BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath
- Thread starter webby
- Start date
- Status
Eireann
New member
I would agree with you if morality and public opinion were the top of the ladder. Yes, public opinion guides morality, which is the topic of the debate. No one has asked, though, what guides public opinion. Like I told Anna, people have this unnerving way of quickly discovering their common ground. That discovery of common ground leads to the formation of cliques, which lead to groups, which lead to crowds, which lead to societies, which in turn establish morals based on those common grounds. If "common ground" were the highest authority, then I would be in full agreement with you. But what guides people to such discoveries? What gives people common interests? Well, there are a whole lot of things that go into that, and some of those (God, for instance) may be absolutes. So if you climb up the causal ladder high enough, you'll find some absolutes, I don't doubt. But you will have to climb past morals and societies to find them.
Here is one model I propose, but I don't claim it as absolute, because I have no proof of it:
God ---> nature, environment, biology, ethics ---> individual experience ---> individual opinion + individual opinion ---> common interest ---> cliques (small groups of friends) ---> groups ---> crowds ---> society ---> morals* ---> smooth and successful interaction between members (when followed).
*Morals can be established at any level below the broadly-defined society I showed above (especially folkway morals). When public opinion begins to go against established morals, the public works to change those morals. In the 19th century, it was immoral in every state in the US for women to even suggest that they should be able to vote. That was a hard and fast moral. The suffrage movement worked to change that over time. Nine states made woman's suffrage legal between 1869 and 1912. In 1920, it became legal nationwide. (Remember, laws or a particular kind of morals). That's a strong example of changes in public opinion working to change morality.
Eireann,
Here is where you and I really disagree. Just because public opinion leans toward something doesn't make it so. Morality didn't change, just public opinion of it. What was moral and immoral before public opinion changed is still moral or immoral. And the only people who changed their morals to reflect public opinion are those who have no internal moral compass. You seem to equate the public opinion of something with that opinion creating reality. This is very shaky ground for any way of thinking.
I don't think you have thought this out very clearly at all. You are making opinion reality. Just because a group of people have an opinion about something doesn't make it real. Public opinion can say that a person in the spotlight for a crime is guilty, when the reality may very well be that they are innocent. Public opinion is a very poor test of anything. Public opinion will always sink to the lowest common denominator. I have a hard time believing that any intelligent person finds the lowest common denominator as a good yardstick for anything, let alone something as critical to the overall health of society as morals are.
Here is where you and I really disagree. Just because public opinion leans toward something doesn't make it so. Morality didn't change, just public opinion of it. What was moral and immoral before public opinion changed is still moral or immoral. And the only people who changed their morals to reflect public opinion are those who have no internal moral compass. You seem to equate the public opinion of something with that opinion creating reality. This is very shaky ground for any way of thinking.
I don't think you have thought this out very clearly at all. You are making opinion reality. Just because a group of people have an opinion about something doesn't make it real. Public opinion can say that a person in the spotlight for a crime is guilty, when the reality may very well be that they are innocent. Public opinion is a very poor test of anything. Public opinion will always sink to the lowest common denominator. I have a hard time believing that any intelligent person finds the lowest common denominator as a good yardstick for anything, let alone something as critical to the overall health of society as morals are.
Eireann,
I know this example has been used before but it is very handy, so I will use it.
According to your ideas of what morality is, and what shapes it, you say that it was a moral act for Germans to kill Jews during the rule of the Nazi's when they were in power in Germany. You in fact would have agreed with it, and possibly participated in it, according to your statements here, had you lived there during that time, for you would have found nothing wrong with it. Public opinion and peer pressure were all in line for you to accept it.
Nazism, according to your definition, is a strong example of the public working to change moral values. Somehow I will just about bet that you will disgree with my conclusion that you would have participated and agreed with the extermination of the Jews, but your whole argument here says that you would. You make public opinion your whole definer of morality, and public opinion there was in favor of eliminating the Jews.
The example of the Nazi's is only one piece of evidence that morality can't be made by public opinion, just the public's opinion of it. When the Nazi's were killing the Jews it was wrong then, and it still wrong. Public opinion not withstanding.
Would you like another example? In the history of the US we had public opinion solidly behind the cheating of the Indians out of their lands. We lied, cheated, and the like, to accomplish what we wanted. Now, according to your definition, this was moral because public opinion was behind it. But, yet I'll bet you'll agree that the way we treated the Indians was far less than an example of good moral behavior.
I have given at least two examples that show how bad an idea it is to maintain the idea that morality is nothing more than public opinion and peer pressure. These two examples alone show that there is something more than public opinion behind what is moral and what is immoral.
I know this example has been used before but it is very handy, so I will use it.
According to your ideas of what morality is, and what shapes it, you say that it was a moral act for Germans to kill Jews during the rule of the Nazi's when they were in power in Germany. You in fact would have agreed with it, and possibly participated in it, according to your statements here, had you lived there during that time, for you would have found nothing wrong with it. Public opinion and peer pressure were all in line for you to accept it.
Nazism, according to your definition, is a strong example of the public working to change moral values. Somehow I will just about bet that you will disgree with my conclusion that you would have participated and agreed with the extermination of the Jews, but your whole argument here says that you would. You make public opinion your whole definer of morality, and public opinion there was in favor of eliminating the Jews.
The example of the Nazi's is only one piece of evidence that morality can't be made by public opinion, just the public's opinion of it. When the Nazi's were killing the Jews it was wrong then, and it still wrong. Public opinion not withstanding.
Would you like another example? In the history of the US we had public opinion solidly behind the cheating of the Indians out of their lands. We lied, cheated, and the like, to accomplish what we wanted. Now, according to your definition, this was moral because public opinion was behind it. But, yet I'll bet you'll agree that the way we treated the Indians was far less than an example of good moral behavior.
I have given at least two examples that show how bad an idea it is to maintain the idea that morality is nothing more than public opinion and peer pressure. These two examples alone show that there is something more than public opinion behind what is moral and what is immoral.
ethics= right and wrong
morals= tradition, accepted behavior
law= a kind of moral, therefore law=moral
Does law always define right and wrong? No, because law is defined by peer pressure therefore law~ethics, and ethics~morals,law~morals
So if we want to legalize rape, we must use peer pressure
If we want to outlaw rape, we must use peer pressure
Ahh...Democracy
government by mob rule
ac
morals= tradition, accepted behavior
law= a kind of moral, therefore law=moral
Does law always define right and wrong? No, because law is defined by peer pressure therefore law~ethics, and ethics~morals,law~morals
So if we want to legalize rape, we must use peer pressure
If we want to outlaw rape, we must use peer pressure
Ahh...Democracy
government by mob rule
ac
WWF
WWF
An uppercut to the jaw… WHAM! and “Z” is on his back. He desperately tries to move his thumbs to perform an eye gouge but his digits wont respond.
Knight looks at the chair… starts for it… decides better and instead pulls out his long, about to be gore stained, sword and closes in for the kill.
“Z” manages to make it to his knees, he tries to pray but then remembers there is no one to pray to. He instead tries to appeal to Knight’s sense of right and wrong but then remembers there is no wrong! Yoiks!
He blubbers in fear and terror as Knight approaches, about to learn that he was wrong in both cases.
Looks like the end of the fight in round 4!
WWF
An uppercut to the jaw… WHAM! and “Z” is on his back. He desperately tries to move his thumbs to perform an eye gouge but his digits wont respond.
Knight looks at the chair… starts for it… decides better and instead pulls out his long, about to be gore stained, sword and closes in for the kill.
“Z” manages to make it to his knees, he tries to pray but then remembers there is no one to pray to. He instead tries to appeal to Knight’s sense of right and wrong but then remembers there is no wrong! Yoiks!
He blubbers in fear and terror as Knight approaches, about to learn that he was wrong in both cases.
Looks like the end of the fight in round 4!
Eireann
New member
Re: Close to voting...
Re: Close to voting...
Re: Close to voting...
No, Zak can easily answer that question within the context of his beliefs. Any of us can say that murder is wrong and we can say we believe it is always wrong, because within the context of our beliefs, it is wrong. That does not make it absolute. There are some societies who clearly don't believe murder is wrong. The Islamic Jihad doesn't consider it wrong to murder innocent people in cars and bars and buildings that they bomb. The Nazis didn't consider it wrong to murder millions of innocent Jews. Can we say they are wrong or were wrong? Most certainly we can. But can we declare that our view of murder being wrong is absolute? Lacking proof of anything that would make it absolute (i.e. God), then no such declaration can be made with any force or substance.
Eireann
New member
Re: WWF
Re: WWF
Re: WWF
Sorry, matey, but Knight is still on the ropes. He still has yet to demonstrate an absolute moral. He has yet to demonstrate any moral that fits the criteria of absolute, to show how it fits the criteria, etc. He hasn't begun to make his argument. He's only been defending against Zak's. You can't win a debate if you don't actually make a point.
Eireann
New member
As uncomfortable as it may be for you to conceive, morality is public opinion. In the case of the reality of morals, public opinion is exactly what creates that reality. Where public opinion and public voice carry no weight, you have amorality, which can rarely last very long before the society crumbles. Look at Nazi Germany, for instance. The extermination of millions of Jews was carried out by the Nazi regime. The vast, vast public opinion was directly opposed to it. They hated the Nazis, hated what they stood for -- the German people, I mean. The Nazis kept the public voice quiet through fear tactics. The voice of the people went unheard, so the Nazi policies went unchallenged. It was an amoral society. It crumbled very quickly. Granted, it's demise was speeded by the Allied victory in WWII, but it's not very likely that it would have survived for long, regardless. We can see evidence of that in Cuba, which under Castro's rule is also a society whose rules and policies defy the will of the people. It has been crumbling bit by bit for years and is on the verge of collapse. Dictatorships such as Castro's and Hitler's rarely survive beyond the lifespan of the dictator, which isn't very long in terms of the survival of a society. They are amoral societies. Certainly, there are morals at lower levels in the society, but the rules and codes that govern the entirety of the society don't reflect the will of the public. That's a recipe for societal suicide.
Nobody said morality was all sugar and spice. It sounds like you would have us live in Utopia. Utopia doesn't exist, sorry to say.
Eireann
New member
Public opinion had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. See my post about amoral societies and dictatorships. Public opinion in Nazi Germany was against the extermination of the Jews. You can discover that by talking to people who lived there during that time. My best friend's grandfather was a Luftwaffe pilot, as I've mentioned on other threads. He had some interesting stories to tell of how the German people and the regular military (Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht) felt about the Nazis. They did not support them willingly. Basically the public was held under heel by fear. The same thing we see in Cuba, the same fear and paranoia we saw in the USSR.
Morality is a code of behavior, rules, regulations, and so forth. But not all rules, regulations, and behavioral codes are morals. To be morals, they must reflect the will of the people. It's the square/rectangle dichotomy again -- a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. A moral is a behavioral code, but not all behavioral codes are morals.
Topic: Is there such a thing as absolute morality?
Failure to put forth any POSITIVE proof for absolute morality does not lead to a victory. In a murder trial the prosecutor cant prove the defendents guilt by merely attacking his alibi. At some point he has to offer some positive evidence that leads him to conclude that the defendent is guilty.
Everyone on this board should agree that if you dont put forth even one positive piece of evidence for absolute morality that you lose.
In his 1st post Knight said:
"If there exists just ONE item, (behavior or action) that is absolutely wrong (or right) then absolute morality exists and Zakath has lost the debate."
I totally agreed with this statement and thought that Knight would attempt to "prove" that at least one behavior or action was absolutely wrong. Instead he continues to try and attack the relativist position. Knight cant prove that the relative position is wrong so he tries to show how unworkable it would be. The relativist position could lead to mass confusion, or the relativist position might only work if some people hold to the belief in moral absolutes, but this in no way validates the idea that absolute morals exist.
Knight then asks for compelling evidence from Zakath. Knight has already went on record saying that Zakath has lost the debate if there exists just one behavior or action that is absolutely wrong. It would seem according to Knight and the topic of the debate that Zakath merely needs to refute any positive evidence that Knight might assert (none yet) to win. However, Zakath went that extra mile anyway when he earlier showed just how relative morality is in reality. He cited numerous examples of the way moral views have changed throughout the years. I would guess Ockhams razor would say the simplest view is that morality truly is relative so why bother with the extra belief (not backed up by any evidence) that morality is absolute but that we misinterpret these absolutes at various times.
Knight then seems to cry foul at Zakath's attempts at challenging Knight to build his case for moral absolutes. He implies that Zakath's challenge is "silly". According to the way Knight interprets "prove" all beliefs seem to be justified. Wow. Talk about a relative view.
Lastly Knight resorts to a ghastly example that certainly no one could argue wasnt absolute; right? Wrong! Knight could use the most horrific examples but it matters not. Certainly Knight, Zakath, myself and most everyone on this board would agree that such actions were wrong. Unfortunately though one person didnt think those actions were wrong or cared not. And no matter how much we torture said individual we cant prove that such an action is absolutely wrong.
Whether Knight cares what the relative moralist's position on morals is is largely irrelevant. Society can impose its view of right and wrong on people regardless if absolutes exist or not. I care not if Knight says our opinions hold no weight because it's obvious that societal weight is all that is needed to influence actions and behavior. I would have no problem (nor would society) putting to death the man who did what Knight described in his example even if I couldnt prove absolutely that his action was "wrong".
I see no difference between right and wrong and other areas that cant be reached by logical equations. I cant prove that my view that a movie was good or that a picture is beautiful is correct but that doesnt stop me from having my opinion and arguing for it forcefully. Morality seems to be nothing more than a group of people who share similar opinions of right and wrong.
Failure to put forth any POSITIVE proof for absolute morality does not lead to a victory. In a murder trial the prosecutor cant prove the defendents guilt by merely attacking his alibi. At some point he has to offer some positive evidence that leads him to conclude that the defendent is guilty.
Everyone on this board should agree that if you dont put forth even one positive piece of evidence for absolute morality that you lose.
In his 1st post Knight said:
"If there exists just ONE item, (behavior or action) that is absolutely wrong (or right) then absolute morality exists and Zakath has lost the debate."
I totally agreed with this statement and thought that Knight would attempt to "prove" that at least one behavior or action was absolutely wrong. Instead he continues to try and attack the relativist position. Knight cant prove that the relative position is wrong so he tries to show how unworkable it would be. The relativist position could lead to mass confusion, or the relativist position might only work if some people hold to the belief in moral absolutes, but this in no way validates the idea that absolute morals exist.
Knight then asks for compelling evidence from Zakath. Knight has already went on record saying that Zakath has lost the debate if there exists just one behavior or action that is absolutely wrong. It would seem according to Knight and the topic of the debate that Zakath merely needs to refute any positive evidence that Knight might assert (none yet) to win. However, Zakath went that extra mile anyway when he earlier showed just how relative morality is in reality. He cited numerous examples of the way moral views have changed throughout the years. I would guess Ockhams razor would say the simplest view is that morality truly is relative so why bother with the extra belief (not backed up by any evidence) that morality is absolute but that we misinterpret these absolutes at various times.
Knight then seems to cry foul at Zakath's attempts at challenging Knight to build his case for moral absolutes. He implies that Zakath's challenge is "silly". According to the way Knight interprets "prove" all beliefs seem to be justified. Wow. Talk about a relative view.
Lastly Knight resorts to a ghastly example that certainly no one could argue wasnt absolute; right? Wrong! Knight could use the most horrific examples but it matters not. Certainly Knight, Zakath, myself and most everyone on this board would agree that such actions were wrong. Unfortunately though one person didnt think those actions were wrong or cared not. And no matter how much we torture said individual we cant prove that such an action is absolutely wrong.
Whether Knight cares what the relative moralist's position on morals is is largely irrelevant. Society can impose its view of right and wrong on people regardless if absolutes exist or not. I care not if Knight says our opinions hold no weight because it's obvious that societal weight is all that is needed to influence actions and behavior. I would have no problem (nor would society) putting to death the man who did what Knight described in his example even if I couldnt prove absolutely that his action was "wrong".
I see no difference between right and wrong and other areas that cant be reached by logical equations. I cant prove that my view that a movie was good or that a picture is beautiful is correct but that doesnt stop me from having my opinion and arguing for it forcefully. Morality seems to be nothing more than a group of people who share similar opinions of right and wrong.
bill betzler
New member
Knight is in a good position. He has the conscience of man on his side which is God given. Though it may appear to some individuals that they are being relative to their own personal belief system, it is actually being tweaked by God.
Zakath's conscience has not been seared. The Holy Ghost worketh.
Zakath's conscience has not been seared. The Holy Ghost worketh.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Ugh. This is utterly horrific reasoning. Vicious circle: The act isn't wrong according to the individual, because according to the individual the act isn't wrong. Thus, (according to Valmoon), there is no absolute morality because in order for morality to be absolute, everyone must agree upon it. I don't think this comports to the agreed-upon definition of "Absolute Morality" Knight gave:
I'm not saying that said example wasnt absolute due to someone doing said example. I'm saying right and wrong is a relative concept regardless of peoples actions. I was only showing that to the theoretical person in Knights example we would be unable to "prove" that he was absolutely wrong in his action.
Brother Vinny
Active member
The inability to prove to this individual that he is absolutely wrong does not negate absolute morality. And actually, right and wrong are absolute concepts* (as you've just proved: even this morally bankrupt theorhetical wacko has these concepts), it's just the assignation of values to these concepts is subject to human tampering.
*There are undoubtedly those so relativistic as to attempt to disassociate themselves altogether from the concepts of "right" and "wrong," but even these people must be aware of these concepts in order to disassociate properly from them.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
I'm thinking the whole argument has been posed from the negative too long. We have been talking aob ut absolute wrongs and looking for one. Perhaps there is something that is absolute right? Or absolute good to put in moral or ethical terms?
Eireann,
Eireann,
The fact that humans can conceive of absolute standards, even if they don’t agree on how those standards apply to them, is evidence that such standards must exist. I’ll go a step further. Humans, across the board, recognize and define these absolute standards by nearly identical terms. The only aspect of these standards that can be seen as “relative” is in the way each society or individual applies those standards to their own actions. This does not negate the “absoluteness” of the standard. It merely perverts the application of the standard.
The murderer recognizes murder, even if he thinks he is not guilty of it.
Eireann,
To which you responded, “No, Zak can easily answer that question within the context of his beliefs.” The key here is your phrase “the context of his beliefs.” Someone’s beliefs do not make a given action right or wrong, it is the action itself. To be consistent, Zak would have to answer that there is no action that can be absolutely called “murder.” But how can he say that he is absolutely sure that that is not true? He can’t. At least not without negating his relativistic view.
The fact that humans can conceive of absolute standards, even if they don’t agree on how those standards apply to them, is evidence that such standards must exist. I’ll go a step further. Humans, across the board, recognize and define these absolute standards by nearly identical terms. The only aspect of these standards that can be seen as “relative” is in the way each society or individual applies those standards to their own actions. This does not negate the “absoluteness” of the standard. It merely perverts the application of the standard.
The murderer recognizes murder, even if he thinks he is not guilty of it.
One more thing...
One more thing...
To illustrate my above post, take your example:
One more thing...
To illustrate my above post, take your example:
You are wrong. They definitely believe that murder is wrong - they just don’t believe that they are committing it themselves. If a Jewish person were to do the same to them, you can bet that they would be crying “murder!” from every rooftop.
- Status