social standards, your environment, and upraising.
Morality can't come from God, or else it has no meaning.
If morality is just whatever God says is wrong, then God could have just as easily chosen different things to be considered immoral and moral. But it is the qualities of a particular act that makes it immoral or moral, not whether or not God disapproves.
That's part of it. Basically Socrate's refutation boils down into the fact that there are two options for God's decisions regarding morality and that both of them lead to the necessary conclusion that Divine Command is logically worthless.
The first option is that God's moral commands are based on whim. If this is the case then things are constantly subject to change and in flux, and ergo no moral system can be said to exist or be able to be known since there is no underlying system. What is wrong today may be right tomorrow. If God's commands are fiat, than everything is up in the air.
If God's choices are based not on fiat but on some sort of reasoning on his part, then it is those reasons, and not God himself, that is the source of morality. Ergo whether or not God exists is a meaningless question as far as ethics go.
Is it desirable or even necessary for a moral agent to be a sociopath? If you have the capacity to feel empathy, you're likely to have your decisions influenced by this empathy rather than what is the best course of action, whereas if you have no capacity or desire to feel it you can be dedicated to a moral course of action not based on empathy, which is inherently flawed as a philosophy even though it's the default.
I think you don't. Of reported rape cases in the UK only 7.3% (2008-9) end up with full conviction (7 years+), the rest are either found not-guilty, or charged with minor offenses. FACT.Originally Posted by Delphinus
But seriously. Enough with the rape thing.
I think this calls for a definition of morals; but by your definition, I essentially agree with what you're saying. I'm just defining morals differently.1) When our morals are based on the following form:
DESIRED GOAL (Happiness, hedonism; freedom, liberalism; individual power, social Darwinism)
MEANS TO OBTAIN GOAL (If useful, 'good'; if useless, 'bad')
The difference between 'good' and 'evil' acts is purely logical. If the action will further your aims, do it; if not, don't. When we base a system on empathy, we are basing it, albeit indirectly, on a form of rational altruism, although it could more cynically be interpreted as a form of egoistic hedonism (the pain of others makes me feel unhappy: being unhappy is something I don't enjoy: I will attempt to prevent the pain of others). That is to say, logically wrong and morally wrong are synonymous in this case.
Mhmm. You crazy cultists!2) You fail at interpreting Discordianism. Read Principia Discordia to see the fnords in moral argument, not to destroy fnord! the whole basis of it.
Again. You are referring to morals as a loose synonym of logic. I define morals as (false) fixed principles over the nature of Good and Evil. A true moral code should be both finite and universal. If you claim to be a Christian, but believe the Christian moral code is a subjective/relative thing, I don't think you can call yourself a Christian anymore. To me, morals imply objectivity. If you agree that "morals" can alter in relation to circumstances, or that they are dependent on following a particular code, you are no longer dealing with morals.Under a particular moral system, provided we obey the rules of logic, we should always reach the same conclusion regarding pancakes. Thus the argument is not "Pancakes are always better than waffles." but "Under the pancakist moral system, pancakes are always better than waffles."
Again, it depends on what you define as "morals". For the sake of argument:Originally Posted by Fenn
"In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral.""
I would argue that no such thing as a "moral", in this sense, exists.
Empathy is based on an awareness of social justice. Social justice is formulated as a logical necessity and desirability. Therefore, basing an action on empathy, can be, and often is, completely logical.Originally Posted by Delphinus
Not sure what you're trying to say here......whereas if you have no capacity or desire to feel it you can be dedicated to a moral course of action not based on empathy, which is inherently flawed as a philosophy even though it's the default.
On a different note...
Not so. The definition of the Judeo-Christian (and many other forms of) deity, requires the existence of a universal, objective, divine sense of Right and Wrong. AKA: Morals. To refute that such a thing exists directly challenges the existence of such a deity. So by disproving the existence of such "morals", we are indirectly disproving the notion of many classical deities.Originally Posted by Kodos
Huh? The statistic is that 7.3% of reported rape cases end in conviction. It is both reported cases, and cases ending conviction.That's reported cases, not cases ending in conviction. Stop twisting my words.
You are confusing empathy with sympathy. Empathy is the ability to share emotions through consciousness. It comes about as a result of recognition of similar social/emotional circumstances to ones that you have experienced yourself. It is based on the notion of equality and social justice. "This sad person is like me when I'm sad. Good people shouldn't be sad. This is unfair ):"No it isn't. Empathy is based on feeling a bond with other people that passes their emotions onto you to some extent. Feeling sad when those around you are upset is empathy. Feeling sad because people have less privileges than you is white guilt.
A sociopath can dedicate themselves to a moral code without having feeling remorse or guilt because of empathy. Empathy makes you benefit those around you or similar to you to at the expense of others, whereas following a moral code can do far more on the grand scale at the expense of those. Therefore empathy can be an obstacle in the course of following a moral code and sociopaths, defined as those who lack empathy or consideration for others' emotions, are likely to be more 'moral' than those who are burdened with empathy.
Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person; implying activism. "This sad person is like me when I'm sad. Good people shouldn't be sad. This is unfair ): I WANT TO HELP!"
But I still don't entirely see what you're getting at. Are you arguing that a person with ASPD is more likely to follow a moral code because they lack the ability to empathize?
Not only is that beside the point of anything previously argued, but it is also completely absurd. Sociopaths are extremely unlikely to follow any moral code. Their behavior is based on the extreme opposite; completely selfish, ultimate pragmatism. They display a complete lack in consistency of behavior.
I take your point about moral codes producing guilt. They often do: they don't work. But the ASPD thing? No...
Non-indented sections are me, indented sections are Kodos. It's been trimmed to the key points and sections in-between, regarding literature and philosophy the ideas have been drawn from, have been removed."Is it desirable or even necessary for a moral agent to be a sociopath?"
>> Neither. It's possible but neither of those things are good.
>> Also a sociopath would never accept the basic value judgments that provide the foundation.
>> A sociopath would never accept "There are times in which I must put the needs of others before my own, even at the risk of grievous bodily harm and/or death."
Which leads me onto the next point: if both empathy and lack of empathy are undesirable qualities in a moral agent, is following a moral code logically possible?
>> The moral agent should act out of empathy guided by his reason.
I don't think so. Empathy is illogical and about as trustworthy in moral decisions as the will to power or the sex drive.
All of which, you'll note, a philosophy has been based on.
Every field of modern ethics has been based on one or more of man's basic instincts. And every last one has been found inadequate.
Maybe the random factor is humanity and the problem is man.
Humans cannot be satisfied and therefore there will never be a final ethics.
There will never be an end to scientific research, either.
The conclusion seems to be that - unless humanity itself is altered - there will never be any ultimate theory of ethics.
But if humanity is altered to remove the will to power, empathy, sex drive, et cetera, will it be a successful species any more? Much of humans' survival relies on those basic instincts to motivate more sophisticated activity.
If all of those instincts were removed, I imagine people would probably commit mass suicide.
I think the very reason man is successful is because he is flawed. Man is nothing more than an animal, ultimately. All animals have the will to power. All animals have the sex drive. Most animals don't have empathy - as we think of it - but herd and pack animals show caring instincts for others.
Regarding the definition of empathy, I think empathy is an animal instinct that leads one to care for those in the 'tribe', not some sort of sophisticated form of moral awareness. That means we're probably working from different dictionaries: you think empathy is based on logic, I think it's based on instinct. From wikipedia:
Empathy is the capacity to share the sadness or happiness of another sentient being through consciousness rather than physically.I don't think it's me who has the definitions of those two words jumbled up. Incidentally one of my favourite songs is Sympathy For The Devil.To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort. Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.
*reads thread* *ignores Sawyer saying enough of this rape thing*
(lay hold on her, and lie with her = to lay her down, and have sex with her)Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version)
Where in their is the word Rape? It says nothing of consent or the lack their of.