For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Or even complicit in what the Nazis did.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:02 amNobody ever thinks they would've been a Nazi in Nazi Germany,henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 10:58 am I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.
Same as always: a person, any person, every person, any where or when, knows his life, liberty, and property are his. He knows it's wrong he should be murdered, slaved, raped, stolen from, defrauded (even murderers, slavers, rapists, and thieves know this as evidenced that none want to be, or believe it right they should be, murdered, slaved, raped, stolen from, or defrauded).
OK... so you choose to respect. You choose to be moral.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:46 pmSame as always: a person, any person, every person, any where or when, knows his life, liberty, and property are his. He knows it's wrong he should be murdered, slaved, raped, stolen from, defrauded (even murderers, slavers, rapists, and thieves know this as evidenced that none want to be, or believe it right they should be, murdered, slaved, raped, stolen from, or defrauded).
The moral choice: to recognize and respect the other guy's life, liberty, and property belong to the other guy or to treat the other guy (his life, liberty, property) as a commodity. Choosing to recognize and respect is moral. Choosing to commodify is immoral.
I think culture, time, place can affect how the moral grounding is taken but not the grounding itself.Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:57 pmI think they have quite a lot to do with it.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 10:58 amI reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.I doubt that my moral principles are vastly different to those of the average person brought up in a similar culture to mine.
So if you are being moral and I am being immoral the common moral core is that we are both people?
Jeff wants to own slaves. Jim doesn't.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:12 pmGive me an example of two unshared or conflicting moralities, sumthin' specfic.
Jim, who certainly would never consent to being, and who never agree he ought to be, a slave, chooses to ignore other people's' claim to their own lives, liberties, and properties. Jeff, I assume (since you offer no detail), chooses to recognize and respect other people's claims to their own lives, liberties, and properties.
Voting is generally immoral. You and Harbal vote the three of us (you, Harbal, and me) will pool resources to buy a leafblower. I don't want a leafblower, don't want to pay for one, so I vote no (or, better, I abstain). You and Harbal take my money becuz majority rules. If I'd agreed, from the start, I was contractually bound to abide by majority rule, you and Harbal might have just cause to make me abide. But if I didn't (and most voters don't [bein' born in a particular place, at a particular time, is not tantamount to consent]) then you guys are thieves.Jeff doesn't want women to have voting rights. Jim doesn't.
If it's a private school, each can lobby the owners or operators. Ultimately the owners/operators can do with their property as they choose, including or excluding as they choose.Jeff doesn't want them coloured folk in the same school as his kids. Jim does.
Yes, it's obvious that they are making different choices. The question is why?henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:50 pmJim, who certainly would never consent to being, and who never agree he ought to be, a slave, chooses to ignore other people's' claim to their own lives, liberties, and properties. Jeff, I assume (since you offer no detail), chooses to recognize and respect other people's claims to their own lives, liberties, and properties.
Both have the same moral grounding: one choose to recognize and respect; the other chooses to commodify.
No, I don't and I can't. You'd have to talk the choosers.You'll have to explain why people with the "same moral grounding" make morally incompatible moral choices.
Nuthin' at all. They, as free wills, choose to, as I say recognize & respect or commodify. Why each chooses one or the other is for them to say. What we can know, upfront, without interrogating either, is Jim is willing to ignore the moral claim of others to their own lives, liberties, and properties and Jeff, apparently, is not.What's different about their "same moral core"?
I am talking to the person who looks at two different people who make different; and incompatible moral choices; and despite the incompatibility of their moral stances - that person claims that those two people have the "same moral core".henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:08 pmNo, I don't and I can't. You'd have to talk the choosers.You'll have to explain why people with the "same moral grounding" make morally incompatible moral choices.
Q.E.Dhenry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:08 pmNuthin' at all. They, as free wills, choose to, as I say recognize & respect or commodify. Why each chooses one or the other is for them to say. What we can know, upfront, without interrogating either, is Jim is willing to ignore the moral claim of others to their own lives, liberties, and properties and Jeff, apparently, is not.What's different about their "same moral core"?
But perhaps he doesn't see them as people, or at least not people equal to himself as far as status and rights are concerned. It then becomes no more of a moral issue to own a slave and put him to work than it would be to do the same with a horse. Jim would not then be choosing to behave immorally, as he would not consider his actions to be immoral.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:50 pmJim, who certainly would never consent to being, and who never agree he ought to be, a slave, chooses to ignore other people's' claim to their own lives, liberties, and properties.
They do: each knows his life, liberty, and property is his, full stop. That's the core, the grounding, the claim, they share. Why one chooses to recognize and respect others have that that same core, grounding, claim while the other does not is sumthin' I can't answer.
The core, the grounding, the claim is the measure. It's the objective standard by which the actions of either Jim or Jeff can be assessed, by themselves, and by us. In context: it's the whole ball of wax.Their moral core amounts to nothing, because the "exact same moral core" produces morally incompatible behaviour.
So you mean you simply absorbed your moral principles from your cultural tradition? Did you ever question them? Do you really know which priniciples are right and which would be merely traditional? How did you go about sorting all that out?
I actually don't. All I've done, above, is to strip away the trappings of language that hide how the thing actually works, in down-to-earth terms. And if that makes it look a little naked, I can't be blamed for that.That is more or less correct, in principle, although you have done your best to make it sound as trivial and worthless as possible. In practice, there is much more to it than you suggest, but you do actually know that.IC wrote:It doesn't need to. When it become inconvenient, you can drop it -- and there will be nothing and nobody to tell you whether standing by it would have been right, or dropping it was wrong. All that can really be said is that when it suited H. to do X, he did X; and when it no longer suited him, he could abandon X without compunction, and did. Or that he stood by X, even though he had no objective obligation to do so, and isn't a better or worse person for whatever he did.Harbal wrote:Nobody except me, of course.
Well, it would have to be -- if, as you say, I essentially got the description above right (even if a little blunt).I don't find that to be the case.Not much moral guidance is provided by such a system. None at all, in fact.
That's exactly how it goes. The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?No, I don't accept that.IC wrote:They are. But a great many refuse the evidence, just as you do.Harbal wrote:If there were any genuine evidence for God, I am sure everyone would be aware of it.
It's the only thing that makes sense, especially if one believes that people have "will" at all. God could not give people free will, and then prevent them from making bad or evil choices. That would be to give them no actual choice at all, since they could only do good. So what would be the point in giving them volition at all, since they couldn't use it for the purposes they chose? It would be self-contradictory.And you think that makes sense, do you? Or that if it were true, there would actually be a point to it?In fact, the Bible says all men really know there is a God, but choose not to be grateful for anything He's done for them -- like giving them life and a world, at minimum -- and so, as Dr. Craig said, they "become darkened" in their minds, and hardened against God, and God let's them do that; because that's what freedom means. It means you can do the right thing, or the wrong thing, the true thing or the false thing, the fair thing or the unjust thing, the thing that leads to life and the thing that leads to death. And all those choices get to be genuine.
And with choice come things like identity, personhood, freedom, individuality, consciouosness, will...all things we all recognize as surpassing goods. We wouldn't want to be without them, would we?