Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 05-13-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
It seems we agree, do we not?

Maybe so.

Quote:

yguy and mhc:

Why argue over arbitrary rules?

Rather than dogmatically asserted moral standards, why not advocate that it is better to follow ethical principles?

What exactly is the difference between the two?

Dune · 05-13-2003, 08:56 PM

but human beings have it in them to discern when the are. -

So morality is a judgement call by humanity, not an inviolate rule but situational?

yguy · 05-14-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dune
but human beings have it in them to discern when the are. -

So morality is a judgement call by humanity, not an inviolate rule but situational?

At face value, I can go with that, even though "situational ethics" has odious connotations in conservative circles, having evidently been used to justify capricious disregard for objective morality.

That is to say, a written rule may not be inviolate, but the ineffable truth which undergirds it is.

Philosoft · 05-14-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
That is to say, a written rule may not be inviolate, but the ineffable truth which undergirds it is.

So how can we know the content of an "ineffable truth" if the best we can ever do is a flawed verbalization?

yguy · 05-14-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
So how can we know the content of an "ineffable truth" if the best we can ever do is a flawed verbalization?

Inability to verbalize a truth only hinders the expression of it to others, not the understanding of it. You don't have to know the definition of murder to know killing somebody for the fun of it is wrong.

Keith Russell · 05-14-2003, 07:22 PM

yguy: Dogmatic moral 'rules' are arbitrary, divinely 'revealed', etc.

But, one can rationally deduce ethical principles from the facts of reality.

K

yguy · 05-14-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
yguy: Dogmatic moral 'rules' are arbitrary, divinely 'revealed', etc.

But, one can rationally deduce ethical principles from the facts of reality.

K

For example...?

Philosoft · 05-14-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Inability to verbalize a truth only hinders the expression of it to others, not the understanding of it. You don't have to know the definition of murder to know killing somebody for the fun of it is wrong.

Goodness, I thought you were trying to simplify. If these truths are "ineffable," how do we know we're all on the same page? I mean, if I literally cannot describe to you something I intuitively know, how do you know I'm talking about the same intuitively known thing as you are? It seems to me there are some people who kill for reasons I would consider outrageous, and yet don't feel guilt or remorse. Obviously, these people intuitively know something I don't.

yguy · 05-14-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Goodness, I thought you were trying to simplify. If these truths are "ineffable," how do we know we're all on the same page?

Where do you get the idea that verbalizing these things makes them less prone to misconstruction? I think experience shows that the more things are codified, the easier it is to impart a convenient interpretation to any particular idea - witness the Bible.

Quote:

I mean, if I literally cannot describe to you something I intuitively know, how do you know I'm talking about the same intuitively known thing as you are?

I may not. Your intuition may be better than mine in the area of interest. If my intuition is at least good enough to see that you have superior knowledge, and if I'm interested, I will naturally ask the right questions so as to draw out of you what you know.

Quote:

It seems to me there are some people who kill for reasons I would consider outrageous, and yet don't feel guilt or remorse. Obviously, these people intuitively know something I don't.

They may. Not all killing is murder. Or, they may feel no remorse because they have no conscience.

Dune · 05-16-2003, 12:08 AM

So by your definitions, there is no way we can codify morality for the good of society? We are all supposed to behave from our concious?
What about those who disagree with you? Those who "know" that something is right or wrong but that 100% disagrees with what you "know" to be the "truth"?
How can you tell who is right and wrong?

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

05-13-2003, 08:56 PM	#92
Dune Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 65	but human beings have it in them to discern when the are. - So morality is a judgement call by humanity, not an inviolate rule but situational?

05-14-2003, 07:22 PM	#96
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	yguy: Dogmatic moral 'rules' are arbitrary, divinely 'revealed', etc. But, one can rationally deduce ethical principles from the facts of reality. K

05-16-2003, 12:08 AM	#100
Dune Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 65	So by your definitions, there is no way we can codify morality for the good of society? We are all supposed to behave from our concious? What about those who disagree with you? Those who "know" that something is right or wrong but that 100% disagrees with what you "know" to be the "truth"? How can you tell who is right and wrong?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.