BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


You said that morals are not defined by the individual, but rather society so I assumed that was what you meant. I think what you meant to say is that morals can be both defined by the individual and society, but it depends on which capacity you have the individuals working in. I guess the question to ask is how does a society work in unison to define morals when each individual has his own perception of morality? How do you get two people to agree on anything? Is there a standard used? If so, how does the society decide which standard to use?

Common interest, or interest in the common good. When people intermingle they usually find common ground. When they don't, they cease to intermingle. When they find common ground, they build on it. That is how societies form.

ps I just looked at your profile. You are a musician? Cool. Do you play an instrument or do you sing? Oh and what kind of music you play?

I sing and play some instruments -- (in order of most ability to least) -- voice, drums, French Horn, trumpet, keyboards, clarinet, saxophone. My preferred music, that which I've played in most of the bands I've been with, is Prog Metal. That is the genre that basically combines symphonic classical music with heavy metal. Some prominent examples of the genre are Queensryche, older Queen, Helloween, Savatage, and Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

 

[Big Finn]

Eireann,

But still, as I've pointed out numerous times, and everyone seems to be unwilling to deal with, morals are not about right or wrong, they are simply about behavioral norms. The field that deals with right and wrong is ethics.

How do you come to this conclusion? As I understand your argument, you are saying there that it is possible that murder could be morally wrong and ethically right, or just the opposite, at the same time. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying here? You seem to be making a clean break between ethics and morals. Thus a person with very low morals could very possibly be very ethical at the same time. This seems to be a very odd combination that is not seen in real life. I certainly don't know of anyone like that and I've been around for a few years in both the "counter-culture" and as a practicing Christian. High moral standards in a person are a very good indicator of good ethical standards being present in the same person.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Big Finn
Eireann,



How do you come to this conclusion? As I understand your argument, you are saying there that it is possible that murder could be morally wrong and ethically right, or just the opposite, at the same time. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying here? You seem to be making a clean break between ethics and morals. Thus a person with very low morals could very possibly be very ethical at the same time. This seems to be a very odd combination that is not seen in real life. I certainly don't know of anyone like that and I've been around for a few years in both the "counter-culture" and as a practicing Christian. High moral standards in a person are a very good indicator of good ethical standards being present in the same person.

It doesn't matter if they often go hand in hand or not. They are different things, regardless. This debate is about morals, not ethics. Though they often go hand in hand, they don't always. I used to know a girl named Crystal who was a stripper. She used to flash people in public even. She would take midnight nude swims in a public pool in our mutual apartment complex. She was rarely alone on those swims, by the way. Would you consider her to be a woman of low morals. I know most people would. But those aren't necessarily "wrong" behaviors, they are just not normal behaviors. When it came to right and wrong, she lived as a very right person. She was kind, loving, sweet, intelligent and charitable. She gave an entire evenings tip earnings to a woman asking for money for food one night. She had no idea whether the woman was telling the truth or not, but she said it just felt like the right thing to do. And this is a woman who sometimes made up to $600 a night. One night, when I was driving her home, we accidentally ran over a cat, but didn't kill it. Both of its back legs were broken, though. We stopped, and she was bawling her eyes out. She ran from door to door trying to find out whose cat it was to let them know. When no one claimed the animal, we wrapped it up and took it to the vet. She paid the whole bill for a stray cat. Do you still think low morals and high ethics can't go hand in hand? If you look at society a little closer, you'll probably find plenty of examples. You'll probably find some very highly moral people with low ethics, too. How about those evangelists who ask for money for the Lord then buy private jets? (By the way, I asked c.moore once if that was something he could justify some of his fellow evangelists doing, and he told me it was perfectly justified because they didn't want to travel with sinners). Anyway, I'm sure those guys are pretty darned moral. They follow the laws, they don't break the rules of society. There is nothing abnormal (aka immoral) about an evangelist asking for donations, nor is there anything abnormal (immoral) about them buying a vehicle. Their ethics are certainly in question, though, wouldn't you say?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Big Finn
How do you come to this conclusion?

Have you ever taken a philosophy course? It's one of the first and most basic things they teach you. It's Philosophy 101. Anyone who has ever taken a philosophy course (or a sociology course) will know that they carefully distinguish between morals and ethics.

 

[bill betzler]

Eriann,

But still, as I've pointed out numerous times, and everyone seems to be unwilling to deal with, morals are not about right or wrong, they are simply about behavioral norms.

When building a society the ethics are first accepted as the foundations to the morals that that will be accepted as ok. These ethics are then used to judge whether or not the society is living up to the original standards.

Only a disinterested person would want to separate morality from ethics. E.g., if I were to observe someone else's culture and not live within that culture.

bill

 

[bill betzler]

A good debate.

A good debate.

Well Zakath didn't bite the definitional hook. I didn't know if he would or wouldn't. The fence has been established. Knight and Zakath will stay on their own sides.

 

[Big Finn]

When it came to right and wrong, she lived as a very right person. She was kind, loving, sweet, intelligent and charitable. She gave an entire evenings tip earnings to a woman asking for money for food one night. She had no idea whether the woman was telling the truth or not, but she said it just felt like the right thing to do. And this is a woman who sometimes made up to $600 a night. One night, when I was driving her home, we accidentally ran over a cat, but didn't kill it. Both of its back legs were broken, though. We stopped, and she was bawling her eyes out. She ran from door to door trying to find out whose cat it was to let them know. When no one claimed the animal, we wrapped it up and took it to the vet. She paid the whole bill for a stray cat.

I don't see that your example has anything at all to do with ethics. You are stating on this thread that killing is a moral issue not an ethical one. So, what does the cat story, and almost killing it, have to do with ethics? It is a story of morals, according to your statements so far, not ethics.

Funny though, in the ethics courses I've taken hedonism is discussed as part of ethics. It is taught as one system of many systems of ethics. Yet hedonism is all about morals according to your story.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by bill betzler
Eriann,



When building a society the ethics are first accepted as the foundations to the morals that that will be accepted as ok. These ethics are then used to judge whether or not the society is living up to the original standards.

Only a disinterested person would want to separate morality from ethics. E.g., if I were to observe someone else's culture and not live within that culture.

bill

However, in a real debate about the absoluteness or relativity of morality, one has to be able to separate. They run very close most of the time, and there is much overlapping, but one must take on the role of the disinterested third party in order to present an objective (no pun intended) case for themselves. Knight cannot do that, it seems.

I've said before that I think that Truth is absolute. Ethics may be a form of truth, but morality is an interpretation of truth, and interpretation of ethics. Morality is the relative cousin of ethics. Some morals, many in fact, are based upon ethics, but not all of them.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Big Finn
I don't see that your example has anything at all to do with ethics. You are stating on this thread that killing is a moral issue not an ethical one. So, what does the cat story, and almost killing it, have to do with ethics? It is a story of morals, according to your statements so far, not ethics.

There are probably several cases one could cite that could go either way -- ethical or moral. The reasoning behind the act is what puts it in its proper camp. If she tried to save the cat because she would have felt out of place for not doing so, then it would be a moral issue. If she tried to save the cat because she felt that not doing so would be unconscionable and wrong, then it is an ethical issue. One would be a normal vs. not normal decision, the other would be a perceived right vs. wrong decision.

Funny though, in the ethics courses I've taken hedonism is discussed as part of ethics. It is taught as one system of many systems of ethics. Yet hedonism is all about morals according to your story.

Then I guess the jury is out on that one, eh? The Intro to Ethics course I took at SMSU, and the Approaches to Ethics course I took here at UMSL both showed it differently than what you were apparently taught. Of course, philosophy is not an exact science, so one should expect different philosophers to disagree on the applications of those terms. But one thing they all seem to agree on is that ethics and morals are different, albeit related.

 

[Big Finn]

Eireann,

If she tried to save the cat because she would have felt out of place for not doing so, then it would be a moral issue.

So are you equating peer pressure with morals? Because it is peer pressure, and one's response to it, that makes a person feel out of place in relation to behavior! I find that to be a rather odd association.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Big Finn
Eireann,



So are you equating peer pressure with morals? Because it is peer pressure, and one's response to it, that makes a person feel out of place in relation to behavior! I find that to be a rather odd association.

Pretty much. It's a much different position on morals than the average layperson takes, but I think it is a more accurate position that is more reflective of academic definitions of morality vs. ethics. The academic definition of morals as being comprised of mores and folkways is often, but not necessarily inclusive of issues of right and wrong. When people join certain units in the military, they are expected, by tradition, to get a certain tattoo. If you don't, it's not necessarily a wrong thing, but you better expect to be looked at as a deviant or at the least as a non-team player. That is a moral, but it's not based on an ethic. Likewise, when a baseball player hits a home run, would it be ethically wrong for him to say during his interview, "Yeah, I was really proud of that one. It just shows I'm a good hitter!"? No, it wouldn't be wrong, but it would be against the moral code that expects players to take the team approach.

By the way, if you're following a dictionary definition of morals or ethics you probably won't find a distinction. As a professor of mine once said, "The slang and idiom of the common layperson is the fodder of the dictionary. The dictionary is not scholarly, it is common."

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Eireann
It's obvious, having read the current results of the debate, that most of the people voting don't actually know how to judge a debate. Most of them (to be expected of course, since most of them are Christians and absolutists) are judging in Knight's favor simply because they share his belief in absolute morality. If they were actually judging knowledgeably based on how well each combatant is actually building/defending his case, then Knight would be losing by a landslide, since he has yet to do either. He can't defend his case, because he hasn't started building one yet.

LOL! Zakath made Knights argument for him in Zakath's post #2!!!

You are more biased than the Christians you claim are biased!

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
well this is all just an opinion poll anyway so you really can't expect anything more.

If the "what's your education level?" thread is any indication, most have never been exposed to formal debate in an academic setting. That being the case most people will automatically judge based on which presenter argues a postion they agree with.

Pilgrim

I didn't realize this was a "formal" debate?

 

[novice]

Eireann...

But still, as I've pointed out numerous times, and everyone seems to be unwilling to deal with, morals are not about right or wrong, they are simply about behavioral norms. The field that deals with right and wrong is ethics. This debate is not about ethics. If Knight concentrates on issues of right and wrong, as I suspect he will, then he will lose the debate by default, because he will be debating off-topic.

I think everyone is capable of understanding to a sufficient degree what the debate is about regardless of how accurate the terms are.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
LOL! Zakath made Knights argument for him in Zakath's post #2!!!

You are more biased than the Christians you claim are biased!

If you follow my posts, you will also see that in my scoring I penalized Zakath for his error in his #2 post. Try again.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
I didn't realize this was a "formal" debate?

It is meant to be as close to a formal debate as the internet will allow. Hence all the rules, and all the monitoring/refereeing by the moderators.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
Eireann...I think everyone is capable of understanding to a sufficient degree what the debate is about regardless of how accurate the terms are.

I'll humbly agree with you on that. Still, Knight needs to concentrate on building his own case rather than on trying to whittle Zak's down. If he has a case, it should be able to stand on its own without worrying about Zak's argument. If he is worrying about Zak's argument, then it means he considers Zak's case to be a threat. With the constant defensive stance Knight has been taking in this debate, if it were a boxing match we would say he is "on the ropes."

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

Common interest, or interest in the common good. When people intermingle they usually find common ground. When they don't, they cease to intermingle. When they find common ground, they build on it. That is how societies form.


I sing and play some instruments -- (in order of most ability to least) -- voice, drums, French Horn, trumpet, keyboards, clarinet, saxophone. My preferred music, that which I've played in most of the bands I've been with, is Prog Metal. That is the genre that basically combines symphonic classical music with heavy metal. Some prominent examples of the genre are Queensryche, older Queen, Helloween, Savatage, and Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

So the standard is compromise.

Wow! That is a lot of instruments! I play soprano and alto sax, and have learned a little piano and sopranino sax. I've played some jazz, but my area of study would be twentieth century music since that is where you will find most of the "classical" saxophone repretoire. Other than that, I play transcriptions. I was always kind of curious about what genre Bohemian Rapsody would be in. I like that song even if the lyrics are a bit depressing.
ac

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


So the standard is compromise.

I don't know. Maybe. I know that when people group together they have ways of coming to agreements about things. The mechanism may differ from group to group and situation to situation. Sometimes formal compromise is required, sometimes it coincidence rules the day.

Wow! That is a lot of instruments! I play soprano and alto sax, and have learned a little piano and sopranino sax. I've played some jazz, but my area of study would be twentieth century music since that is where you will find most of the "classical" saxophone repretoire. Other than that, I play transcriptions. I was always kind of curious about what genre Bohemian Rapsody would be in. I like that song even if the lyrics are a bit depressing.
ac [/QUOTE]

 

[Big Finn]

Eireann,

Well, I can see why our society is in such trouble then. When the morals of an individual's life are nothing more than a response to peer pressure then there is nothing of substance to guide them. This makes public opinion the ruling factor in lives of many people.

I can also see then why you argue that there can't be any absolutes, for something as variable as peer pressure can never be an absolute. I really feel for you guys who think this way. It must be really confusing to have your morals changed every time public opinion shifts. You have no inner guidance, no compass, no stabilizer other than what a majority of people think. It must come as quite a shock to you to have people around who don't bow to public opinion as their definer for their moral values.

Well, thanks for the insight. I don't understand how anyone could willingly place their moral values in nothing more than something as fickle as public opinion, but then I'm no great proponent of believing something just because academia says it is so. They have been wrong so many times over the course of history it isn't funny. I believe this is another one of those times.

What this idea is really advocating is that people shouldn't think for themselves or stand for principle, but follow the herd. I'm surprised that you buy it, because you seem much too intelligent to buy into such an obvious fallacy.