The onus of proof is on the one that disputes the prima facie. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think up to this point, you have merely expressed an opinion, not an argument.I don't see how i should necessarily prove my position because almost every religious tradition had an iteration of something like the golden rule. — ChatteringMonkey
If a large majority of subjects perceives the same thing, then it is reasonable to infer that the thing exists objectively. If a large majority of people sees a boat in the distance, then it is reasonable to infer the boat exists objectively. Similarly, if most civilizations have used the Golden Rule, then it is reasonable to infer it exists objectively.Because we all have the same human genetic make-up, it shouldn't be all that surprising that some of the morals will end up being similar accross the board. That doesn't imply that morality is unchanging though. — ChatteringMonkey
And - would you call the morality 2000 years ago equally far developed as today?What about slavery then, Samuel, the moral rule 'slavery is wrong' didn't exist objectively 2000 years ago, but it does now? — ChatteringMonkey
Indeed, societies had slaves back then; but it is not uncommon to hear that some people treated their slaves with respect, more like servants. And it could be supposed that it is through the perception of the golden rule that societies progressed from slaves to servants.What about slavery then, Samuel, the moral rule 'slavery is wrong' didn't exist objectively 2000 years ago, but it does now? — ChatteringMonkey
No. Both are examples of perceptions. The golden rule is perceived to be the criteria that determines if an act is morally good or not.You shifted your argument in the last sentence from what we see, to what we use. I don't think it's reasonable to infer something exist objectively because we use it. — ChatteringMonkey
Progress is defined as "change towards the good", and thus true progress implies an objective good.Progress on individual moral issues maybe, as we do get better at arguments yes. — ChatteringMonkey
A thing does not need to be perceived through the 5 senses. It can be perceived through feelings, like moral feelings. You can perceive an act to be unjust, and this feeling of injustice cannot be explained by mere senses.Both are not examples of perceptions, you are using 'percieve' in the case of the golden rule metaphorically, it has nothing to do with the senses. — ChatteringMonkey
This is true. But you were claiming before that there is progress specifically in morality. In this case, progress means advancement towards the ideal morality, which must exist if true progress exists.And the word progress doesn't have to imply any specific goal, it can be the advancement towards any goal — ChatteringMonkey
Perception simply means information coming to us. The means by which it comes to us is not relevant; thus this can be through senses and feelings, as both serve the function of feeding information.We don't really 'percieve' something through feelings. — ChatteringMonkey
A being is called 'subjective' if it exists only inside a subject's mind; and called 'objective' if it exists outside a subject's mind. How do we test if any being is objective? By checking if all subjects (or at least a large majority) perceive that same being. We would infer that unicorns are objectively real if a large majority of subjects could perceive one. The same goes for morality. We infer that morality is objectively real if a large majority of subjects perceive that Mother Theresa is a morally better person than Hitler.Isn't a feeling a prime example of the subjective, or what else does the term mean? — ChatteringMonkey
Morally correct acts are indeed relative to situations, but that does not entail subjectivity. For a given situation, there may be an objectively correct way to act. Thus arguments about the correct way to act given the circumstance will indeed never stop, but the very fact that we all argue about it proves the topic is objective, because we do not (or should not) argue about subjective topics.Since circumstances change, I would hope it will be an ongoing discussion until the end of times. — ChatteringMonkey
Sure, but the same goes for senses. We know our perceptions from dreams to be false, from contradictions among our own perceptions or those from other subjects. This "reality" could be a dream, but it is unreasonable to infer this because the large majority of subjects perceives the same things, and this hypothesis then fails the law of parsimony.Feelings can also be caused by things that are not real, like dreams or imagination. — ChatteringMonkey
Not true. All our different types of perceptions can be false. We may falsely see, hear, smell, or feel something, without making a statement. And their correctness are tested by contradictions among ourselves and other subjects. How frightening it must be to be the last person in the world, because of the challenge to differentiate the true from false perceptions without other people's feedback. :sad:I don't agree with feelings themselves being true or false. Only statements can be true or false, and we know by veryfying the statements with the senses. — ChatteringMonkey
Agreed. I don't believe the function of emotional feelings is to find truth, but to provide a quick way to make a judgement, rather than using the more accurate but much slower reason. Nevertheless, while not infallible, feelings are designed to feed true information, and they tend to be true most of the time. If this was not the case, then it would be wise to suppress all feelings, which is absurd.Say for instance, you have fear for a spider. Your feeling will not help you determine if that spider is actually dangerous. To know you will have to test it, and observe what happens. — ChatteringMonkey
But there is. Fact: Virtually nobody in the world judges the situation of being treated as less-than-equal as a good thing; not even bad people like Hitler. We are either collectively wrong about this judgement (for if not objective, then not objectively true), or this treatment is objectively bad. Most civilizations have opted for the latter hypothesis, because they all adopted the Golden Rule of ethics.It's not like there is only one true morality that can be deduced from feelings with mathematical certainty. — ChatteringMonkey
But there is. Fact: Virtually nobody in the world judges the situation of being treated as less-than-equal as a good thing; not even bad people like Hitler. We are either collectively wrong about this judgement (for if not objective, then not objectively true), or this treatment is objectively bad. Most civilizations have opted for the latter hypothesis, because they all adopted the Golden Rule of ethics. — Samuel
I agree about statements. Statements are not judged as true by majority. I also agree that we verify statements with data. But how do we verify data? We know that not all data perceived is true. Thus we judge data to be true by majority; and that is the point I am trying to make.I think the fundamental difference between your view and mine is that i don't believe that 'true is what the majority of people think is true'. I think we determine what is true by veryfing it with data, and it doesn't matter how many people believe something if it can't be veryfied. Agreement about something doesn't make it true. — ChatteringMonkey
Well, this new definition is not too far off the mark, because looking for an agreement between people implies that everyone has a say in it. However, notice that even with this new definition of morality, slavery is not morally good because surely slaves would not have agreed with those rules.morality is about agreement between people about a set of rules — ChatteringMonkey
Here is my source. But assuming you are correct, this fact is likely explained by the use of force by a particular group, and surely not by a mutual agreement among the whole group; and thus the reason is not an ethical reason.Large portions of history hierarchy, different classes and unequality were to norm. — ChatteringMonkey
Except for the victims of the inequality. You make it sound like slaves wanted to be slaves. I don't know my history too well, but I am fairly sure this could not be the case.Not a whole lot of people thought there was something wrong with that. — ChatteringMonkey
I think this is incorrect. The fact is nobody values being lied to, treated as lower than others, badmouthed etc; and on the other hand, everybody values honesty, treated as equal, trusted etc. Thus the Golden Rule is fitting: As I seek honesty, equality and trust towards me, and reject dishonesty, inequality and badmouthing towards me, so I ought to treat others in the same way, knowing they want this treatment too.Also the point that you seem to miss is that the golden rule by itself is far from a fully formed morality. It's vague, and only deals with one aspect of what humans want. There are a variety of things we want, and not all of these things line up perfecty. — ChatteringMonkey
But how do we verify data? We know that not all data perceived is true. Thus we judge data to be true by majority; and that is the point I am trying to make. — Samuel Lacrampe
Well, this new definition is not too far off the mark, because looking for an agreement between people implies that everyone has a say in it. However, notice that even with this new definition of morality, slavery is not morally good because surely slaves would not have agreed with those rules. — Samuel
Here is my source. But assuming you are correct, this fact is likely explained by the use of force by a particular group, and surely not by a mutual agreement among the whole group; and thus the reason is not an ethical reason. — Samuel
Except for the victims of the inequality. You make it sound like slaves wanted to be slaves. I don't know my history too well, but I am fairly sure this could not be the case. — Samuel
I think this is incorrect. The fact is nobody values being lied to, treated as lower than others, badmouthed etc; and on the other hand, everybody values honesty, treated as equal, trusted etc. Thus the Golden Rule is fitting: As I seek honesty, equality and trust towards me, and reject dishonesty, inequality and badmouthing towards me, so I ought to treat others in the same way, knowing they want this treatment too. — Samuel
Indeed they are not "claims to truth" because they are not claims at all. But what do you call the difference between the perception of a thing that is really there, vs the perception of a thing that is not really there, if not true and false? Whatever you want to call it, false data is effectively the same as false statements, insofar that they both convey information that does not reflect reality.As i said before, truth is about statements, and nothing else. You will no doubt disagree with this, but data or feelings or whatever else are not themselves claims to truth. — ChatteringMonkey
True. But a contract requires an agreement among all parties involved, whether it is in a direct or indirect way, as is the case when being represented. As the slaves were not represented, this "social contract" is not really a contract; more of an imposition.a social contract (an agreement) doesn't imply that everybody has a say in it. [...] People are represented. — ChatteringMonkey
No. In this case, the golden rule is in direct contradiction with the class distinction (unless lower classes are treated more like servants than slaves; but I doubt it). Rather, this tells me that the Golden Rule, although known, was simply ignored in that system. One may choose to ignore the moral law, but the fact is that it was still known.That the Wiki also lists Hinduism as having an element of the golden rule in it, only goes to show i think how vague it really is, since apparently it can fit any system, even the ones that have strict class distinctions from birth. — ChatteringMonkey
A thief does not believe stealing is right, because he does not want it to happen to him. He is therefore stealing, knowing it is wrong to steal. The fact that some go against the moral system does not count against the existence of that moral system.For instance, a thief disagrees with the moral rule that stealing is wrong, and yet people find it perfectly acceptable and even expect that he will be dealt with forcefully. — ChatteringMonkey
Sure; but this does not go against the existence of morality. Quite the opposite, it could be used to explain why slavery took so long to be abolished.But "victims of inequality" in general, probably wanted to improve their lot in life by moving up in class yes, but i very much doubt they thought it even feasable to remove classes altogether. — ChatteringMonkey
This still doesn't mean some people value being lied to, treated as lower than others, or badmouthed. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', that is to say, you cannot deduce the existence of morality based on human behaviour. We can both be right, namely, morality exists, and a lot of people act immorally.Yet how many people act in this way, really... taking a cursory look at the general discource on for instance Twitter should be evidence enough that people generally don't act on the Golden rule. — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.