Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sarpedon · 10-02-2002, 04:25 AM

It seems that all philosophical questions these days boil down to semiotics! Thank you Longbow for pointing out the fatal flaw in my system! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Do you think that words are too culturally engrained to be useful in creating a more universal morality? Or is morality itself dependant on culture, and devising a universal morality would be tantamount to some kind of cultural aggression? Theoretically, if we take Glory's premise, and MadMordigan's silver rule, what would we end up with for morality? Second, I object to the idea of tying morality to "feelings" after years of trying, I have been almost successful at removing my "feelings" as a factor in my behavior. I do not see them as being important or necessary, and they are certainly contrary to both reason and morality. Most feelings are selfish, and therefor, by my definition, immoral. Even feelings of compassion are, in a way, selfish, because they result in identifying with the victim, and imagining that that person's troubles are one's own. what do you think?

Keith Russell · 10-02-2002, 01:17 PM

Greetings:

Objective reality and reason.

My moral life requires nothing else.

Keith.

Glory · 10-02-2002, 01:33 PM

If doing the right thing didn't feel good, no one would ever do it. Good deeds are essentially selfish because they make us feel good about ourselves. Doing shitty thigs to other people feels lousy. That's why we don't go around killing off the weak and the sick which according to some people's logic would be quite sensible. Feelings are the center of morality. Without them we would become monsters of cold efficiency and logic.

Glory

jlowder · 10-03-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sarpedon:
In other threads other people and myself have brought up the idea that atheistic ethics should be logical and, if possible, scientific. We all know that in logic you must begin with accepted premises or assumptions. For my personal code of ethics I use:

All people are equal
All people may choose.

Of course, my esteemed colleagues pointed out that neither of these statements are true. And of course, they are not. So now, my friends, I would like to have a thread that may help to form a foundation of ethics for the godless.

What exactly do you mean by "a foundation of ethics"? I'm not asking this to be difficult; rather, I've noticed that lots of people (including even professional philosophers who specialize in moral philosophy) use this term without ever defining it. I can't help but think that some of the confusion surrounding your question is due to differences in usage of "foundation."

If, for example, by "foundation" you mean "ontological foundation," then the ontological foundation of any naturalistic ethical system will be natural properties (as opposed to supernatural properties or nonnatural properties).

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]

Longbow · 10-03-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sarpedon:
It seems that all philosophical questions these days boil down to semiotics! Thank you Longbow for pointing out the fatal flaw in my system! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Do you think that words are too culturally engrained to be useful in creating a more universal morality? Or is morality itself dependant on culture, and devising a universal morality would be tantamount to some kind of cultural aggression? Theoretically, if we take Glory's premise, and MadMordigan's silver rule, what would we end up with for morality? Second, I object to the idea of tying morality to "feelings" after years of trying, I have been almost successful at removing my "feelings" as a factor in my behavior. I do not see them as being important or necessary, and they are certainly contrary to both reason and morality. Most feelings are selfish, and therefor, by my definition, immoral. Even feelings of compassion are, in a way, selfish, because they result in identifying with the victim, and imagining that that person's troubles are one's own. what do you think?

I have plenty of views on morality. One of them is that they most certainly not based on emotion or personal preferences. Also, I think they are a priori and not to be foudn at all in natural phenomena. I do not think that language is arbitrary nor is the fact that language is part of the discussion really tie morality to it in a terribly profound way. The semantic analysis of ethical terms is just a starting point to figure out precisely what concepts are being considered in a moral consideration. So, I certainly do not think that imposing one's moral views on everyone else is a form of aggression (unless, of course, you're mistaken), cultural or otherwise. Indeed that whole idea, to me, is paradoxical.

That's the short answer. The long answer is something that everyone will just have to glean from all of my posts from now until the end of time...

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

10-02-2002, 04:25 AM	#11
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	It seems that all philosophical questions these days boil down to semiotics! Thank you Longbow for pointing out the fatal flaw in my system! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Do you think that words are too culturally engrained to be useful in creating a more universal morality? Or is morality itself dependant on culture, and devising a universal morality would be tantamount to some kind of cultural aggression? Theoretically, if we take Glory's premise, and MadMordigan's silver rule, what would we end up with for morality? Second, I object to the idea of tying morality to "feelings" after years of trying, I have been almost successful at removing my "feelings" as a factor in my behavior. I do not see them as being important or necessary, and they are certainly contrary to both reason and morality. Most feelings are selfish, and therefor, by my definition, immoral. Even feelings of compassion are, in a way, selfish, because they result in identifying with the victim, and imagining that that person's troubles are one's own. what do you think?

10-02-2002, 01:17 PM	#12
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Objective reality and reason. My moral life requires nothing else. Keith.

10-02-2002, 01:33 PM	#13
Glory Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: b Posts: 673	If doing the right thing didn't feel good, no one would ever do it. Good deeds are essentially selfish because they make us feel good about ourselves. Doing shitty thigs to other people feels lousy. That's why we don't go around killing off the weak and the sick which according to some people's logic would be quite sensible. Feelings are the center of morality. Without them we would become monsters of cold efficiency and logic. Glory

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.