Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[rogue06]

No, that doesn't help me understand what YOU mean when you are using the two terms. Why do you need to keep quoting other people? Can't you read your own mind and tell us what YOU MEAN by the two terms, morals and ethics? I can go find definitions that contradict your quoted definitions, so what good does quoting someone else do? And according to what you quoted above, morals and ethics are basically interchangeable so why do you use them differently? Basically it is saying morals are the underlying principals and ethics are how they are applied. Yet you used the terms in opposition to each other.

She's giving you how other people define the terms so that if in the future it starts to go sideways on her she can declare those weren't her definitions.

It's all part of her usual game.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which you get as well, but that has never once stopped you from ignoring the answer and continuing to pretend an answer was not given.

What relevance does that remark have to do with my answers to your questions on this thread?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, that doesn't help me understand what YOU mean when you are using the two terms.

I am sorry you did not understand what Deigh wrote. As I wrote to you earlier you would need to ask me which branch of ethics or morals you are considering.

I regret that there is no simple definition or inference that Ethics = this and Morality = that

Why do you need to keep quoting other people

I thought it might help you to better understand the complexity of these issues.

And according to what you quoted above, morals and ethics are basically interchangeable so why do you use them differently?

No they are not "interchangeable" that is an over-simplistic inference.

Ethics is one of the main branches of philosophy. Moral theories are also large and complex and I do not consider that one single definition of morality can be applied to all moral issues.
So, if we accept that there are two uses of the term “morality” that is,[A] in a descriptive sense, and refers to certain codes of conduct accepted by a society or group or by an individual for their own personal behaviour; and[B] one that is a standard or norm that refers to a code of conduct, which within specified conditions, would be put proposed by all rational people, we accept that there are two uses of the term “morality”.

However, if we accept that there two such uses [descriptive and standardising] that does not commit us to holding a view that this distinction between what ought to be and what is, is immediately obvious and impossible to reconcile; although I suspect some might argue that it does.

Anyone can see that a descriptive form of morality exists. We can see this from the moralities of various groups but we do not necessarily have to make standardised judgements. A group of head-hunting cannibals in Papua New Guinea have a different morality [code of behaviour] from your or I but should we make a standardised judgement that their morality is objectively wrong? It clearly is not wrong for them.
Therefore the idea of cannibalism, although you and I find it repugnant is, within the specified conditions [i.e. of their tribal practises customs] acceptable to them.

When it comes to descriptive morality then it will need to be specified by identifying which codes put forward by a particular group or society are considered “moral”. All human groups have a form of morality and many make quite definite distinctions between their moral codes, their religious beliefs, societal behaviour, and legal codes. In societies such as our own these are often very clearly determined. It therefore follows that morality cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct advanced by any social group.

We also have to consider subjectivism, intersubjectivity, and emotivism.


As I wrote earlier these philosophical concepts are not simple.

[Tassman]

Until they are. And when that time comes, why would it be wrong?


And I understand that atheists have a moral sense. But that moral sense does not have a firm foundation. Axiomatically, it is built upon shifting sand.

And bible-based morality is not.?

[Tassman]

You don't know that - perhaps slavery did not sit well with the majority, after all most Northern states ended it (my state passed the Gradual Abolition act in 1784) and we finally had a war to end it. And it was only two centuries.

Regardless of any “good intentions” slavery existed in America for centuries. And its legacy continued to influence American history, from the Reconstruction, to the civil rights movement that emerged a century after emancipation and beyond.

How are biology and natural selection the origin of moral beliefs and truths when they are blind to such things?

Biology and natural selection are NOT the origin of moral beliefs per se. They are the origin of our cooperative, reciprocal instincts upon which we, as a social species, base our rules of behavior, i.e., our morality.

All other species survive just fine without moral beliefs. So what is your point?

ALL higher species have evolved acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. It’s instinctive. Furthermore, chimpanzees, our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, have been shown to exhibit altruism- once thought to be the prerogative of Homo sapiens alone.

Cruelty, selfishness and genocide are valued by those who practice them. And who are you to say that they are wrong - especially if those behaviors help the group survive against competing groups?

Well, they were certainly valued by the Christian colonial powers which frequently engaged in acts of genocidal violence against indigenous inhabitants in America, Australia and elsewhere. But such behavior is now recognized as utterly unacceptable.

[seer]

Regardless of any “good intentions” slavery existed in America for centuries. And its legacy continued to influence American history, from the Reconstruction, to the civil rights movement that emerged a century after emancipation and beyond.

Just remember Tass that it was Christian countries that did abolish slavery, But what is the big deal - it is all relative - right?

Biology and natural selection are NOT the origin of moral beliefs per se. They are the origin of our cooperative, reciprocal instincts upon which we, as a social species, base our rules of behavior, i.e., our morality.

But you said they were the origin of moral beliefs. Make up your mind,

ALL higher species have evolved acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. It’s instinctive. Furthermore, chimpanzees, our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, have been shown to exhibit altruism- once thought to be the prerogative of Homo sapiens alone.

So when one chimp group slaughters another chimp group that is acceptable behavior. Got it...

Well, they were certainly valued by the Christian colonial powers which frequently engaged in acts of genocidal violence against indigenous inhabitants in America, Australia and elsewhere. But such behavior is now recognized as utterly unacceptable.

But if it is all relative it was acceptable back then. So what is the big deal?

[Machinist]

And bible-based morality is not.?

Bible based morality is also shifting sand.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So when one chimp group slaughters another chimp group that is acceptable behavior. Got it...

What was your human group doing in Vietnam? You were doing precisely what your hypothetical chimp group was doing. Was your group's behaviour "acceptable" or not?

[Sparko]

I am sorry you did not understand what Deigh wrote. As I wrote to you earlier you would need to ask me which branch of ethics or morals you are considering.

I regret that there is no simple definition or inference that Ethics = this and Morality = that


I thought it might help you to better understand the complexity of these issues.




No they are not "interchangeable" that is an over-simplistic inference.

Ethics is one of the main branches of philosophy. Moral theories are also large and complex and I do not consider that one single definition of morality can be applied to all moral issues.
So, if we accept that there are two uses of the term “morality” that is,[A] in a descriptive sense, and refers to certain codes of conduct accepted by a society or group or by an individual for their own personal behaviour; and[B] one that is a standard or norm that refers to a code of conduct, which within specified conditions, would be put proposed by all rational people, we accept that there are two uses of the term “morality”.

However, if we accept that there two such uses [descriptive and standardising] that does not commit us to holding a view that this distinction between what ought to be and what is, is immediately obvious and impossible to reconcile; although I suspect some might argue that it does.

Anyone can see that a descriptive form of morality exists. We can see this from the moralities of various groups but we do not necessarily have to make standardised judgements. A group of head-hunting cannibals in Papua New Guinea have a different morality [code of behaviour] from your or I but should we make a standardised judgement that their morality is objectively wrong? It clearly is not wrong for them.
Therefore the idea of cannibalism, although you and I find it repugnant is, within the specified conditions [i.e. of their tribal practises customs] acceptable to them.

When it comes to descriptive morality then it will need to be specified by identifying which codes put forward by a particular group or society are considered “moral”. All human groups have a form of morality and many make quite definite distinctions between their moral codes, their religious beliefs, societal behaviour, and legal codes. In societies such as our own these are often very clearly determined. It therefore follows that morality cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct advanced by any social group.

We also have to consider subjectivism, intersubjectivity, and emotivism.


As I wrote earlier these philosophical concepts are not simple.

So after writing several paragraphs of nonsense, It seems you still are unable to define the difference between ethics and morals. But you seem to be able to define difference between types of morals now. Interesting. You seem to be using "descriptive" to mean "relative morality" and "standardizing morality" to mean "absolute/objective morality" above. Another non-standard use of phrases on your part. How do you expect people to engage in debate with you if you keep using phrases and terms that others have no idea what you are talking about?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So after writing several paragraphs of nonsense, It seems you still are unable to define the difference between ethics and morals. But you seem to be able to define difference between types of morals now. Interesting. You seem to be using "descriptive" to mean "relative morality" and "standardizing morality" to mean "absolute/objective morality" above. Another non-standard use of phrases on your part. How do you expect people to engage in debate with you if you keep using phrases and terms that others have no idea what you are talking about?

I am sorry you did not understand what I wrote. However, terminology is also important and standardised carries less emotive inference than "absolute/objective". Again the term descriptive is not automatically to be considered "relative" morality" it simply acknowledges that different cultures have certain codes of conduct that are accepted by that society or group, or by an an individual for their own personal behaviour and the truth of falsity of moral judgement, or their justification is not absolute. Relativism takes different formulations.

As I keep reminding you these things are not simple.

If you are looking for absolutes you will not find them in philosophical theories.

[Sparko]

I am sorry you did not understand what I wrote. However, terminology is also important and standardised carries less emotive inference than "absolute/objective". Again the term descriptive is not automatically to be considered "relative" morality" it simply acknowledges that different cultures have certain codes of conduct that are accepted by that society or group, or by an an individual for their own personal behaviour and the truth of falsity of moral judgement, or their justification is not absolute. Relativism takes different formulations.

As I keep reminding you these things are not simple.

If you are looking for absolutes you will not find them in philosophical theories.

Oh I "understood" what you wrote. It is just another attempt to try to pretend superiority over others by using esoteric terms to confuse the issue so that you can't be held to account for any views you express. You want to be as vague as possible in order to avoid being held to a specific view while at the same time getting to pretend those that don't understand you are just ignorant and can't understand your great intellect. When in fact, it is you who is ignorant of the topic being discussed.

You must have a really bad inferiority complex to constantly play these games.

[seer]

What was your human group doing in Vietnam? You were doing precisely what your hypothetical chimp group was doing. Was your group's behaviour "acceptable" or not?

The chimp thing is not hypothetical. And why is Vietnam a big deal? It is all relative right - animals doing what animals do...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh I "understood" what you wrote.

That completely contradicts your earlier remark where you contended that what I wrote was “nonsense”. In general people do not understand what they allege to be "nonsense”. So please make up your mind.

It is just another attempt to try to pretend superiority over others by using esoteric terms to confuse the issue so that you can't be held to account for any views you express.

What is “esoteric” about the words “descriptive” and “standardising”

You want to be as vague as possible in order to avoid being held to a specific view

I am trying to make it clear to you that these issues are highly complicated. As with other disciplines such as music, the sciences, and mathematics, the discipline of philosophy has its own specialised vocabulary and is also precise when it comes to defining the terms it is employing.

Why can you not comprehend that?

while at the same time getting to pretend those that don't understand you are just ignorant and can't understand your great intellect.

Well Sparko if the hat fits please feel free to wear it.

When in fact, it is you who is ignorant of the topic being discussed.

Philosophy is not my field of expertise but I have read around the subject. You appear to want simple answers to highly complex issues and that is not possible

You must have a really bad inferiority complex to constantly play these games.

I do not think I am the one with the inferiority complex!

You might find this book useful.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And why is Vietnam a big deal? It is all relative right - animals doing what animals do...

Well you apparently seem to think so.

[seer]

Well you apparently seem to think so.

What else is there in your morally relative world?