Logic won't allow it... Moral law must exist, if we appeal to a standard of "better" for humanity.

[Midnight Pete]

Here's a thought: Logic is not sufficient to describe morality.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Here's a thought: Logic is not sufficient to describe morality.

It is a thought, but it's either an uneducated one or a lazy one.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It is a thought, but it's either an uneducated one or a lazy one.

It's neither. I seriously don't thnk pure logic can describe the complexities and seeming contradictions of human morality. Why is it that in any Science Fiction story the machines are unable to comprehend human behaviour?

Think about it, instead of just insulting me.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It's neither. I seriously don't thnk pure logic can describe the complexities and seeming contradictions of human morality. Why is it that in any Science Fiction story the machines are unable to comprehend human behaviour?

Think about it, instead of just insulting me.

I insulted the idea not you.

Machines can not understand humans behavior because they are machines. It would better to say, why animals can't understand human behavior, and then it would be for the same reason humans can't fully understand a lady bug.

All we can do is observe and predict, as we are not privy to the inner workings or their thought process.

Things you think are complex and contradictory about human morals, may say more about you then human morals. Do you want to elaborate on what is so complex and contradictory, so we can see?

 

[Magic Man]

What does it mean to say "Moral law exists"?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

What does it mean to say "Moral law exists"?

It means just that; Moral law exists. Or, are you asking for the justification for saying that? Please clarify...

 

[LuisDantas]

Midnight Pete, I just don't see why morality would possibly transcend logic.

Much on the contrary, morality is a direct result of logical thought. It is the behavior that may logically result in the greatest good.

And for that to be possible, a big part is actually managing to realize what is better for people, both individually and collectivelly. Rationality and logical thought are indispensable to attain any ground on that front, as well for the latter step of weighting the pros and cons to make the needed decisions.

I don't much like the concept of Moral Law (if I understood it correctly), because Laws are usually rigid and difficult to change, and IMO that is anathema to Morality. Morality is born out of the desire to be flexible and adaptable, while Law has a strong affinity to rigidity and social pressure, which are among the main enemies of Morality.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't much like the concept of Moral Law (if I understood it correctly), because Laws are usually rigid and difficult to change, and IMO that is anathema to Morality. Morality is born out of the desire to be flexible and adaptable, while Law has a strong affinity to rigidity and social pressure, which are among the main enemies of Morality.

Luis this works for arbitrary law, but not for intrinsic law. There is a difference that leads to two completely different conclusions, once the matter is understood.
Gravity has nothing to do with our desire. And it is in this sense I suggest neither does Moral Law.
The idea is Moral Law must exist if there is a better that can be obtained. Example, if we look at Nazi morals vs Your morals, it is of course subject to individuals to choose which one is "more" moral, but it is "that" standard by which they make their decision, that is neither the Nazi moral or Your moral, that is Moral Law. Moral Law can not be Your moral, or Nazi Moral, but something that those morals are weighed against.

If such a thing did not exist, we could never say one civilized nation is better than the other, but we know that is not the case.

 

[Magic Man]

It means just that; Moral law exists. Or, are you asking for the justification for saying that? Please clarify...

I guess I'm asking what moral law is. Are you referring to more than just morality? Does "moral law" imply that there is one standard for all morality?

 

[Magic Man]

If such a thing did not exist, we could never say one civilized nation is better than the other, but we know that is not the case.

Yes, we could, if we were measuring by our own definition of "better".

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I guess I'm asking what moral law is. Are you referring to more than just morality? Does "moral law" imply that there is one standard for all morality?

Certainly defining moral, in ambiguous terms does nobody any good, and if we do that it ultimately means nothing, right?

So then, if we are to properly answer the question does Moral really mean anything, or is there a absolute Moral standard, it might help to ask the question;

Do we call one civilization more moral than another? If we answer no, then well the conversation is over, and the term moral is still left to meaning nothing meaningful.

If we answer yes, then we admit that the moral position can indeed become better. Once we admit to this "better" morality, we have to have something independent of the two civilizations in question by which we can deem something better or worse.

If we simply conclude this to opinion, morality is again reduced to nothing, and any civilization is just as good as another.

So it is for this type of analysis I say Moral Law is certainly possible, and worthy of exploration.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yes, we could, if we were measuring by our own definition of "better".

This is not how things happen though. We do not have 7 billion nations, because by and large people agree on what is good and bad. The small differences between civilizations are not moral difference, but educational differences.

One of the sensationalist arguments in this discussion is to polarize the differences in cultures to be black and white when it comes to morals. Yet no one can imagine a society where it is thought good to greet another by stabbing them with a knife, or where killing your friends is fun. We find a common morality through all cultures, however their education levels vary, so how they behave reflect ignorance rather than morals being different.

In regard, to your defining better for yourself. It might help to define Moral Law as synonymous with Law of Decent Behavior. This may help you understand the goal of Moral Law, because it helps defog what it really means or intends to offer us.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis this works for arbitrary law, but not for intrinsic law. There is a difference that leads to two completely different conclusions, once the matter is understood.
Gravity has nothing to do with our desire. And it is in this sense I suggest neither does Moral Law.

Unless Intrinsic Law is something very different from what it sounds, I must regretfully disagree with you.

Morality, by its very nature, can never be implemented by Laws, intrinsic or otherwise. Intrinsinc Law may well have nothing to do with desires. I don't think human law has a very good connection with human desires either, but Morality definitely does. Morality is entirely about cultivating constructive desires, in fact. And that is why Laws can never do better than grossly improvising a vague resemblance of Morality. Law simply does not exist in an adequate plane to allow for it to have significant Moral uses.

The idea is Moral Law must exist if there is a better that can be obtained. Example, if we look at Nazi morals vs Your morals, it is of course subject to individuals to choose which one is "more" moral, but it is "that" standard by which they make their decision, that is neither the Nazi moral or Your moral, that is Moral Law. Moral Law can not be Your moral, or Nazi Moral, but something that those morals are weighed against.

I'm having a real hard time following you here. Is your assumption that some "objective" standard must exist, so that our choices of Morals are not hopelessly arbitrary?

I happen to think that such a Moral Law, in those terms, is neither needed nor possible. Human discernment, not a supposed higher law, is what is needed to support morality.

If such a thing did not exist, we could never say one civilized nation is better than the other, but we know that is not the case.

That is not correct. We simply do not have too deep or too widespread moral education yet. Soon enough we will have that. In fact, soon enough we will need that. We learned a lot on the matter with the 20th Century World Wars already, albeit at a terrible price and apparently not nearly as well as we should have.

 

[Magic Man]

Certainly defining moral, in ambiguous terms does nobody any good, and if we do that it ultimately means nothing, right?

So then, if we are to properly answer the question does Moral really mean anything, or is there a absolute Moral standard, it might help to ask the question;

Do we call one civilization more moral than another? If we answer no, then well the conversation is over, and the term moral is still left to meaning nothing meaningful.

If we answer yes, then we admit that the moral position can indeed become better. Once we admit to this "better" morality, we have to have something independent of the two civilizations in question by which we can deem something better or worse.

If we simply conclude this to opinion, morality is again reduced to nothing, and any civilization is just as good as another.

So it is for this type of analysis I say Moral Law is certainly possible, and worthy of exploration.

One culture being better, in my opinion, means it's a better place for all of its citizens to live. It means everyone has as much freedom as they possibly can while still living in a society, and everyone is treated equally. That's pretty much the standard I use. That isn't to say that's a "moral law", but that's why I would say one country is better than another, because it holds up better to that standard.

 

[Magic Man]

This is not how things happen though. We do not have 7 billion nations, because by and large people agree on what is good and bad. The small differences between civilizations are not moral difference, but educational differences.

One of the sensationalist arguments in this discussion is to polarize the differences in cultures to be black and white when it comes to morals. Yet no one can imagine a society where it is thought good to greet another by stabbing them with a knife, or where killing your friends is fun. We find a common morality through all cultures, however their education levels vary, so how they behave reflect ignorance rather than morals being different.

In regard, to your defining better for yourself. It might help to define Moral Law as synonymous with Law of Decent Behavior. This may help you understand the goal of Moral Law, because it helps defog what it really means or intends to offer us.

I still don't understand what the idea of moral law is. There is morality. We all agree on some basics of morality. We construct our societies around those basics we agree on. If that's moral law, OK, but I don't see a need to call it that.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm having a real hard time following you here. Is your assumption that some "objective" standard must exist, so that our choices of Morals are not hopelessly arbitrary?

I happen to think that such a Moral Law, in those terms, is neither needed nor possible. Human discernment, not a supposed higher law, is what is needed to support morality.

Yes, I think this is what I'm trying to say.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Unless Intrinsic Law is something very different from what it sounds, I must regretfully disagree with you.

Intrinsic in the sense, that it is something human beings have that is unique to them, and guides them to decent behavior. It is the same guide that has been around in all cultures we read about as far back as available.
The mistake here is to assume just because we "learn" the moral law, or at least better morals, that it somehow makes moral law subjective. Yet if we examine the multiplication table, it is not something we would just know all about without having been taught, so therefor is the multiplication table subjective?

If you don't want to consider these ideas, it is your prerogative. If you do, we shall continue.

Morality, by its very nature, can never be implemented by Laws, intrinsic or otherwise.

It was never implemented, it simply exists when human beings exist. The same as gravity when matter exists. Though I admit there is a unique thing about this law, in that we can not choose whether or not we are effected by gravity in a natural sense, we have no power against that. Yet with moral laws, we find we know what we ought to do, but can and often do choose to do what we shouldn't do.

Intrinsinc Law may well have nothing to do with desires.

And it doesn't, it simply exists whether we want it to or don't

I don't think human law has a very good connection with human desires either, but Morality definitely does. Morality is entirely about cultivating constructive desires, in fact.

No in fact it doesn't. If we use morality in that sense, we reduce the word to mean the same as progress. They are not one and the same. We must ask progress towards what? In other words, morality is absolute and as we progress we come closer to the mark. Or think of it like this, cultivating constructive desires as you put it, is akin to a child drawing a tire. For when he matures and see a perfect circle somewhere he will realize he was not a far off the mark as he might have thought.

I'm having a real hard time following you here. Is your assumption that some "objective" standard must exist, so that our choices of Morals are not hopelessly arbitrary?
I happen to think that such a Moral Law, in those terms, is neither needed nor possible. Human discernment, not a supposed higher law, is what is needed to support morality.

I do not believe it must exist, I merely mean it as a matter of fact like gravity will exist when matter exists.
Then human discernment as you put it, simply gets us closer to drawing a perfect circle, but the circle already exists.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

One culture being better, in my opinion, means it's a better place for all of its citizens to live. It means everyone has as much freedom as they possibly can while still living in a society, and everyone is treated equally. That's pretty much the standard I use. That isn't to say that's a "moral law", but that's why I would say one country is better than another, because it holds up better to that standard.

No problem with this, it is simply semantics to some degree. This is known as the Law of Decent Behavior. Part of what you state here, is simply par for the course, and if you want to take credit for that standard I won't stop you.

 

[Magic Man]

No problem with this, it is simply semantics to some degree. This is known as the Law of Decent Behavior. Part of what you state here, is simply par for the course, and if you want to take credit for that standard I won't stop you.

I don't want to take credit for it; I just want to acknowledge that that's a pretty standard standard (yup, I said it), and one that I use. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a moral law, but I think the general standard people use to compare cultures is how happy overall the people are.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I still don't understand what the idea of moral law is. There is morality. We all agree on some basics of morality. We construct our societies around those basics we agree on. If that's moral law, OK, but I don't see a need to call it that.

Well it seems it is more than just "some" basics. If indeed such a things exists, that guides, governs, and corrects our behavior, it is no light thing I would think
Which is why most object to it in the first place, no one wants to be accountable to anything like that. Ya know?