Moral Philosophy

[ryanhall]

This isn't what Ryan Hall believes (quite the contrary). He's just telling CrouchTig what his philosophy is coming across as.

Right. I forgot to post his question before my answer. Thanks for the correction, Ryu.

[Crouchtig]

yes your completely correct

that is a good description of the way i feel

i dont believe that people have a magical spiritual god given thing inside them that tells them what is "right" or "wrong"

RIGHT AND WRONG are just labels people give to things:

you cut off my testicles that is WRONG (because it prevents me from passing on my genes)

you gave me money that is RIGHT (because now i can afford to eat)

ryu:

culture C does not honour its dead

culture C is more efficient and takes over the other two cultures (they have a slight advantage since they do not waste time on the dead)

everyone is happy

[darrianation]

Originally posted by Ryu (JKD?)



darrianation,

This isn't what Ryan Hall believes (quite the contrary). He's just telling CrouchTig what his philosophy is coming across as.

Ryu

DOE!!!

[darrianation]

I definitely don’t agree with every thing Crouching is saying but some things I believe hold true. I think we have an innate sense of right and wrong in varying degrees. Some people just choose not to follow it.

[Crouchtig]

the innate sense of right and wrong you believe in

if you mean that we are all genetically programed to help each other so that the whole species benefits then i agree

if you mean that "God gave us knowledge of RIGHT and WRONG, GOOD and EVIL" then i have to disagree strongly

we can imagine what it is like to be another person, perhaps this is what makes us want to help each other. but that still counts as genetic selfishness

[eXcessiveForce]

crouch, you need to take a couple classes when you get to college.

First take a class in philosophy, next ethics, and finally religion.


You are trying to apply humanistic/darwinian ideas to morality.

Therefore your premises are flawed and your argument are without merit.

pick a category you wish to discuss.

It appears that you are trying to put forth the idea that genetics dicate morality rather than morality is dictated by religion.

Morality is subjective and often dictated by society.


You also appear to be taking up an Atheistic or Humanistic stance when it comes to religion.


From your posts so far I have gathered the following

You do not believe in Religion, (I'm not sure if you don't believe in the concept of religion or the concept of a power beyond yourself, or both)

You appear to believe in evolution and are attempting to draw on genetics to support arguments.


The problem is your arguments do not reside in genetics but in philosophy.

Philosophy has many views on morality.
The concept of morality is thought to be somewhat subjective. We see over time that morality can change. What was once immoral is now moral.

If we were to follow your line of reasoning. Genetics dictate morality.

And that not allowing for the passing on of genes is wrong and that anything that does not lead to the enhancement of the species is wrong then your beliefs are in conflict with known circumstances.

Under the beliefs you put forth. Homosexuality should not exist. It is counter productive to procreation, it does not help the survival of the spiecies. If morality is genetic then this should be repugnant to genetic morality and therefore should be condemned by all simply because our genetics would tell us it is wrong. Yet homosexuals exist.

That same would be true with Suicide. Again this should not happen because it is the end of a genetic line.

Also, your arguments lean heavily towards eugenics. Which is the belief in making a race stronger by elimiating inferior genes. In that case people suffering from diseases such as AIDS/HIV, Polio, Heart Disease, Mental disorders, and Physical abnormalities and allergies should be removed from the gene pool. If you stance were correct than you would find that the vast majority of people would favor this because passing on people with weaknesses does not enhance the genetic code and therefore they should not allowed to procreate.

According to your beliefs that you are putting forth the above things just shouldn't happen because it is in our "genetic behavior code" to do what is in the species best interest. But we find that societies as a whole allow and even promote things against the genetic wellbeing of society.

Also genetics leads to a "might makes right philosophy" since genetics says that those best adapted will tend to survive. Therefore the strongest, fastest, healthiest people will pass on their genes and to more mates to produce more offspring. Yet monogamy is the generally accepted practice in much of the civilized world.

Lastly, I might make the presumption that there is no such thing as a selfless act. I do not believe there are any examples of someone doing a selfless act in religion or in society. Human nature always balances what best for the individual. While fear may not be the main motivator for morality there are several other motivators that can influence it.


I think it might be wise for you to spend some time studying and learning about the world and your beliefs before you spout off dogma that shows your lack of knowledge and ability to defend your arguments.

[Toudiyama]

I think there is a selfless act, it is fed by a hatred for injustice
it is that what brings people to help an unknown who is being beaten up by multiple attackers even though they might lose their life (and some lost their life)

[Ryu (JKD?)]

Originally posted by Crouchtig
yes your completely correct

that is a good description of the way i feel

i dont believe that people have a magical spiritual god given thing inside them that tells them what is "right" or "wrong"

RIGHT AND WRONG are just labels people give to things:

you cut off my testicles that is WRONG (because it prevents me from passing on my genes)

you gave me money that is RIGHT (because now i can afford to eat)

ryu:

culture C does not honour its dead

culture C is more efficient and takes over the other two cultures (they have a slight advantage since they do not waste time on the dead)

everyone is happy

Everyone is obviously not happy if culture C takes over those two cultures!! Culture A and B would probably dislike that. Culture "C" is acting "immorally" to the ethical standards of the human race then. And what is more important is that culture "C" is now able to be judged not with opinions, but with strong backing of sociological history, ethical theory, scientific evidence dealing with their actions in the take over, etc.
Plus if culture C does not honor its dead, and the rest of the cultures do, this lends culture C's actions to be judged as "wrong" from a strong scientific standpoint (that of sociology, ethical theory, motivational theory, anthropological demographics, etc.)
This is not to say that what is morally wrong can be easily discovered or that science even has the ability to "prove" what is wrong or right. That's a very nasty debate just waiting to happen.

But what this does say is that now cultures have a way of looking at societal problems and differences of "right and wrong" from a much more critical viewpoint rather than just unequal "opinion."

I still say you should study Ethical Theory in college. Your philo is not much more than a weak version of Utilitarianism. If you're truly interested in that approach you need to study its strength's and weaknesses more. That way only good will come out of it. Either you'll find that such a philo has too many holes in it to make it functional for real life, or you'll find better arguments to make your theories more sound.

When you get out into the real world and grow up a little (not an insult at all ) you'll probably learn that this type of philo is not really practical for real life.
That's what most of the adults here are telling you.

But you'll find out for yourself. Most with this philo do.

Take care,
Ryu

[Ryu (JKD?)]

And just to reply a bit to Excessive Force.
From my studies, thesis preparations, etc. I do not believe morality changes in the way a few make it out to be.
What changes is in fact situational awareness of morality. Take for instance the issue of slavery. Slavery was once not thought of as immoral in this country. This changed of course, but I'm tempted to think what really changed was how people viewed African Americans as human beings.
If you asked a Southern Slave owner at that time whether he thought it was "moral" to imprison someone unlawfully, beat them, force them to do things against their will, etc. His answer would probably surprise you. It's not that the concept of "slavery" wasn't immoral back then...it's more that these people differed on what the definition of slavery was. That and the fact that many did not see African Americans as "true" human beings in the sense of the word.
So what changed was not the moral itself. What changed was the situational awareness of morality.

Same thing with say..... I dunno, the short skirt. It's not that indecently exposing yourself is not seen as "immoral" today, it's just that the situational awareness of how we understand the fashion and motivations of women have changed.
"indecent exposure" was immoral back then the way it is today. It's the same moral (for lack of a better word), it's just the situations surrounding it are in flux. People get smarter, more educated, more understanding of culture, etc.

Well anyway, that's about all I'll say I guess.
Take care of yourselves.

Ryu

[darrianation]

I'm still agreeing with ryan... Doe, I mean croutchin no... I mean ex
cessive... Doe. Anybody but crouching lol.

[terry]

Hmmm...I have read the posts on this thread and have concluded the following: A group of martial artists discussing moral philosophy is a bit like a group of physicists discussing psychology. It is an interesting, occasionally melodramatic, discussion that does not persuade.

[Ryu (JKD?)]

Originally posted by terry
Hmmm...I have read the posts on this thread and have concluded the following: A group of martial artists discussing moral philosophy is a bit like a group of physicists discussing psychology. It is an interesting, occasionally melodramatic, discussion that does not persuade.

Because Martial artists have no business discussing matters other than fighting, right? It's not like they could possibly have other knowledge in the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, or science.

Ryu

[cyrijl]

let me help you all out a bit...i've been studying philosophy for a long time now and you need to put things in perspective.

Morality is what you do in ideal circumstances. Which for us living in time, never occurs. It is a set of rules built on abstract notions.

Aesthetics is the face to face reality of external stimulous which can never be reproduced because it is forced along a current of time.

A martial arts, then, must turn to ethics. Ethics is the application of moral code onto a certain aethetic situation. Ethics, as well, as morality are based on a set of aesthetic situations from which general principles have been gleaned and codified. They exist neither in a subjective realm, since they are societal and not merely arbitrary, nor an objective realm, since they change to reflect a changing society.

This then moves onto virtue which many people here just don't understand. Virtue does not choose between right and wrong. Virtue is like a line segment. Each end is an extreme and the middle, temperence, moderation or whatever you want to call it is virtue.

[cyrijl]

The application.

In a fight situation, the ethical thing to do is to act virtuous. One must judge the threat and act accordingly. If the person derserves to have his knee broken and you do not brake it, you are just as guilty as killing the man (ethically). What prevents someone (me) from harming people who annoy me is the legality of assault and battery.

Legality or what is legal is the codification of an ethical code. It takes the certain instances in which ethical judgements were used and collects them into legal indexs. (Common Sense).

[Ryu (JKD?)]

"This then moves onto virtue which many people here just don't understand. Virtue does not choose between right and wrong. Virtue is like a line segment. Each end is an extreme and the middle, temperence, moderation or whatever you want to call it is virtue."

Aristotle's Golden Mean. Not too hard to understand at all. It' basic reading in philo.


For the most part I agree with your post.

"This then moves onto virtue which many people here just don't understand."

Amazing how many "doctors of philosophy" we suddenly have on this board. Hopefully all those who don't understand will learn something.

sigh.

Ryu