Shakespeare

[Janielle]

"Nothing is good or bad; thinking makes it so"

To what extent is the premise of this statement true? 

There are numerous examples out there that have highlighted some validity for the statement. For e.g.. the concept of demons and angels.

For some reason...demons are being viewed differently in some aspects. Yes intrinsically their characteristics model "evil" but it is their actions that is the end game yes?

I see this a lot in animation and games and the saying reflects it. Could anyone relate it to other things in reality?

 

[Phi for All]

Urban needle exchange programs are often met with outrage, until citizens hear about all the good they accomplish. 

I knew a manager who gave an employee a promotion, which was considered great. I found out later he didn't give the employee as much of a raise as he was supposed to, though.

Here's a good one: Cable TV. Hundreds of channels, nothing good to watch.

[MathGeek]

It was Samuel Taylor Coleridge who said 500 Newtons would go into making a single Shakespeare.  I disagree.

The above quote depends on whether one regards morality as a uniquely human invention or whether one regards it as emanating from a higher power or other single objective source.

Since the natural laws are objective and immutable, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the moral laws are also.

[swansont]

From Interstellar

(and I tend to agree)

Cooper: You don’t think nature can be evil?
Brand: No.  Formidable, frightening, but…no, not evil.  Is a lion evil because it rips a gazelle to shreds?
Cooper: Just what we take with us, then.

An implication is that morality, or good/evil is the product of sentience, which is basically what is said in the OP – thinking makes it so. 

[dimreepr]

On 7/17/2018 at 7:51 PM, Janielle said:

"Nothing is good or bad; thinking makes it so"

 

In the game jeopardy "what is justice?" would be the answer.

1 hour ago, MathGeek said:

Since the natural laws are objective and immutable, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the moral laws are also.

Then by justice, you mean "an eye for an eye" since us primates seem to base our morals on reciprocity.

[MathGeek]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then by justice, you mean "an eye for an eye" since us primates seem to base our morals on reciprocity.

By justice, I mean not bearing false witness about what other people mean.

[MigL]

Moral laws are not absolute.
Survival of the fittest is what got us to our present evolutionary state.
The weak/infirm gazelles are 'sacrificed' to the predator lions so the rest of the healthy herd can reproduce and pass on healthy genes.
Our prehistoric ancestors behaved much the same.
Very cruel, by modern man standards, but it allowed us to become the dominant life form on the planet.

With our intellect/technology we have become more compassionate.
We take care of our sick/weak/hungry and ( unfortunately ) pass on even bad genes.
One could say this is 'unnatural'.

So, what exactly, are right and wrong morals ?

[Strange]

19 hours ago, MathGeek said:

Since the natural laws are objective and immutable, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the moral laws are also.

It is totally unreasonable. 

[MathGeek]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

It is totally unreasonable. 

Please feel free to make your case that moral laws are subjective and mutable.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

Please feel free to make your case that moral laws are subjective and mutable.

People disagree on whether or not wearing condoms is immoral. Slavery used to be thought of as moral.

[DrP]

8 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

Please feel free to make your case that moral laws are subjective and mutable.

People made Mother Teressa a saint.   She withheld medicines from the sick, took money from the Mafia and spent it on leaflet campaigns against birth control. I'd have to look into it further for more details, but it has been said that many many people died unnecessarily painful deaths because of her anti science and anti med campaign. It's OK though - at least many stopped wearing condoms! phew, what a relief.  Was she a moral person?  She certainly stuck to HER morals...  but were they right or wrong?  I am sure it is debatable.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MathGeek said:

Please feel free to make your case that moral laws are subjective and mutable.

Hang on. Burden of proof. You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to support it.

But, in addition to the above examples, what about killing people? That's wrong, isn't it? Always? Hmmm. But what about war? Is it OK to kill some people (soldiers) but not others? And is it OK to kill them with some weapons (bombs) but not others (chemicals)? And then what about capital punishment? Some people and some countries think it is just and moral, while others think it is unjust an immoral.

I can hardly think of a single thing that is a moral absolute.

Now, please make your case that moral laws are objective and never change. I hope you can support this with examples from multiple cultures over history.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MathGeek said:

Please feel free to make your case that moral laws are subjective and mutable.

They are an invention of humans. We decide what they are. Can't get much more arbitrary than that.

[Pembroke]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Now, please make your case that moral laws are objective and never change. I hope you can support this with examples from multiple cultures over history.

Not to butt in on the conversation you were having, but I'm curious why you think that evidence of objective morality would have to be backed by examples from cultures over history? It seems to me that a culture not following a moral position does not mean that the given moral position isn't necessarily the correct one. It could equally be evidence that the culture operated in folly.

I'm not necessarily making an argument for an objective morality, my position is more complicated than that, I'm just curious about your reasoning that a true morality would necessarily have to have been followed in the past.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Pembroke said:

Not to butt in on the conversation you were having, but I'm curious why you think that evidence of objective morality would have to be backed by examples from cultures over history?

Well, for example, cultural norms have changed dramatically in England over the last 400 years (as the thread started off reference Shakespeare) and even over my lifetime.

I would be interested in seeing MathGeek's explanation of that, or an example of a culture where morality has not changed over some significant amount of time.

2 hours ago, Pembroke said:

I'm not necessarily making an argument for an objective morality, my position is more complicated than that, I'm just curious about your reasoning that a true morality would necessarily have to have been followed in the past.

That is a good point. It raises (or rather, emphasises) the question of how one is to know what this "true" objective morality is. (I suspect it is the set of rules that MathGeek believes are right. But maybe that is too cynical.)

[Pembroke]

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, for example, cultural norms have changed dramatically in England over the last 400 years (as the thread started off reference Shakespeare) and even over my lifetime.

I would be interested in seeing MathGeek's explanation of that, or an example of a culture where morality has not changed over some significant amount of time.

That is a good point. It raises (or rather, emphasises) the question of how one is to know what this "true" objective morality is. (I suspect it is the set of rules that MathGeek believes are right. But maybe that is too cynical.)

I definitely think an explanation of why cultural norms change either within a certain territory over time or from territory to territory is beyond my ability to discern with any certainty. I'm less sure that such changes necessitate the conclusion that any divergent norms are therefore equally valid.

It would be easier to contemplate changes within an individual over time, perhaps because we may have personal experience and insights into that. I know that I once held the notion of unvarying kindness in high regard whereas I don't really believe that to be a well grounded position any more. I believe that shift to have occured as a result of contemplation. I'm not sure if that is analogous to the situation for a broader culture.

 

While I'm not sure that an objective notion of good and bad can be reached for certain, I think I differ from some others in this thread because I don't think pursuing the question wholly futile. A few problems I have is in defining the words morality, or even good and bad (are these as yet empty categories which would then be filled in, or do these already have meaning). When you follow the dictionary definitions (I'm using oxford) you ultimately have the definitions using terms that were used to define previous terms, making the reason circular. The closest definition to good that I can see, and that bears some weight is under Noun, definition 2: Benefit or advantage to someone or something. because the first definition (under noun: That which is morally right; righteousness.) ultimately leads (by using the dictionary) to the circle where the word Good must be defined, and if it is defined as moral, then it begs the question of what moral is, and so on...

What is beneficial or advantageous seems at least slightly more clear cut, because we know things about human biology. We could say it is beneficial to have those things which sustain us and even make us more healthy, skillful and so on... and that I wouldn't think depended solely upon opinion. It might vary from person to person or situation to situation. For example if someone was cripple they wouldn't benefit from the practice of running or jogging whereas someone with healthy legs would, but in principle both would benefit from exercise. Also if one was tired one would benefit from rest, and so forth.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Pembroke said:

I definitely think an explanation of why cultural norms change either within a certain territory over time or from territory to territory is beyond my ability to discern with any certainty. I'm less sure that such changes necessitate the conclusion that any divergent norms are therefore equally valid.

I would guess there is a general tendency to either think that "we" are more morally enlightened than our ancestors (who used to inflict cruel punishments for minor crimes and mistreat their horses) or that there was a Golden Age and modern society is going to hell in a hand basket. No doubt some people hold both views at the same time, with regard to their personal preferences.

17 minutes ago, Pembroke said:

While I'm not sure that an objective notion of good and bad can be reached for certain, I think I differ from some others in this thread because I don't think pursuing the question wholly futile.

Absolutely. I think it is essential that "we" (both as individuals and as a society) think deeply about what we think right and wrong mean. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Strange

[Pembroke]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I would guess there is a general tendency to either think that "we" are more morally enlightened than our ancestors (who used to inflict cruel punishments for minor crimes and mistreat their horses) or that there was a Golden Age and modern society is going to hell in a hand basket. No doubt some people hold both views at the same time, with regard to their personal preferences.

You're right that those are both common opinions.

Though my opinion hasn't been asked for, I generally consider history (among other things) as a trove of data to be considered which often possesses both character and conditions not currently at hand but have a degree of veracity which elevates their use for contemplation above imagined possibilities.