Hitting A Woman?

Skeptic,

I'd still like an answer to my question above. You said "thinking like Aristotle" leads to your conclusion. What process of thought brought you to the conclusion that punching the guy in the bar is brave and praiseworthy?
 
Skeptic said:
If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.
Click to expand...

But aren't you just making it up, just in a slightly similar style to someone who thought that slavery was "natural"?

Skeptic said:
I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle. By which Newman did not mean to agree with Aristotle on everything, but to think through things like him. Needless to say Aristotle has no example about people beating each other up in a bar. But what he said is still applicable, if you try to think like him.
Click to expand...


Anyway I disagree with your contention.

Ethics is based on values, which is fundamentally based on emotions. Everyone has these, and with application can derive their own ethical principles. Science, on the other hand is difficult and does require study, as you have to fit with about 400-years of observations and the universe.
 
So is there a difference between ethics and morality?

And I don't agree that morality is invented. For example, most people can agree that senseless killing is wrong. I don't see how that can be invented because it seems that it is entirely instinctual to be repulsed by a senseless killing.

Even racism Probably wasn't truly invented, more like discovered. Humans have an inherent xenophobia to them. Racism is a symptom to that xenophobia.

Now explaining it in complex detail, that's probably invented. Which evolved out of people wanting to know why something is right and wrong and people making further demands that the action or beliefs be justified.
 
I agree with Eyeron that I don't think that all morality is invented (I'm assuming that this is code for religion or other such human created philosophies).

I feel as though it's possible to justify some positions, morally, without any religious or philosophical context.. just based on simple human behavior and reactions.

Humans react to things that happen to themselves and people around them. With emotions such as sadness, mourning.. or happiness and joy, depending on the circumstance. But it's a natural reaction that they cannot otherwise control.

If someone kills someone else, who did not want to die, he or she has deprived that person of their life, and brought undeniable pain and suffering to those who loved that person.

When one person acts in a manner that ends up infringing onto other peoples lives or psyches, I feel that they have crossed a line. I mean, I don't care if people do just about anything they want, when it only affects themselves. It's when it crosses the line to someone else that I think it becomes wrong.

A murderer hurts the victim and the loved ones around them. A thief hurts the person he has stolen from. A rapist hurts the person he has raped.

Those people will experience pain and suffering, without the ability to just "turn it off" or otherwise control it. This was brought upon them, by someone else, without their consent. They are suffering, and for no reason that they had any control over.

In that regard, I think it's fair to say that someone has done them a wrong, morally.
 
Last edited:
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited response to modded post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eyeron said:
So is there a difference between ethics and morality?

And I don't agree that morality is invented. For example, most people can agree that senseless killing is wrong. I don't see how that can be invented because it seems that it is entirely instinctual to be repulsed by a senseless killing.

Even racism Probably wasn't truly invented, more like discovered. Humans have an inherent xenophobia to them. Racism is a symptom to that xenophobia.

Now explaining it in complex detail, that's probably invented. Which evolved out of people wanting to know why something is right and wrong and people making further demands that the action or beliefs be justified.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human universals many of them to do with morality. A list of 202 can be found in the Appendix II of Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil.
 
qayak said:
Completely agree. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human universals many of them to do with morality. A list of 202 can be found in the Appendix II of Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil.
Click to expand...

How can human morality be universal if there are exceptions? As in:

Whiplash said:
Humans react to things that happen to themselves and people around them. With emotions such as sadness, mourning.. or happiness and joy, depending on the circumstance. But it's a natural reaction that they cannot otherwise control.
Click to expand...

Some serial killers and other murderers find joy in torturing people to death. So, how universal would "murder is immoral" be if the reason we think that is because of our natural reaction, yet another's natural reaction is the opposite. "murder is immoral" isn't universal, it's just most popular.

Personal morality isn't exactly invented, I agree it's a product of development, genes, etc., though it is possible to rationalize so that you convince yourself to alter your natural morality. But the idea that there's some kind of inherent "correct" morality is invented. Where some fail is in assuming everyone would realize that their view on morals is correct if they'd only ruminate on it. Ted Bundy would never hold the morals of Gandhi, no matter what arguments are made--because as Jimbob says morality is largely based on emotions. Morality is basically a subjective opinion. It makes as much sense to define a correct morality as it does to define a correct way to react to a certain film or song.

Ethics is more of a social science, morality in practice/law as benefitting society and is more forgiveable for using generalizations and ignoring aberrants. Morals are axioms, unprovable. Ethics is the math derived from those axioms.
 
Dragoonster said:
How can human morality be universal if there are exceptions? As in:



Some serial killers and other murderers find joy in torturing people to death. So, how universal would "murder is immoral" be if the reason we think that is because of our natural reaction, yet another's natural reaction is the opposite. "murder is immoral" isn't universal, it's just most popular.
Click to expand...


When the person acts in a manner that steps on someone else personal well being, life, psyche, etc.. that's when the line is crossed. We should all be equal.

I understand that there are people who feel that way. But their own desire to do such harm doesn't override anyone else desire to live or otherwise be happy. Why should it? He can feel that it's morally right to kill people all day long. It doesn't change the fact that he does undeniable harm to others in the process. He is only able to live his "morality" at the expense of others.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how one can speak of human universals when it only takes a single counter-example to debunk them.

We've just run into the whole problem of being unable to derive a "should" from an "is". Yes, we generally have overlapping moral systems, but people can only help you figure out how to live inasmuch as you share their values.

Skeptic's values are radically different from my own. If he told me I lacked honor, I'd ask him, "Why does honor matter?" And there would be nothing he could say to justify his point of view. He could make an appeal to authority (Aristotle), but Aristotle himself wouldn't be able to answer my question.

What could he say? That I must have honor because I'm a man and that's what real men do? Sounds a little fallacious to me.

The bottom line is: if people have common values, we can attempt to explain why they do; but if someone disagrees, other people's values are meaningless, because there isn't an objective frame of reference to compare them to. We only know how people behave, not how they ought to behave. We usually try to circumvent this problem by establishing a common ground, but if there isn't one, the talk is over.

That's why I said morality was invented. Human behavior is obviously a valid object for scientific study. The way humans think they should behave is also open to scrutiny. But the way humans should actually behave is not--because those rules don't actually exist as rules, only as behavioral patterns that some people don't even follow.
 
Last edited:
Whiplash said:
When the person acts in a manner that steps on someone else personal well being, life, psyche, etc.. that's when the line is crossed. We should all be equal.

I understand that there are people who feel that way. But their own desire to do such harm doesn't override anyone else desire to live or otherwise be happy. Why should it? He can feel that it's morally right to kill people all day long. It doesn't change the fact that he does undeniable harm to others in the process. He is only able to live his "morality" at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. I myself think it'd be good if we all had equal rights, but the universe doesn't. The universe doesn't care. The universe isn't even conscious. And if there is no higher arbiter, the situation degrades into my word versus theirs. I don't think we should allow people to be murdered. Serial Killers think otherwise. That's life.
 
If someone can only live out their own "morality" by asserting that morality over others, at their expense, causing them pain or suffering.. I don't consider that a counter-example which solidly debunks anything.

I accept that some people may find it morally right (or thrilling, fun, whatever) to kill. If he or she acts on it, he brings undeniable pain and suffering to the victim and their family. He takes it upon himself to assert that someone else is not fit to live. Who the hell is he to do that? What makes his moral decision superior to that of his victim?

I have never accepted this idea that because some people find it morally acceptable to do something, that it can't be a universally moral "good" or "bad" thing. What they do with regards to themselves is one thing. If it's at the expense (or benefit) of someone else, then it gets into the "right" or "wrong" area.

ETA: I'm not saying the universe says we all have equal rights. Rights are a human concept. It's not about "I have a right to live" as much as "he has NO RIGHT to kill me". Right is probably not the correct word here. I'm saying that when one person has values that can only be acted upon at the expense of another, that it's not a valid value. Because we have undeniable and uncontrollable reactions to things that happen around us. People will suffer, and they can't help it. Why should that ever be seen as acceptable? Why should someone who feels it's ok to hurt others actually be in the right in any way? Why should their moral choice be the one that is allowed to win out over the other?
 
Last edited:
Dragoonster said:
How can human morality be universal if there are exceptions? As in:

Some serial killers and other murderers find joy in torturing people to death. So, how universal would "murder is immoral" be if the reason we think that is because of our natural reaction, yet another's natural reaction is the opposite. "murder is immoral" isn't universal, it's just most popular.
Click to expand...

Who said all human morality is universal? I simply said there are many human universals and some of them are to do with morality.
 
Rairun said:
That's exactly the point. I myself think it'd be good if we all had equal rights, but the universe doesn't. The universe doesn't care. The universe isn't even conscious. And if there is no higher arbiter, the situation degrades into my word versus theirs. I don't think we should allow people to be murdered. Serial Killers think otherwise. That's life.
Click to expand...

Morals are not decided by the universe. They are decided by societies. And there are many moral answers that seem to be universal.

Healing the sick is one of them. Distinguishing right and wrong another.
 
Whiplash said:
When the person acts in a manner that steps on someone else personal well being, life, psyche, etc.. that's when the line is crossed. We should all be equal.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way, but not because it's objectively correct, or from any universality.

I understand that there are people who feel that way. But their own desire to do such harm doesn't override anyone else desire to live or otherwise be happy. Why should it? He can feel that it's morally right to kill people all day long. It doesn't change the fact that he does undeniable harm to others in the process. He is only able to live his "morality" at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Why should one's desire to remain alive and free of pain override a killer's desire to torture them to death? By putting him in jail I'm forcing my morality at the expense of his freedom.

I think this is fine because I think murder is immoral, and luckily so do most voters and lawmakers. And I'm happy to argue why that's my opinion, but I certainly wouldn't argue that it's immoral because of a universal truth or anything. Not that you seem to be arguing that, but it seems where my point isn't clear.
 
qayak said:
Who said all human morality is universal? I simply said there are many human universals and some of them are to do with morality.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of one? Or define "universal"? If universal just means popularly-held then I wouldn't have any disagreement.
 
qayak said:
Who said all human morality is universal? I simply said there are many human universals and some of them are to do with morality.
Click to expand...

I think he mis-read your post as coming from Whiplash's POV.

Interestingly, although the list has many universal conventions that reference a structure of thinking about right and wrong, the only universal moral prescription seems to be that incest is icky.
 
Dragoonster said:
I feel the same way, but not because it's objectively correct, or from any universality.

Why should one's desire to remain alive and free of pain override a killer's desire to torture them to death? By putting him in jail I'm forcing my morality at the expense of his freedom.
Click to expand...


A fair point. As I think about it, I'm finding myself questioning aspects of what I'm thinking and feeling.

But I can't find equivocation between the mental anguish of someone who wants to kill, but is not allowed to, and someone who wants to live, and is not allowed to. Maybe just saying "pain and suffering" was too generic.

The murderer who is not allowed to kill is upset about it. But the person who didn't want to die had their entire life snuffed out, and it also brought extreme mourning and pain to the untold number of friends and family members around him. I don't think that it's equal. I don't think that his point of view is equally valid at that point.

But I wasn't trying to speak to universal morals as much as to say that I felt I could demonstrate that it was possible to have moral values without the backdrop of religion involved. I'm weighing the suffering of the one against the other, and making a choice. So it is admittedly a philosophy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom