Morality Cannot be Justified

[Castle]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Your belief that morality is insubstantial on all levels is, in and of itself, based on the belief that all substantiality must be founded from logic.

First, this is assumed in debate.
Secondly, what else would make something right?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Only if he held the equally illogical view that purifying the human race is the right thing to do.

Logically, as i've explained, this would improve the lives of the elect and allow us to achieve greater things as a species.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Castle First, this is assumed in debate. Secondly, what else would make something right?

1) It is also assumed that murder is wrong, and that the protection of property ownership is a priority, etc.

2) What you accept as valid is based on morality.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Without a preconcieved notion of what is good and evil, you end up rationalizing anything. I think you assume more things illogically than you realize.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Logically, as i've explained, this would improve the lives of the elect and allow us to achieve greater things as a species.

Which is logical because...?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Bettering ourselves as a race isn't logical?

[The Bacon Guy]

You tell me. You claimed that it was, and I asked you to explain why.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Bettering ourselves as a race isn't logical?

What you define as "better" is subjective.


By the way, Castle, I suggest you request a title change from "morality" to "subjectivity". It fits better.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm tied up in my own argument, I'm tying off that Hitler example.

[Kamehameha34]

Trust me, there is a way to apply subjectivity to any example you may concieve.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 1) It is also assumed that murder is wrong, and that the protection of property ownership is a priority, etc.

Not as an a priori assumption simply by virtue of being a debate. Debate necessitates that we accept the principles of logic: that's why we can find things like contradictions wanting.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What you accept as valid is based on morality.

And morality is valid because...?

[Gods_Mercenary]

New idea, if you only used logic, you'd just sit their doing nothing. Everything you could do is temporary, why bother.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Castle Not as an a priori assumption simply by virtue of being a debate. Debate necessitates that we accept the principles of logic: that's why we can find things like contradictions wanting.

We are discussing debate?

Of course logic is more substantial in debate. It sounds like you are using that as a cop-out to not have to explain why, though.

And morality is valid because...?

And logic is more valid because...?

[Castle]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And logic is more valid because...?

Basically, because it is a necessary starting point from which to move forward. Plus, everyone agrees its true.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary New idea, if you only used logic, you'd just sit their doing nothing. Everything you could do is temporary, why bother.

You couldn't exist purely on logic, since logic is a process. There must always be a starting point for a process, which is, in the case of humans, emotion.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Castle Plus, everyone agrees its true.

Hmm, I don't see many regulars of this forum attempting to argue that unmotivated murder is justified.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You couldn't exist purely on logic, since logic is a process. There must always be a starting point for a process, which is, in the case of humans, emotion.

Exactly, According to Castle he doesn't believe in anything unrational, when at least half of his "being" (emotions) is unrational.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Instinct is an inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. It is subjective and unconscious. Now, given that emotion is defined as "in its most general definition, an intense neural mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response. (source)", aren't instinctive needs synonymous with emotional needs?

Survival Instinct while partially unconscious to a point is hardly absolute. I fully realize on a conscious and logical level that if I go do random dangerous idea X that I'm going to die and choose not to engage in X because of this in some cases. Others are just things I choose not to do because I have no interest in them, but that's beside the point.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Survival Instinct while partially unconscious to a point is hardly absolute. I fully realize on a conscious and logical level that if I go do random dangerous idea X that I'm going to die and choose not to engage in X because of this in some cases.

Good point, saber. Regarding the morality and logic of murder, there is the fact that if it is done openly, the legal system will hunt you down, try and convict you, then hang you.

If you don't wanna be hung, don't murder. Eminently logical.

Or you can try to hide it...

[Gods_Mercenary]

True, morality enforced by law becomes logical.