the_seeker

I would indeed respond with that question. This is getting into aesthetics, and it is in fact an important part of this religion, but not necessarily of this discussion. Essentially, Seekers believe mankind has some kind of soul, because there is no rational explanation for human-created art for art's sake. If there is a choice, then the outcome of that choice depends on how it benefits the chooser. For example, I would choose my favourite colour. Why this necessarily involves any kind of moral decision, I am unsure.

But isn't it a bit of a leading question? Hell, it's downright unfair! There's no morality or immorality in choosing colours, only personal (subjective!) preferences. This Method is not a supression of feeling, merely a path for making the right decisions. There is no need to analyse everything in one's life, although some might find this very activity an integral part of this religion. Sometimes, there are not clear answers to questions. It's like asking, "which is better, reading or music?" - a personal choice that wholly depends on inner feelings and preferences. The truthful answer would be the right response. Perhaps your question would be better if rephrased: "what is, in your opinion, the best colour?"

Yes, but the lack of absolute morality does taint quite a bit of philosophy, doesn't it?

Sometimes, I wish that I could be ignorant. However, there is also part of me that seeks, and I cannot bring myself to disregard the questions that plague us so. It does somehow enrichen life.


Oops - I have run out of time. I might not be back tomorrow, or the day after. I'll try my best though.

excreationist

Not really... the "objectively" best colour doesn't need to have anything to do with how attractive it looks... it could be the wavelength of light that is the most perfect or something. (Speaking hypothetically)

Evolutionary psychologists, etc, would probably disagree. Why not create a thread in the Science and Skepticism forum... ? You could state that "there is no rational explanation for human-created art for art's sake... therefore we have souls". See if the sciencey types disagree. BTW, even if we don't currently have a good explanation for something, it doesn't *prove* some supernatural thing is involved.

I think we automatically associate all elements of our experiences together... so if we usually feel happy (for other reasons) when a certain colour is around, we learn to subconsciously associate that colour with a pleasurable emotion. If something involves more pleasure and/or less emotional discomfort we'd say that's good. In the opposite case, we'd say that it is bad. So our colour preferences are kind of a moral thing. If we had our own house, we might think "the walls *should* be this colour". We might even argue with our friend about which colours are good or bad. You might say that's about aesthetics though... well people also have food preferences and football team preferences, etc. They might say "you *should* support that team - they're good - the other team sucks".

I'm saying morality is like that. How people "should" behave depends on inner feelings and preferences. People's morality can evolve though, just like how people's favourite football team or favourite colour can change due to them thinking about it or discussing it with someone else, etc.

If the existence of absolute morality is uncertain then there is more for philosophers to argue about...
Let's say the existence of absolute morality is uncertain - I haven't claimed that it *definitely* does not exist. I'm saying that its existence shouldn't be assumed unless there is some more evidence.

Yeah, you can't really unlearn things and go back to ignorance... unless you could somehow be hypnotized or brainwashed or something.

Well I've got to go too... I'd encourage you to write a thread on the Science and Skepticism board... assuming you are seeking the "truth".

Pyrrho

There are two independent things to say. First, the idea that faith is immoral is not new; see:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931333076/

Second, two people may believe the same things, but want different things. For example, suppose I want the last muffin, and so do you. We both believe it to be the last muffin. So I kill you and eat the last muffin. There is no dispute over any straightforward matter of fact; there is only a dispute over who should get to eat the muffin. So the idea that "The only morality lies in believing the truth" is completely unsatisfactory.

It is not only our beliefs that determine our actions, but our desires are also important in determining what we do. In the above example, if I did not have a desire for the muffin, I would not kill you. The conflict is a result of conflicting desires, not conflicting beliefs about the nature of the muffin, or any other straightforward matter of fact. If only our beliefs matter for morality, then our actions, since they are determined by both beliefs and desires, are not a subject of moral censure. This goes against any normal conception of "morality".

kctan

Hello the_seeker,

Regarding the win-win situation, since we are living in a society, conflict is something which is detrimental so inorder to avoid as much conflict as possible, we sought to arrive at a win-win situation whereby both parties can benefit from the conflict. If this best case scenario cannot be reached, then we try for a compromise from both side so that it still does not result in one side lossing. If this fails again & one side definitely have to loss, then we sought to make the loss as small as possible.

How does one goes about making the above successful depends on how well both sides can understand each others side of the story. If needed a mitigator can be employed but since all of us will have a bias of one kind or another, it should be considered only after given lots of consideration into what kind of person would be suitable for your conflict.

For the above, the truth need not be known, just the concerns & what they wish to achieve is needed.

Truth is relative to all & is not a good marker for whom is right or wrong when emotions & self-interest are involved.

With self-interest & emotions, you cannot have objective morals.

excreationist

the_seeker:
I've started a new thread about explanations for art on the Straight Dope messageboard. In that thread I talked a little about my explanation but I also think things like our desire for "connectedness" is also involved.