Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's sheer tautology -- a circular argument.
|
And this is why my posts are often longer than average - because I don't want to leave myself open to these kinds of responses. But, given that I had already explained in detail about this to Vizio at least twice, I just didn't feel like doing it again.
But no, it is not a circular argument. It demonstrates cause and effect. If morality was objective, one should expect morality to remain constant through the ages and across cultures. It doesn't. Not in the least. No doubt that 100 years from now, history will either judge our current society as being either more moral or immoral than theirs - because morality will have changed yet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No, Morality is Objective.
|
Nuh uh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It is your perception of Morality that is Subjective.
|
Perception represents the building blocks of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Morality is like Color. A given Moral is like Blue...the Color Blue. The Color Blue is radiation. Specifically, the Color Blue is electromagnetic radiation at a given wave-length.
|
Comparing something that exists independently of humanity (color) with something that is a construct of humanity (morality) doesn't work very well.
There can be objective color because of the wavelengths which can empirically show that color x is different from color y and always will be. Any deviation in wavelength means it is not that color but this color, instead.
But with morality, there is no "morality wavelength." This means that something or someone would have to act as the end-all, be-all "the buck stops here" decider of what is moral and what is not.
Well ... who is qualified to be such a decision-maker? The religious, of course, give this responsibility to God, but do we want religious law from the Bronze Age dictating our morality in the 21st Century?
And do you really want an objective morality to begin with? For that would mean once decided, morality cannot change. Not tomorrow, not ten thousand years from now.
Thankfully, morality was not etched in stone 200 years ago, for instance, when women - under the morality of the day regarding modesty - had to wear layers and layers of heavy skirts all the way down to the bottoms of our feet even if women are doing manual labor during the dog days of summer. And 50,000 years from now, women would STILL be required to wear those clothes in order to remain morally pure.
But that's not what we see, now, is it. No, history bears out the reality that morality is fluid. Even religious morality, which presumably comes from God, is constantly being changed.
And unless you happen to be religious and believe your morality is absolute because it comes from God, there simply is NO person or thing that can make the legitimate claim that with morality that proverbial buck stops here - and always will forever more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
When is it permissible to rape and sodomize a woman?
Maybe you can be like Yahweh/Jesus and claim that it's perfectly fun and profitable to rape and sodomize, so long as you marry her afterwards.
When is it permissible to own slaves?
When is it permissible to steal from another?
Never.
|
Wrong. Those things are permissible if society says they are permissible. Those things might offend your moral structure now - they offend mine, as well. But who is to say that in some dystopian future, the morality that we cherish now has been completely abandoned for a different set of rules? This idea is perhaps one of the most widely used hooks for science fiction writers and with good reason.
Remember that here in the USA it was once perfectly moral to own slaves. People owned them openly and even used their slaves as a status symbol - the more you had, the more successful you were. There was no shame, no guilt, and no regret over slave ownership in the antebellum South.
When is it permissible to steal from each other? Well ... do you think it was permissible for a group of Norwegian commandos to steal Hitler's supply of heavy water so that Hitler could not construct an atomic bomb? Would it be permissible for me to steal a gun from a person who threatened to use that gun in a school shooting?
How about raping and sodomy? Well, it was permissible for troops of the Red Army to rape and sodomize German women as the Soviets moved toward Berlin. It was permissible for the Japanese army to rape and brutalize Chinese women and use them as sexual slaves (comfort women, they were called). It was permissible in Iraq for the Baathists under Saddam to use rape and sodomy as a form of punishment.
And none of these are extremes. I didn't have to say, "Well, it would be permissible for someone to rape a woman if doing so would prevent the universe from imploding!"
No, almost all of these examples actually happened historically. We may find such behavior deplorable to our Western ears, but to the Southern plantation owners, the Red Army, the Japanese army, to the Norwegian commandos, etc. etc., their morality - at that time, in that place, and under those conditions - believed it was perfectly a-okay to do what they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That which is Objective never changes.
|
And yet morality changes all the time - especially from one generation to the next.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
