Because you don't hear Science proves its okay to be gay do you? Because you have to start out with definitions of what is okay, and science has no such definitions when it comes to morality.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,375
@previous (A)
OK so what you're saying is that because science can't prove it, it cannot be known?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,376
I am saying its just opinion and beliefs. I can be known in the sense that you can know what the rules in a religion are. You cannot however know which religon, or morality, is the correct one. You can only believe it.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,377
@previous (A)
What do you mean by "just opinions and beliefs"?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,378
its based on emotions, or personal preference. You feel bad by the thought of people getting tortured, and you know that this happens during war, and therefor you think that wars should not happen.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,382
@previous (A)
Of the three or four major schools of moral thought, none of them rely solely on intuition or feeling. They tend to deal with not violating moral laws or duties, minimizing or maximizing utility, acting in a virtuous manner, or adhering to a social contract which is fair and impartial.
Intuition and feeling are obviously relevant data, but they are not the only concerns.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#511,387
You said none of them rely solely on intuition or feeling. I think otherwise, so i am asking you to name those things that do not rely solely on intuition or feeling
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,402
@previous (A)
OK let's take an example from deontology. According to Kant it is always immoral for anyone to tell a lie for any reason. Even if lying would make you feel really good, you must disregard what makes you feel emotionally happy, and do what is morally correct. I think he calls this the bifurcation of the Right and the Good but it's been a couple years since I took a class that covered this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,404
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,408
@511,404 (A)
He believed that morality could be formulated based on principles of reason, and that lying was irrational under the the categorical imperative.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,409
are you telling me that he really and actually believed that doing so would be for the common good?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,410
@previous (A)
Kant didn't give a shit about the common good. His whole point was that when considering whether an action is moral or not, emotions, feelings, and consequences in general were basically irrelevant.
If you are interested in this stuff, take a course at a university on ethics. It is pretty cool.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,411
So what did they rely on, if they didn't rely on emotions and feelings? Just because someone says something relies on reason, doesn't make it so simply because of that.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,412
@previous (A)
You answered yourself. He didn't rely on emotions or feelings, he relied on reason alone. If you think that he lied and really it came down to emotions, that's fine but you're doing it for circular reasons. You are assuming that all moral knowledge is based on emotion, and then when presented with an example that is not based on emotion, you think it is actually based on emtions because all moral knowledge is based on emotion.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,413
All i did was ask how it relied on reason. I am not sure if he relied on reason or not, that's all. Since you don't want to answer (which is okay) then i think you probably don't know which is okay as well. Personally i think that he believed he relied on reason, but in reality he had personal preference for his reasoning. I will explain:
A man believes in Islam, and when he is asked if what his morality is based on, he will say islam. But you see, its really his emotional preference to follow islam.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,414
@511,410 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
i took ethics, it was really interesting even if it was a survey class. it was pretty cool to see how everything distilled back to few simple axioms or whatever.
squeegee double-posted this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#511,415
@511,413 (A)
well, you're kind of going around the core of ethical reasoning and looking at it from the outside in. simply put "reason" is a method of coming to conclusions, just like emotion can be a method... but they are distinctly different.
i'm no philospher, but if philosophy was math, then you could reason based on something other that "gut instinct" how to better measure something. ethics and reason and all that have rules, like math, and you can always go behind a mathematician who has measured a glass as half full and call it half empty based on what it looks like, but the mathematician likely didn't come to his measurement by guessing...
that's what you're not getting, is that reason is a method.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#511,416
@511,413 (A)
If you're asking what the logical structure of his moral argument is, you should read his work or at least this. The reason I'm not explaining it is because it is very intricate and very dense and hard to understand without doing a lot of reading.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#511,417
Not exactly sure what you guys mean here. But it really feels like i am being given the bible when i ask questions. Its all there, go and read it the priest says when asked for proof.
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#511,438
@previous (E)
when it comes to high energy physics you could take a physicists word for it, or you could take 8 years of graduate courses and answer the questions to your own satisfaction.
this is the same thing as what you are doing, it would take years of courses to answer your questions to your own satisfaction. you could take the word of experts on the subject (fake anon having a degree in philosophy suits me just fine, or the opinions of ancient experts like kant) but since you are not satisfied being told "1+1=2" then you'll need to take it to the next level and understand proofs, logic and the like. this is not really stuff that can be understood by reading a paragraph of text on a web forum.
but, fundamentaly you are misunderstanding what "reason" is. it is not... instinctual. it is rigorous.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#511,440
@511,417 (E)
You asked me to explain Kant's moral philosophy, which is pretty complicated, so I linked you to an article written by a Kant scholar that explains it better than I could. If that is too similar to the bible for you then that is unfortunately all I can do and I'm not sure what would be more to your liking.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 19 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#511,620