Morality Cannot be Justified

[Athena]

Quote by: agustine To littlebear. With respect to your comment The laws of logic are known by us a priori, or in other words part of our rational intuition in the Kantian dialect. That is we appear to be imbued with an innate knowledge of certain concepts that are properly termed noumena, which are objects of though independent of sensation that provide a framework for our capacity to interpret and comprehend external sensations or phenomena. Augustine

Huh? What concepts might we be born with?

[Athena]

Quote by: Sappho They are not illogical. Here is what I wrote on the previous page that you may miss.

Huh? what is the logic of emotions? A child wanders into the street and sees the car, but so what, it means nothing to the child.

The child picks up a deadly snake and enjoys it.

The street bum agrees with a knive, and Dundee smiles, knowing this punk is not a serious threat to him.

And how about this! Falling in love with wrong guy, knowing full well this relationship will have some major problems. That illogical emotion really sucks!

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Athena Good choice. There are always reasons for killing people so I am sure we can accommendate your desire to kill. It would of course be easier if you are also open to killing animals. Then we can find you a position in a slaughter house or dog pound. May be we should narrow this down and determine under what conditions you enjoy killing? What is it about killing that gives you pleasure?

That was in response to Sappho's support of Hedonism, so I would only take pleasure in killing people, to make it as hard to accomodate me as possible.

[agustine]

To Athena. With respect to your comment

Huh? What concepts might we be born with?

Philosophers of Epistemology recognize that we know certain concepts a priori, that is independent of sensory experience such as the laws of logic. For example, before I knew what the law of identity was, I knew that if today is Monday, than today is not Tuesday. Now, let me be clear. I learned the names of the days of the week and their order, however I knew that if today is Monday, than today is not Tuesday merely by thinking about it. The order of the days of the week would mean nothing if we did not possess the innate rational capacity to make distinctions based upon identity. The underlying concept of the law of identity is accordingly innate in that it is part of the proper deliverances of reason. Another example, before I knew what the law of non-contradiction was, I knew that if both of my parents were out shopping, they could not both be home at the same time while out shopping. I knew this solely by thinking about it. Epistemologists recognize that these concepts are known a priori, or independent of sensory experience. Immanuel Kant went further to argue that the concepts within which we possess a priori knowledge are of a certain quality, commonly referred to by philosophers as necessary truths within a metaphysical context.

Now, that in the sphere of human cognition we have judgments which are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure a priori, it will be an easy matter to show. Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, pg. 27

Kant then continues to invoke the laws of mathmatics as necessary propositions. The first principles of logic also embody metaphysically necessary truths because they possess certain properties:
1. Not logically possible of being false.
2. Not contingent, in that they do not rely on other propositions for their validity.
3. Indespensible
4. They are objectively valid, in that they are valid whether you believe them or not, etc.....

Thus, the concepts we know a priori form the constructs within which we, employing the faculties of reason, comprehend and interpret that which we come to know through the senses. Accordingly, as it relates to the empirical, Kant went on to assert

Not only in judgments, however, but even in conceptions, is an a priori origin manifest. For example, if we take away by degrees from our conceptions of a body all that can be referred to mere sensuous experience--color, hardness or softness, weight, even impenetrability--the body will then vanish; but the space which it occupied still remains, and this it is utterly impossible to annihilate in thought. Again, if we take away, in like manner, from our empirical conception of any object, corporeal or incorporeal, all properties which mere experience has taught us to connect with it, still we cannot think away those through which we cogitate it as substance, or adhering to substance, although our conception of substance is more determined than that of an object. Compelled, therefore, by that necessity with which the conception of substance forces itself upon us, we must confess that it has its seat in our faculty of cognition a priori. ibid.

I hope I've provided you with a clearer picture of the a priori or innate knowledge.

Augustine

[So we're told,]

In my opinion, which is similar to my abortion opinion;


It's all about rights.

If anything, we are born with the right to live.
If we don't have that right; we've nothing.

How would one justify murder?

[Sappho]

Property ownership justifies morality then.

No property? No need for morality.

[Logjam]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Thanks, Logjam. Ancient Rome is one of the biggest gaps in my historical knowledge. It sounds pretty interesting, so maybe I'll delve into it when I can find the time.

The study of Ancient Rome is a huge study! I suggest that you check out some of the great picture books of Pompeii and Rome, they kind of set the tone for further reading.

There's a successful author named Michael Grant, who I like to read. There are some good books on Cicero, a must read. There are several new bios of Julius Caesar, also of Augustus. I even read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and liked it. I'd suggest an abridged addition though, but the original just might be the best prose ever written in English. Right up there with Moby Dick.

Anyhow there was a huge difference between Rome during and after the Republic. The Republic is sort of like life in Ancient Greece (Many differences though) and living during the Empire was more like life in Nazi Germany.

Romans knew a great deal about many subjects and they loved their Greek heritage. They had three huge and wonderful libraries, all eventually destroyed. The last by Christians, which I believe is the greatest intellectual tragedy in history. The library in Alexandria was something to behold.....beyond wonderful.

Many Roman writings that we have have come down to us via Muslim clerics. I doubt that they'd be interested in saving and copying non-Muslim historical documents today. Damage done to the ancient library in Constantanopel by Christian Crusaders was off the page horrible.

[Logjam]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Superiority is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

No, not at all. Some societies are more successful than are others. If you think about it it becomes obvious. Now, I'm sure that you are going to want a scale by which we can measure, and therefore "grade" a society.

Well, I don't know of one, but I think that we can come up with a pretty good scale of measuring the successes or failures of a society.

Here is my proposed list of methods to measure a society's successes:

1. lifespan
2. average education level of the people
3. percenage of people living in a warm, dry house
4. rate of infant mortality
5. percentage of doctors/nurses
6. suicide rate
7. murder/criminal rates
8. relative income
9. number of artists
10. percentage of new discoveries in the fields of medicine, education, architecture, and various kinds of engineering
11. morality....or trust among it's people.

I'm sure that you can come up with some more, but you get my drift.

Simply stated; some societies provide better for the lives of their citizens than do others. I believe that these successes can be measured.

Using my criteria it's ridiculous to think that all societies are equal. Also saying that all societies are equal is to say that there is nothing either right or wrong, and that's just untrue.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Sappho Property ownership justifies morality then. No property? No need for morality.

No, happiness and contentment justify morality.