BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Jaltus]

I believe he was being ironic, Zak.

 

[Zakath]

Possibly...

It never hurts to be sure, though...

<looking over his shoulder for folding chairs...>

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


Yes, I did. I am still trying to figure out what Zak is saying. This is my translation:

Is Zak right?

If Goose says that Zak is wrong, than Goose's religion is wrong.

If Goose says that Zak is right, than Goose's religion is wrong.

Gee...I guess you just can't win, Goose. No matter what you say, you are wrong, but that doesn't matter because nobody knows anything and if we did, that wouldn't matter because we are all figments of our own imagination...or are we?

ac

Zak's qualifier was "if what is true for me is that Goose's religion is wrong ..." Goose's religion, as he puts it forth, holds that all truth is absolute, thus what is true for one must be true for all.

So, under those conditions, if Goose said "Yes," then what is true for Zak is true for all, so Goose's religion is automatically wrong, because that is what is true for Zak.

If Goose said, "No," then that would mean that truth is only relative to what Goose's religion percieves to be truth, so Goose's religion's holding that all truth is absolute is rendered false.

Note the careful wording that Zak used: "If what is true for me ..." not "if what I think is true for me."

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

Actually, most relativists do not claim that truth is defined by the individual. Actually, if we're talking about morals, they are not defined by the individual, but by society. If we're talking about truth ... well, this moral relativist believes in absolute truth. But morals and morality are twists upon and interpretations of truth. They are not truth themselves. That makes them relative.

Define society.
thanks
ac

 

[anna]

Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Originally posted by Zakath
It is not possible to logically prove the non-existence of something. The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists, in this case, Knight must prove that absolute morality as he defined it actually exists. He has yet to take a single step in that direction, spending all his efforts attempting to disprove my side of the argument.

If I challenged you to disprove my assertion that the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) runs the universe, could you do it?

No, you cannot logically prove that "Her Immense Pinkness" doesn't run things. You would be forced to prove that something or someone else does...

Does that make things clearer?

Can the psychiatric community logically prove the non-existence of sanity? If so, how? If not, what is the purpose of the psychiatric community?
ac

 

[anna]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Originally posted by Zakath
I don't have to prove it. It's a generally accepted rule describing a limitation of logic and rhetoric. Logically disproving a negative is roughly analogous to trying to divide by zero in mathematics.

The easiest way for Knight to prove me wrong is to trot out an example of absolute morality for us to examine...

I wonder how Knight is going to prove absolute morality without using an example of absolute morality. You say it is the easiest way; I think it is the only way.
ac

 

[Eireann]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Originally posted by anna


I wonder how Knight is going to prove absolute morality without using an example of absolute morality. You say it is the easiest way; I think it is the only way.
ac

And whatever example he uses, he's going to have to be able to do more than merely contend that it is an absolute moral, he's going to need to be able to demonstrate that it is an absolute moral. To do that, he will need to eliminate any possibility of its being relative.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


Define society.
thanks
ac

Merriam-Webster includes a number of definitions. Normally, I don't like relying on dictionary definitions, because they are very subjective, but a couple of the definitions Webster provides are pretty concise and probably most relevent to the definition of society that we are working with:

2: A voluntary association of individuals for common ends: esp. an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession.

3(b): a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

Both of the definitions illustrate that a society can be defined broadly (as a nation) or narrowly (as a group of friends identifying by common interests. Back when I used to role-play years ago, our gaming group was its own society. We had an informal rule (folkway moral) that when we were in the game, we spoke only in character. But we did not follow that moral when we were outside the game in the larger society. It did not apply out there (gamers who do follow that folkway in public are generally called crazy.)

The morals of one society may often come in conflict with those of another society. A person who identifies with both the American society at large and the Christian society narrowly, may find conflict with whether or not to view premarital sex as wrong. As an American, it isn't wrong, as a Christian it is. Ultimately, this person will choose one society over the other with regard to that moral, or else he/she will remain undecided on the issue (as many do). Of course, it's pretty easy to decide which society will be dominant when it comes to folkways clashing with mores. The mores will generally win out, since they are formal laws.

 

[Eireann]

By the way, I think I've mentioned this before, but people are dealing with a wrong definition of morality. People are often using morality to judge situations of right and wrong. That is not what morality is about. Morality defines what is normal or not normal; ethics defines what is right and wrong. Morality and ethics are not the same thing. I know that some dictionaries list them as synonyms, but anyone who has ever taken even the most basic philosophy course learns very quickly that morality and ethics are two different areas altogether.

Morality -- normal or common vs. abnormal or deviant

Ethics -- right vs. wrong

 

[Prisca]

Eireann

Eireann

You said, “A person who identifies with both the American society at large and the Christian society narrowly, may find conflict with whether or not to view premarital sex as wrong.”

So, in other words, whether a behavior is viewed as wrong or right based on popular opinion has precedence over whether it is beneficial or detrimental to that society? That is certainly the way we are headed here in the US. Relativists often do not see past the behavior they would like to freely enjoy. They have a shortsighted view of consequences that favors their own personal desires over the benefits to society as a whole.

Where law reflects popular opinion, a broken society is sure to follow.

 

[Evangelion]

Becky -

So, in other words, whether a behavior is viewed as wrong or right based on popular opinion has precedence over whether it is beneficial or detrimental to that society?

According to the early American government - yes.

That is certainly the way we are headed here in the US.

That is the way your nation used to be, back in the days when white Christians owned slaves.

Relativists often do not see past the behavior they would like to freely enjoy. They have a shortsighted view of consequences that favors their own personal desires over the benefits to society as a whole.

Sounds exactly like the white Christians of yesteryear.

Where law reflects popular opinion, a broken society is sure to follow.

Indeed! And of course, we must remember that it was "popular opinion" which turned the tide on the slavery issue. (Thank God for the Quakers, who had the courage to resist the policies of the mainstream Christians!)

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

Merriam-Webster includes a number of definitions. Normally, I don't like relying on dictionary definitions, because they are very subjective, but a couple of the definitions Webster provides are pretty concise and probably most relevent to the definition of society that we are working with:

2: A voluntary association of individuals for common ends: esp. an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession.

3(b): a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

Both of the definitions illustrate that a society can be defined broadly (as a nation) or narrowly (as a group of friends identifying by common interests. Back when I used to role-play years ago, our gaming group was its own society. We had an informal rule (folkway moral) that when we were in the game, we spoke only in character. But we did not follow that moral when we were outside the game in the larger society. It did not apply out there (gamers who do follow that folkway in public are generally called crazy.)

The morals of one society may often come in conflict with those of another society. A person who identifies with both the American society at large and the Christian society narrowly, may find conflict with whether or not to view premarital sex as wrong. As an American, it isn't wrong, as a Christian it is. Ultimately, this person will choose one society over the other with regard to that moral, or else he/she will remain undecided on the issue (as many do). Of course, it's pretty easy to decide which society will be dominant when it comes to folkways clashing with mores. The mores will generally win out, since they are formal laws.

So what you are saying is that there is such a thing as individual responsibility, but the masses will rule?
ac

 

[anna]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This was like a Tyson fight in the late 80's

Originally posted by Eireann

And whatever example he uses, he's going to have to be able to do more than merely contend that it is an absolute moral, he's going to need to be able to demonstrate that it is an absolute moral. To do that, he will need to eliminate any possibility of its being relative.

true
ac

 

[Eireann]

Re: Eireann

Re: Eireann

Originally posted by Becky

So, in other words, whether a behavior is viewed as wrong or right based on popular opinion has precedence over whether it is beneficial or detrimental to that society?

First of all, as I'm getting really tired of clarifying, matters of right and wrong are not moral issues; they're ethical issues. Please read my earlier post. That said, morals are set by society, and they are based in large part on what that society deems beneficial or detrimental to its survival and operation. So your question is moot, because benefit/detriment are already a part of the equation.

Relativists often do not see past the behavior they would like to freely enjoy. They have a shortsighted view of consequences that favors their own personal desires over the benefits to society as a whole.

Who told you that? You obviously have a terribly skewed view of just what a moral relativist is. Trust me, we are every bit as aware of consequences as you are. You guys keep trying in vain to paint us as amoral, but you are in error every time you try that. A word of advice to all of you absolutists: learn about moral relativism before you start spouting about it. Otherwise, you really make yourselves look ignorant.

Where law reflects popular opinion, a broken society is sure to follow.

Well, then this whole world must be full of nothing but broken societies. Just where do you think laws come from? Don't say God, because that's a really empty argument.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


So what you are saying is that there is such a thing as individual responsibility, but the masses will rule?
ac

There is always personal, individual accountability. That's what morals are all about. In addition to establishing codes of behavior, they also establish sanctions (formal and informal) for violating those codes. Probably the most moral statement ever made was this famous gem: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

The masses establish tradition. They establish morals to enforce tradition and create stability within the society.

Why is murder a violation of morals in every culture? Is it because every human being thinks it is wrong? Heck, no! Clearly there are plenty of people who don't think it's wrong, though the vast majority of us do think it's wrong. It is a moral imperitive not to murder because murder reduces the numbers. If murder were allowed to go unchecked in any given society, then the very survival of that society would be in serious jeopardy. I mean, if the members of the society kill each other off, then there won't be any members of the society. Applewhite's Heaven's Gate cult was a society. They all died. That society no longer exists.

 

[Eireann]

Re: Eireann

Re: Eireann

Originally posted by Becky
Where law reflects popular opinion, a broken society is sure to follow.

Most broken societies come about when the masses do not have a say in the laws. There were some pretty harsh laws handed down during Hitler's regime, and the masses of Germans had little or no control or voice in the process. Just how long did that society last?

Here in America, we are supposedly a democratic republic. That means that the masses have a say in the passing and establishment of laws. Haven't you ever seen a new law proposal on your local ballot? If enough people say, "NO", then the law doesn't pass. That's how our government is set up. They don't just go making laws with impunity.

There are some laws that were not passed by popular vote, but they apparently are okay with the masses, because it is also set up so that laws can be repealed by popular vote. That's how the Amendments to the Constitution came about. People didn't like the decisions the government made for them, so they took action and forced the laws to be amended.

So, contrary to your assertion, the society where the masses have no voice in legislation is sure to become a broken society.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

There is always personal, individual accountability. That's what morals are all about. In addition to establishing codes of behavior, they also establish sanctions (formal and informal) for violating those codes. Probably the most moral statement ever made was this famous gem: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

The masses establish tradition. They establish morals to enforce tradition and create stability within the society.

Why is murder a violation of morals in every culture? Is it because every human being thinks it is wrong? Heck, no! Clearly there are plenty of people who don't think it's wrong, though the vast majority of us do think it's wrong. It is a moral imperitive not to murder because murder reduces the numbers. If murder were allowed to go unchecked in any given society, then the very survival of that society would be in serious jeopardy. I mean, if the members of the society kill each other off, then there won't be any members of the society. Applewhite's Heaven's Gate cult was a society. They all died. That society no longer exists.

Since the masses are a group of indivuduals and each individual is accountable, then would it be better to say that morals are defined by the individual rather than the masses?
Aren't revolutions such as The American Revolution caused by individuals who opposed "taxation without representation" rather than the masses who allowed the British to break their
own morals?
ac

 

[Jaltus]

I think Knight's post could have had a lot more punch to it. I have it even through 3 rounds on my scorecard.

 

[Freak]

Jaltus,

I agree with you in that Knight could have added a little more "punch" in his last post. On my scorecard, I see Knight winning all 3 rounds. Though, Zakath, has seemed to be raising it up a notch.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


Since the masses are a group of indivuduals and each individual is accountable, then would it be better to say that morals are defined by the individual rather than the masses?
Aren't revolutions such as The American Revolution caused by individuals who opposed "taxation without representation" rather than the masses who allowed the British to break their
own morals?
ac

It depends on which capacity you have the individuals working in. Society is comprised of individuals, so morals are set by individuals, but only by individuals working in unison as a society. I suppose, when you get right down to it, each of us adopts our own behavioral code (that is to say, we're not programmed like robots), but the behavioral code we adopt for ourselves is based upon the moral codes set by the society of which we are part. Morals are behavioral codes, too, but they are there to govern and facilitate interactions between individuals. In order to be considered a moral code, at least two people are required (unless you have MPD and are able to interact with yourself). Thus, morals supercede the individual as an individual, and affect the individual as a component of a society.