• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There is no "ought"

Cavemonster said:
Not that what is "right" varies circumstantially, but that it is an absurd concept, mostly used when people want to dress up their statements of preference.
Click to expand...

Oh well. Here goes:
It is right to refrain from killing people just for fun, whether or not killing people for fun suits my preferences, your preferences or anyone else's preferences.

In what sense is that absurd?
 
I have to say I am glad to see a thread like this. I was wondering when someone would bring this up, since it's of such critical importance to have any meaningful debate on "morality".

Myself I have been trying to argue this to people since I was a kid, but found it very hard to convince anyone. So thanks to Cavemonster for arguing it better than I ever did or could. :)


Anyway, as far as I can see, the whole thing wouldn't be an issue if people just tried to be logical when discussing morality. The root of the problem is that people start of with asking themselves how they feel about an issue (so based on mere emotion/instinct), and then if pressured will seek arguments to defend that position at all cost. Instead they should reason first and come to a tentative conclusion afterwards.

It is for the same reason that it's so hard to convince religious people that their beliefs are unfounded. As such I find it rather depressing that even people who should know better (scientists and such) tend to fall for this when discussing anything they feel strongly about. The same people who deride religous people for being unwilling to be critical about their beliefs often make the same mistake when it comes to things THEY feel strongly about...

So yea, I just wanted to say that I am happy to see that many people here seem to 'get it'. :)
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
Oh well. Here goes:
It is right to refrain from killing people just for fun, whether or not killing people for fun suits my preferences, your preferences or anyone else's preferences.

In what sense is that absurd?
Click to expand...

I'll take this one.

It's absurd in that there's no basis for that sentiment other than your own feelings on the matter.

"It is right" cannot be taken to mean anything other than "I and possibly a lot of other people feel that it is not nice/unwise/harmful to do so" unless you invoke something like a higher power.


There are no shades of gray between right and wrong anymore than there are types of angels between god and the devil.
Click to expand...

Ah, missed that the first time reading the thread. Nice one. :)

As I always like to say in response to the "shades of grey" thing: "There is no black and white nore are there shades of grey; everything is in colour." Talk about shades of grey might be marginally more sensible than just black and white, but it is still just an attempt to simplify reality so that it fits inside your thinking frame.
 
Last edited:
Sophronius said:
I'll take this one.

It's absurd in that there's no basis for that sentiment other than your own feelings on the matter.
Click to expand...

Well, what I offered was a prescription. If that's what you meant by sentiment, then I shan't quarrel over the word.

However, I disagree with your implication that a basis is needed to save the sentiment from absurdity.

"It is right" cannot be taken to mean anything other than "I and possibly a lot of other people feel that it is not nice/unwise/harmful to do so" unless you invoke something like a higher power.
Click to expand...

It can in fact be taken to mean what you think it cannot be taken to mean. I took it in that way when I said:
whether or not killing people for fun suits my preferences, your preferences or anyone else's preferences.
Click to expand...
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
Oh well. Here goes:
It is right to refrain from killing people just for fun, whether or not killing people for fun suits my preferences, your preferences or anyone else's preferences.

In what sense is that absurd?
Click to expand...

Okay, you're ascribing a quality, "right" to refraining from killing for fun.

How do you know that that action exhibits that quality? How do you measure for that quality in a novel situation?

What measurements do you use to determine if a particular action is "right"?
 
Cavemonster said:
Okay, you're ascribing a quality, "right" to refraining from killing for fun.
Click to expand...

What I'm doing here is prescribing one course of conduct (and proscribing another). Prescriptions, like proscriptions, may be followed or not followed, but they are neither proved nor disproved by the facts.

How do you know that that action exhibits that quality? How do you measure for that quality in a novel situation?

What measurements do you use to determine if a particular action is "right"?
Click to expand...

These questions are just inept. You may aptly ask whether a particular case really is or is not, as a matter of fact, a case of killing just for fun. But the facts of the case, whatever they turn out to be, will not — because they cannot— settle whether killing just for fun is right or wrong.
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
Well, what I offered was a prescription. If that's what you meant by sentiment, then I shan't quarrel over the word.

However, I disagree with your implication that a basis is needed to save the sentiment from absurdity.
Click to expand...

Well, if the aforementioned prescription was just an opinion of yours, then I won't claim it is absurd. However, you seem to state it as if it was some universal fact, which would be absurd since you have nothing to back that up.

It can in fact be taken to mean what you think it cannot be taken to mean. I took it in that way when I said: It is right to refrain from killing people just for fun, whether or not killing people for fun suits my preferences, your preferences or anyone else's preferences.
Click to expand...

Bare assertion. You just admitted that there is no (or does not have to be a) basis for that statement, and yet you claim it is true irregardless of what anyone thinks about it. That can only be true if there is some non-human agent, force or law of nature to back up your claim. Since there isn't, it's just your baseless opinion.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean with "It is right"?
 
Cavemonster said:
Why should that situation make an inivisible, impossible thing suddenly exist?
Click to expand...

The statement wasn't made with the purpose of proving the existence of an ID.

I can say that I passionately dislike such an action and that it has a very negative effect on me. In a broader sense, I can say it's counterproductive to the society many of us would like to live in if people go around putting hands in acid.

But those are statements of preference.
Click to expand...

So there is an ought after all?
 
Radrook said:
I read the oped. I still don't see the invissible imposible thing you are referring to. Would appreciate brief explanatiuon.
Click to expand...

You know my two separate responses were to the two separated quotes of yours, right?

The "invissible imposible thing" is an objective moral "right" or "wrong".
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Why do you tag that as impossible?
Click to expand...

An objective morality would need something to MAKE it objective, something divine or innate to nature. Otherwise it's just you claiming it to be true and is as such no more than opinion.
 
To grasp how morality is merely subjective, one must study the history of mankind and their culture. One must study and understand what Dawkins calls The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist

 
Ron_Tomkins said:
To grasp how morality is merely subjective, one must study the history of mankind and their culture. One must study and understand what Dawkins calls The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist

Click to expand...



Yes, I do understand moral relativity created by differences in socialization from one society to another. What's taboo in one society might be acceptable in another. For example the circumcision of little girls is common in some parts of Africa while in most of the rest of the world is considered child abuse and an atrocity. Brother and sister marriages among Egyptian royalty was common. Yet we view it as taboo. Even the acceptance of human sacrifices by the Aztecs was viewed as a righteous thing. So the concept of moral relativity isn't new to me. What realy irks me is the concept that we should view all behaviior as essentially amoral because it. That seems rather weirdnciple. Since it flies in the face of the categorical imperative prinicple.
 
Completely agree, Cavemonster.

And though I do agree that in general it's cumbersome and largely unnecessary to say exactly what your 'if' is in a 'should... if' statement, I also agree that in debate situations like we have here, it's often very useful to go ahead and put the whole thing down in black and white.

Completely amuses me btw that we have people responding to the idea that morals only exist in the minds of intelligent social beings with lines like 'but I have them so they exist, QED, sheesh'

But I honestly don't understand how the OP gets misread as a call for anarchy...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom