Totalitarianist

Ad hominem. My "intentions" are irrelevant.

Dominus Paradoxum

And how, pray tell, is it ad hominem? I was simply speculating about your intentions, and noted that the fact that you enjoy these kinds of discussions is evidence that others matter to you more than your posts would indicate. I didn't argue for anything more than that.

Totalitarianist

Rejecting my argument by reason of my intentions.

Dominus Paradoxum

So your admitting that I'm right about your intentions? Anyway, I never argued that your arguement should be rejected because of your intentions. I'm merely noting that your behaviour is inconsistent with your professed beliefs.

Totalitarianist

No. I am saying that my intentions, whatever they may be, are irrelevant.

Good. Then let us quit considering that which is clearly irrelevant in this discussion.

Dominus Paradoxum

Morality is circular in a sense. But not all circularity is viscious. One could not argue for the validity of logic without using logic, so such arguements are circular in a sense. But that is not viscious circularity, because the alternative -to argue for logic without using logic- is inconsistent. Of course, one cannot really argue with someone who simply rejects the laws of logic, because all arguement and demonstration assumes that such laws hold. So, one could argue, morality suffers from a similar benign circularituy. An "ought" can only be derived from another "ought", so one cannot argue that this or that is right or wrong unless some kind of moral obligation is already accepted by both parties. I cannot demonstratively prove to you that you have moral obligations. But that certainly does not prove that they do not exist. It only follows that they cannot be proved. All I can do is, as I have done, argue that you already (implicity) accept some form of moral responsibility, and hopefully progress from there.

Theli

Yes, ideally that would be the case, but unfortunally people don't always listen to reason.

philechat

Again, I have not disapproved of the usage of logic about the problems of morality. I only say that the "basis" of morality has been emotions (values) upon which we construct our rationalization. I simply do not believe that "pure reason" is the rightful basis of morality, nothing more, nothing less.

I stated my argument against cultural relativism which could also be used here. Many morality has been constructed under an environment vastly different from us, which though might be useful in their time/economic/intellectual conditions is no longer applicable in ours. It is therefore not irrational to criticize people's moral assumptions from time to time, because they are no longer adaptive to our own environment.

Lobstrosity

And so I assume that if I did have the desire to kill your entire family, there'd be nothing wrong with that? I guess there's absolutely no logical way to convince me not to kill your family (because that would be morality, and we all know that doesn't exist), so I guess you'd either have to kill me or just let me do away with your loved ones. What a great world that would be!

Quote:

Your response is exactly what I predicted. Using such terms as "purpose", "must", "needs" in a moral sense to prove the necessity of morality.

What's wrong with the terms "purpose," "must," and "needs" and how do you define "in a moral sense"? You're just setting up a blatant strawman while sidestepping all logic to have to avoid addressing the real issues. I'm using those terms as I would in the following sentence to "prove the necessity" of water: water servers a purpose in humans (and indeed all life). Humans must ingest water in order to live. You're just debating pointless semantics right now. How about this: your response is exactly what I predicted--using petty semantics to desperately cling to your absurd and ill-thought-out ideas.

Yes, Totalitarianist, it's perfectly real. The presence of morality has a macroscopic observable effect on human behavior patterns. A world without "morality" (specifically a world in which all actions performed are simply what that person desires to do next independent of any considerations towards others) is one of anarchy. That's a world where you'd be shot the instant you failed to give the school bully your lunch money or the moment you called that small guy a nerd. A world of anarchy is physiologically different from a world organized into cooperating, behaving societies (i.e. you can physically tell the two apart--the distinctions are real). Morality is the foundation that allows for these societies to exist. It is completely physical. Here, how about another analogy: your notion that morality is not necessary for society and that morality isn't "real" is as silly as saying that DNA isn't necessary for human development and that furthermore it isn't even real.

dk

dk: Emotions/Feelings interpret experience with a response, while reason directs effort with purpose. If I like/dislike someone and they smile at me, then my emotions respond with warmth/suspicion. Morality governs conduct with reason so people might understand one another. When people loose control they abandon reason to act with abandon upon emotions/feelings.
posted by philechat
Again, I have not disapproved of the usage of logic about the problems of morality. I only say that the "basis" of morality has been emotions (values) upon which we construct our rationalization. I simply do not believe that "pure reason" is the rightful basis of morality, nothing more, nothing less.
dk: The concept of “Pure reason” us so abstract I question its existence, and I never used the term. You’ve equated morality to a problem which is a misnomer, immorality is a problem. I don’t see how morality reduces to emotions, except to say “if it feels good do it”. A person that gets happy when cut by a knife, or gets sad when hugged by their mom probably suffers from a severe emotional disorder.
posted by philechat
I stated my argument against cultural relativism which could also be used here. Many morality has been constructed under an environment vastly different from us, which though might be useful in their time/economic/intellectual conditions is no longer applicable in ours. It is therefore not irrational to criticize people's moral assumptions from time to time, because they are no longer adaptive to our own environment.
dk: We’re confusing morality with ethics. Morality is applied by the science of ethics to different situations and circumstances.