To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

They're not really speaking about morality, but rather legality. The legal framework says "you owe duties x, y, z... and a breach of those duties earns a certain punishment." A moral framework says "you owe duties x, y, z... because I value a community/society/reality where those duties are fulfilled."

"Might" does not make "right," as it were, although the Christians are wont to believe it.

No. One person having all the pieces to the puzzle doesn't make that person the sole decider on whether the puzzle's image is pleasing or frightening. Everyone can still decide that for themselves.

I think it is possible you lean more to an emotion model of morality, Cerpin. I lean more to the belief that morality is more of a rational process than an emotive one. As such, if we all agree with live in the same objective universe, and we use the same basic laws of reason, and we share a common humanity, it is reasonable that we are going to arrive at highly similar moral frameworks, which is indeed what we see. The differences between our frameworks tend to arise from the application of those frameworks on a day-to-day basis, which has a strong cultural, family, religious influence.

If I were evaluating the nature of the cosmos, I would give more creedence to the pronouncements of an astronomer than those of an astrologist. Likewise, if the Christian god did exist, was indeed all-knowing, then its ability to reason morally would be more advanced than mine. That does not change the fact that I am an independent moral agent, but it does suggest I would be foolish not to explore and understand the moral framework such a being has developed.

That does not alter the fact that each of us has an independent, subjective framework.

[carpedm9587]

If might does not define right, then what does - weakness?

You have said something like this several times. So are you proposing that whoever/whatever has the most power morally defines what is "right" and what is "wrong," just by virtue of being the most powerful?

[Tassman]

It is obvious... If there are no universal moral truths then no ethical opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.

Ethical opinions are determined by society and have demonstrably changed over the millennia as community values evolve.

So making moral decisions based on ignorance is valid?

Making moral decisions based upon community values is what makes them valid. Basing morality on tribal ethics deriving from the Bronze Age and supposedly revealed by a deity, is what’s ignorant.

[seer]

Only an idiot would think that.

Why? Why is your moral opinion more valid or correct than the Communist's? You are a moral relativist - right?

To you, the correct ethical opinions are those that agree with your own ethical opinions, as informed by your personal values, beliefs and expectations.

If you are correct then why would mine or your ethical opinion be more valid than the Nazi's? Based on what?

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

In what other area of life do you base decisions on ignorance?

[seer]

You have said something like this several times. So are you proposing that whoever/whatever has the most power morally defines what is "right" and what is "wrong," just by virtue of being the most powerful?

I expanded on this to Jim a few posts back: No quite, God's immutable moral character defines right, He just has the power to enforce it universally.

But how do you escape might makes right apart from God? The rapist thinks it is a good to take a woman when he wants - we as a society decide that that is a wrong, and put him in jail. It is the majority defining what is right.

[carpedm9587]

I expanded on this to Jim a few posts back: No quite, God's immutable moral character defines right, He just has the power to enforce it universally.

But how do you escape might makes right apart from God? The rapist thinks it is a good to take a woman when he wants - we as a society decide that that is a wrong, and put him in jail. It is the majority defining what is right.

You seem to be able to separate what defines a moral right and the enforcement of that right in the context of god (see your post above), but you lose that abability in the context of a subjective morality. The two conditions are, from my perspective, identical.

"God's immutable moral character defines right" is parallel to "My reason defines what is right for me."
"He just has the power to enforce it universally" is parallel to "The individual or community that is stronger has the power to enforce their definition of right."

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why? Why is your moral opinion more valid or correct than the Communist's?

Because it's mine.

You are a moral relativist - right?

Nope.

You're not real sharp, y'know that?

If you are correct then why would mine or your ethical opinion be more valid than the Nazi's? Based on what?

All opinions are equally valid. Not all opinions are equally correct.

In what other area of life do you base decisions on ignorance?

If not having all information is "ignorance," and if nobody has "all the information," then everybody does, all the time, in everything.

Is it too much to ask that you apply some thought to your future responses? Also, why did you not respond to the final comment in my previous post. I said I was waiting for you to make a point. What is your point? Did you in fact not have one? It seems that way.

[seer]

You seem to be able to separate what defines a moral right and the enforcement of that right in the context of god (see your post above), but you lose that abability in the context of a subjective morality. The two conditions are, from my perspective, identical.

"God's immutable moral character defines right" is parallel to "My reason defines what is right for me."
"He just has the power to enforce it universally" is parallel to "The individual or community that is stronger has the power to enforce their definition of right."

So I'm not sure what your point is, if we end up with might defining right in both cases I have no problem with that.

[carpedm9587]

So I'm not sure what your point is, if we end up with might defining right in both cases I have no problem with that.

Actually - might doesn't define right in EITHER case. Might doesn't define what IS right - it governs whose definition of right will be enforced.

Look, the state can pass a law that requires every male to have non-consexual sex with one woman each day. They can put in place consequences if I do not adhere to the law. That may happen if the vast majority of the populace believes this is "moral." What they cannot do is change my belief that forcing a woman to have sex with me is wrong. They can jail me - exile me - kill me even. But they cannot change my definition of "right."

See the difference?

[seer]

Because it's mine.

Really? So if you prefer steak and I prefer lobster that makes your preference more correct and valid than mine?

Nope.

You're not real sharp, y'know that?

Then state you position, I am not a mind reader...

All opinions are equally valid. Not all opinions are equally correct.

Why not? According to whom?

If not having all information is "ignorance," and if nobody has "all the information," then everybody does, all the time, in everything.

The point, jumping off Carp's comment, was that an all know being would be in a better position to make moral judgements, where we are clueless.

Is it too much to ask that you apply some thought to your future responses? Also, why did you not respond to the final comment in my previous post. I said I was waiting for you to make a point. What is your point? Did you in fact not have one? It seems that way.

I did not comment because I was not making a point I was just regurgitating your nonsense.

[seer]

Actually - might doesn't define right in EITHER case. Might doesn't define what IS right - it governs whose definition of right will be enforced.

Look, the state can pass a law that requires every male to have non-consexual sex with one woman each day. They can put in place consequences if I do not adhere to the law. That may happen if the vast majority of the populace believes this is "moral." What they cannot do is change my belief that forcing a woman to have sex with me is wrong. They can jail me - exile me - kill me even. But they cannot change my definition of "right."

See the difference?

I get your point, then we are back to morality being completely individualistic.

[carpedm9587]

I get your point, then we are back to morality being completely individualistic.

Well, if we leave out "completely," I never left that point...

And isn't the same true in your worldview? A state can declare abortion to be legally permissible, but if it flies in the face of your moral code, which you derive from your religion/god, the power of the state to enforce that code does not change your moral view.

Might does not make right - it merely dictates which definition of "right" will be enforced.

[seer]

Might does not make right - it merely dictates which definition of "right" will be enforced.

I'm good with that, but it kind of amounts to the same thing. There still needs to be a moral authority.

[carpedm9587]

I'm good with that, but it kind of amounts to the same thing. There still needs to be a moral authority.

Now that all depends on which "authority" you are referencing

- The authority for defining what is right seems to me to be the cognitive agent that is forming a moral code. That is the highest level of moral reasoning. At the lowest level is the cognitive agent who defers their moral code to a different reasoner. Lowest on the list is the moral agent that defers their moral code to the enforcement authority (e.g., fear of punishment/reward)

- The authority for enforcing a moral code will generally be the more powerful player (politically, force of arms, reasoning, etc.).

[JimL]

No quite, God's immutable moral character defines right, He just has the power to enforce it universally.

So a behavior, you believe, is right simply because it is right, there is no underlying reason for an actions being right or wrong, there is no reason why a behavior is good or bad, it's simply either good or bad because like god, morals are just brute facts?

Jim you avoided the point. It was a hypothetical. So was your saving of the 17 year old that goes on that night to kill a family of 5 a good act or a bad act?

It was a good act seer.

And that is the point, only an all knowing Being can know the long term consequences of any act. We are completely in the dark.

So what, we don't know the future, that has nothing to do with the present consequences of our actions. The present consequences are that you saved the 17 year olds life. What that 17 year old might do at any time in the future is irrelevant since you have no control over that.

No, those in hell are those who refuse to be perfected, to love God, who does the perfecting, it doesn't mean that perfection comes in this life.

So you think god is going to make you perfect like god himself, or do you mean something else by the use of that term.