Who is to decide morality?

[Scott1]

I'm not a fan of moral relativism either - I kinda like provisional morality as introduced by Michael Shermer where the degree of anything is measured by the mathmatical system of Fuzzy Logic.

You say tomato, I say...

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

Does Shermer believe that human acts can ever be judged as "good" or "evil".....

1.0= Pure Good ( A myth, I assume)
0.0= Pure Evil (A myth)

Is a .9 good?
Is a 0.1 evil?

I'm not dancing because I hear no music..

If I put some music on, will you dance for me?:flirt:

Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scott,

Sorry to be disagreeable here, but I give your post a solid "10".

 

[Pah]

You say tomato, I say...

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

Does Shermer believe that human acts can ever be judged as "good" or "evil".....

1.0= Pure Good ( A myth, I assume)
0.0= Pure Evil (A myth)

Is a .9 good?
Is a 0.1 evil?

If I put some music on, will you dance for me?:flirt:

Scott

No evil is measured on one scale. An inverse scale is required for good. Separate scales are required because there is rarely a bi-polar influence. Good can not be deduced from the evil scale because there may be amorality within the portion not evil. Fuzzy logic allows for mutiple factors on both ends of the scale. The number reached is more probability than actual measurement. It does allow you, however, to say one thing is more evil than another but does not say concurrently that the difference is caused by good.

This Atheist thinks you're right about your assumptions of mythology.

I'm too frail to "two-step" and too old to learn the "debutant" waltz. Tap dance as you will.

 

[Scott1]

No evil is measured on one scale. An inverse scale is required for good. Separate scales are required because there is rarely a bi-polar influence. Good can not be deduced from the evil scale because there may be amorality within the portion not evil. Fuzzy logic allows for mutiple factors on both ends of the scale. The number reached is more probability than actual measurement. It does allow you, however, to say one thing is more evil than another but does not say concurrently that the difference is caused by good.

Hmmmm... ok.... let's put this into action!

A man walks up to another human being that he has never met, and without provocation (or drug influence, mental defect, etc), ends this other human beings life for the sheer pleasure of it.

How would this rate on the evil scale?

How about the good scale?

 

[Pah]

Hmmmm... ok.... let's put this into action!

A man walks up to another human being that he has never met, and without provocation (or drug influence, mental defect, etc), ends this other human beings life for the sheer pleasure of it.

How would this rate on the evil scale?

How about the good scale?

If the killer is a pro-life advocate and the victum is an abortion doctor, how would you rate it. Would you rate this as the same as you would rate the driver, driving for pure pleasure, who inadvertantly kills a pedestrian? Or the marksman, shooting in a range where a homeless person is sleeping behind a target? How about the mother that really hears the voice of God telling her to drown the kids?

I think your example is too general.

And any measurement I put on the evilness of all those situations is arbitray. Even in a non-relative morality the judgement you render is relative to the worst or best that you know and may differ depending on whether you consider the worst or the best as the standard.

 

[Ori]

What would be your views then on an assassin who only killed scum?

 

[Scott1]

I think your example is too general.

I hear dance music........

Actions like this happen EVERY day on this planet.

Your attempt to assign motives or conditions to the example.....:tsk:

 

[Scuba Pete]

What would be your views then on an assassin who only killed scum?

Well, I consider myself scum. Am I on someone's hit list?

 

[michel]

Well, I consider myself scum. Am I on someone's hit list?

Aw, come on, answer the question...

 

[Neo-Logic]

How can one really say what is truly right and wrong?

Morality, as others have stated before me, is a society concensus thing. It's basically dictated by the society that we live in and may or may not differ from one part of the world to another. Without the society dictating the accepted, everyone would probably be doing crazy things with no moral conscious.

 

[Ori]

You are on someones hit list, but at least now you know it's coming for you.

 

[Scott1]

Morality, as others have stated before me, is a society concensus thing. It's basically dictated by the society that we live in and may or may not differ from one part of the world to another. Without the society dictating the accepted, everyone would probably be doing crazy things with no moral conscious.

I'm not sure you've read the entire thread..... with "society dictating the accepted" Hitler was morally correct.... the society that he lived in viewed the abominations against the Jewish people as acceptable (not all the people, but...) so in your view, killing millions of people is ok if there is a popular consensus.

 

[Pah]

This is expending a lot of time on the extreme and does not get to the question directly of who is to decide morality. If you want to go that route, fine. But also include the God of the Old Testament. I don't know that his numbers compare to Hitlers, but his actions, if taken in WWII, would have been just as evil. This is a case of a clear perception of good and evil in one persona.

Who gets to decide. Is the theocrac returning to Biblical Law doing good or evil. Is Dirty Harry a "good guy". Should vigilante mobs be concidered "good" or "evil". Is the cult wrong and the denomination right even when they are simular in practise?

Who get's to decide what is black and what is white? - only the person with total blindness to color and to gray! I sure don't want that person to be picking my wardrobe nor do I welcome his selection of my morality.

 

[Scott1]

This is expending a lot of time on the extreme and does not get to the question directly of who is to decide morality.

Never mentioned a "who" .... I believe an act can be defined as morally good or evil.... just like something can be defined as animal, vegtable or mineral.

As far as it expending a lot of time of the extreme:

I've also been thinking, prompted by your post, what would be "always wrong". I've been over some of the "biggies" in that area and I can find exceptons to all of them

I just wanted to give you an example and see your exception to this one....

If you want to go that route, fine. But also include the God of the Old Testament. I don't know that his numbers compare to Hitlers, but his actions, if taken in WWII, would have been just as evil. This is a case of a clear perception of good and evil in one persona.

If you want to discuss this with a Protestant, please do so.... I don't know how many times I need to make the distinction that I don't read the Bible as a literal work.

 

[Fluffy]

I suppose an objective morality would require the possibility that morality had some basis in reality beyond that of an artificial, human creation. For example something similar to the law of gravity but in terms of morality.

I cannot think of a way in which we might interpret such a morality without the aid of a diety or something similar and that is the only attempt, so far, at an objective morality that I am aware of. So I am able to say what is right or wrong because I believe in deity x and he/she/it says that y is wrong.

I cannot see a way of forming an objective morality from a secular point of view.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You really don't see Hitler as an evil person? To me he was the personification of evil.

No, I said I DONT think Hitler was good, or able to justify genocide. But Hitler thought he was doing good. Im just pointing out that morals really dont exist, and any sence of right or wrong is determined by the individual.

I am not excusing Hitler - I believe he was one of the most evil men who have lived - but I believe his followers were just as guilty as he.

But his followers thought he was doing right. The Hitler youth were so loyal to Hitler and his ideas, they continued fighting, even though Germany's main army stoped.
Slavery is a good example of a moral issue. A slave owner, or a civilization that has enslaved another, sees nothing wrong with slavery. This is obvious because if they saw something wrong with it, they wouldn't have slaves. My thoughts on slavery is it takes away all freedom, and is wrong.

But also include the God of the Old Testament.

I would say that killing everyone but one man and his family is wrong. I would say destroying two cities because they were sinful is wrong. Confusing the languages because God didn't like the tower I would say is cruel. But a christian, or maybe jews, im not sure, would view these as being actions that are justifiable.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well Scott,

I am not a protestant or a catholic, but I feel that very, very few really understand what the Old Testament is all about. It's not that I disbelieve it, it's just that I don't have the cultural or historical perspective to make sense out of all of it.

But I whole heartedly agree with Fluffy. Without God, all morality IS relativistic. As so many have pointed out, that Hitler ain't so bad compared to the likes of me. I have no right to judge the man based on my life and times. As Michel pointed out, I am JUST as guilty.

But there is a God, and so I can easily see that Hitler was just plain wrong. AND... anything in me that reflects "Hitler" has to be eradicated.

As for God wiping out entire cities... well since he is the ONLY ONE that can give life, it is his to take back as he sees fit. Nothing immoral there. The real immorality is in taking what you can't give back.