Do you believe in inequality?

[Amaranthus]

No they wouldn't, they're just something we make up.

 

'We' can make up anything we like... for example a law could be passed saying it's okay to beat up your wife... that doesn't mean that it is not essentially wrong and always will be.

[Cyclone]

If morality and virtues are self contained in this way, then could there be any legitimate claims that someone is superior to that very system? I.e. you could claim superiority because you understand that morals are a mere product of an ever changing consensus reality limited by the constraints of human consciousness. Therefore you become an amoral nihilist, and simply conform to the impulse of your desires with a smug look on your face.

 

I think that any claim to superiority on that basis would be impossible to prove.

I'm not sure that I'd have a smug look for very long either. We require society to accept us in order to survive within it. Stop following it's rules and it will punish you.

[artisan]

If there was no life anywhere, what would be the reference point against which acts of good and evil could be judged? Or from the perspective of a completely impartial outside observer, who could see the universe for what it is - matter and energy - what would be the noticeable difference between good and evil in the grand scheme of things?

 

How do you know that?

You are only going by what you have been told, or imagined.

For all you know, non of this may exist.

It may all be a dream, you may be the only entity anywhere in the Universe.

 

To conceive of anything existing beyond your brains senses is a leap of faith.

[Cyclone]

'We' can make up anything we like... for example a law could be passed saying it's okay to beat up your wife... that doesn't mean that it is not essentially wrong and always will be.

 

I wasn't talking about the law.

 

Physical violence is only wrong because we collectively feel that way.

The law comes after the value and in theory should just represent the morality of the society that passes it.

[Amaranthus]

I think that any claim to superiority on that basis would be impossible to prove.

I'm not sure that I'd have a smug look for very long either. We require society to accept us in order to survive within it. Stop following it's rules and it will punish you.

 

I hate how the word 'society' is bandied about as if it means anything. If people lived in caves, only having contact with very few people, no laws/set rules or values, 'society' would be a non-entity, yet good and evil would still exist.

[Amaranthus]

I wasn't talking about the law.

 

Physical violence is only wrong because we collectively feel that way.

The law comes after the value and in theory should just represent the morality of the society that passes it.

 

Yes I know, but the law is the expression of 'society's' morals and values is it not?

[Cyclone]

How do you know that?

Know what? It was a series of questions, not statements.

You are only going by what you have been told, or imagined.

For all you know, non of this may exist.

It may all be a dream, you may be the only entity anywhere in the Universe.

 

To conceive of anything existing beyond your brains senses is a leap of faith.

Not really. Whilst it's an interesting intellectual exercise to speculate that nothing may exist, it makes no sense to act as if it were true and makes much sense to believe your senses and act as if what you perceive is real.

But good and evil are still subjective moral judgements, linked quite closely to our ability to feel empathy I suppose.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Yes I know, but the law is the expression of 'society's' morals and values is it not?

 

 

Not really. Law is a means of resolving disputes.

[flamingjimmy]

Good and evil are just words, we give them meaning. They don't actually exist in the same way that 'sharp' or 'shiny' doesn't exist, they are just descriptive words.

[Cyclone]

Yes I know, but the law is the expression of 'society's' morals and values is it not?

 

A flawed and out of date one, but yes it is.

 

It doesn't help to refer to it though. Passing a law doesn't alter morality, it's the other way around. So what you meant to say was that if everyone felt that it was okay to beat your wife, that doesn't mean that it would be okay to beat your wife.

Clearly though, if everyone felt that, then it would be okay. You only say it wouldn't be okay from the moral point of view that you currently occupy.