the source of all that is rational (etc. etc.), and if we don't follow him (and his moral promulgations), we are acting wrongly.

It now comes down to whether acting rationally is an acceptable axiom to hold, and it would seem to me that it is, one can't argue someone out of acting irrationally since they would need to accept ratioanlity to be persuaded.

You're still left with the problem of answering why we should survive. If there is no reason we should survive, there is no reason we should be moral. There is only the fact that we are or aren't.

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-30-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
Could we broaden the scope of the question: Why have a system at all?

Arbitrary, "random" behaviour would lead to... what exactly? We could never tell because it's arbitrary! So the reason we have a system is that we can model the consequences of our actions more readily (though not neccesarily more accurately).

This depends on what you mean by "have a system". One could interpret your statement as merely a rearrangement of the question "Why be moral."

Further, I don't think that not having a moral system implies "Arbitrary random behaviour".

We geenrally recognize that (for example) squirrels don't have moral codes but their behaviour isn't random or arbitrary.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-30-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kachana
I don't think anyone responded to my answer.

I didn't answer because it was clear that your response suffered from the same problems presented in the first message of the thread.

You said...

Quote:

Interesting. To play devil's advocate, here's an answer I can imagine theists may respond with to the question "why be moral":

Because moral actions are not only good, but are also the correct and rational ones to perform. I take it as axiomatic that the principles that God decrees are correct and that I should follow accordingly to be rational.

Is this still personal preference? It seems to me that it is now not a personal preference for a particular state of affairs (e.g. actions and ideals held by people), but a personal preference to do what is rational; which few people would take exception to.

Yes it is still personal preference. It is exactly the same type of problem that I briefly mentioned in the first message of the thread.

I would respond to the middle paragraph by asking, "Why do I care if I am rational and why do I care what God decrees?" and we do down a chain of responses and questions which end up indicating personal preference.

DC

Oxymoron · 12-30-2002, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
This depends on what you mean by "have a system". One could interpret your statement as merely a rearrangement of the question "Why be moral."

I am not sure what you mean by 'moral' then. Do you mean "in a proscribed way according to some set of rules"? Or "in a fashion that seeks to maximise benefit or minimise cost (in some way)"? Or something else?

Quote:

Further, I don't think that not having a moral system implies "Arbitrary random behaviour".

We geenrally recognize that (for example) squirrels don't have moral codes but their behaviour isn't random or arbitrary.

DC

I would suspect that squirrels - bless their furry tails - don't have the mental capacity to make moral choices.

How would you classify behaviour in the absence of a moral system?

Rusting Car Bumper · 12-30-2002, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
I am not sure what you mean by 'moral' then. Do you mean "in a proscribed way according to some set of rules"? Or "in a fashion that seeks to maximise benefit or minimise cost (in some way)"? Or something else?

You used the phrase "have a system" which indicates possesion or something different than simply stating that (for example) "Utilitarianism is a moral system." That is what is unclear. What exactly does "have a system" mean?

Quote:

I would suspect that squirrels - bless their furry tails - don't have the mental capacity to make moral choices.

How would you classify behaviour in the absence of a moral system?

It doesn't make any difference. The point is that we agree that they don't have the capability for moral thought or decision and yet they dont behave "randomly". The conclusion is then that living things, in the abscence of moral systems, need not behave "randomly." Thus, what I took to be an implicit premise of your previous message is false.

DC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2002, 09:28 AM	#33
Oxymoron Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: http://10.0.0.2/ Posts: 6,623	Could we broaden the scope of the question: Why have a system at all? Arbitrary, "random" behaviour would lead to... what exactly? We could never tell because it's arbitrary! So the reason we have a system is that we can model the consequences of our actions more readily (though not neccesarily more accurately). There's something then about our ability to predict and control the consequences of our actions in the decision to be moral. One might equally say the same thing about choosing to be immoral, but perhaps the uncertainty of the response from others (will it be fight or flight?) means that being moral leads to the most predictable, controllable and beneficial outcomes. Eek, I'm coming over all Utilitarian...

12-30-2002, 10:05 AM	#34
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	by Ash: I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you? What do you mean by this statement? Of course you can, in just the same way that millions of people say things like, "I totally accept that I should always be patient, avoid overeating, never lie or cheat, etc.", and then proceed to be impatient, to overeat, etc.

12-30-2002, 10:13 AM	#35
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	I don't think anyone responded to my answer. What if we were to say that we accept it axiomatically that it is rational (not morally good, which would make it circular, but rational) to follow what God commands, as he is the source of all that is rational (etc. etc.), and if we don't follow him (and his moral promulgations), we are acting wrongly. It now comes down to whether acting rationally is an acceptable axiom to hold, and it would seem to me that it is, one can't argue someone out of acting irrationally since they would need to accept ratioanlity to be persuaded.

12-30-2002, 10:19 AM	#36
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	by Kachana: I don't think anyone responded to my answer. What if we were to say that we accept it axiomatically that it is rational (not morally good, which would make it circular, but rational) to follow what God commands, as he is the source of all that is rational (etc. etc.), and if we don't follow him (and his moral promulgations), we are acting wrongly. It now comes down to whether acting rationally is an acceptable axiom to hold, and it would seem to me that it is, one can't argue someone out of acting irrationally since they would need to accept ratioanlity to be persuaded. You're still left with the problem of answering why we should survive. If there is no reason we should survive, there is no reason we should be moral. There is only the fact that we are or aren't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.