Markdf,

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:22 pm Idealists are convinced that reality does not exist either without or outside of the mind.

...you hold that reality is not necessarily what meets the eye of the observer.

Ah, that type of idealism. In that case, no, I emphatically reject idealism. The world exists independently of the mind. Naturally, our perceptions play a big role in how we interpret the world -- especially for irrational, instinctual people who can't learn to understand how those perceptions affect their experiences.

Reality is precisely what meets the eye of the observer. But between the eye and brain, reality gets manipulated, lost, distorted, generalized, and by the time it becomes perception, it just a shoddy parody.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:22 pm Tell me, is truth and good really independent of the individual mind?

Does reality exist independently of our experience of it?

Of course not -- without the mind, reality would simply exist. It's the mind that invents descriptions of the world, which can then be accurate or inaccurate. And good is just a description of how we apply the instinctual moral principles that we all possess, so obviously it's in the mind too.

But yes, the world exists independently of the mind. Or do you believe that reality just *poofed* into existence when you were born?

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:50 am Second, there are in fact significant, extensively documented, differences in moral rules among communities - differences among different times, places, nations, cultures, local communities within nations, etc.

This depends on how you define "morality". If you include every single piece of stupid bullshit that any idiot gets offended about out, then yes, that stuff is all highly relative and situational. Like worshiping idols, blasphemy, nudity on television, blood transfusions, eating beef.

Once you write off all that nonsense though, underlying moral principles that pretty much everyone agrees with become evident. There are exceptions, but ALL of them require enormous amounts of brainwashing by the society in question.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:50 am The popular notion that there are, or should be, universal moral rules comes from the belief that one's own rules are "natural," "obvious," "beyond doubt," and, of course, endorsed by the supernatural beings of choice.

There are indeed principles like that. No society has ever held that it's acceptable to murder your neighbor. Theft is generally frowned upon. Kidnapping someone's children is seen as a heinous act in pretty much every society ever known to exist. Don't confuse the fact that we have governments empowered to do those things when necessary with believing that those things are acceptable.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:50 am The trouble has always been that people's "obvious, natural, and God-given" moralities don't agree.

The natural ones DO agree. Everyone has an instinctive understanding of the principal of reciprocity. Evolution furnished us with a basic set of moral principals; we share our underlying morals simply by being of the same species.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:50 am Today, teen pregnancy is seen as a problem to be solved and a tragedy for the individual, yet 150 years ago, many women had their first child when still teens. Were they immoral? They might have thought we were immoral to exploit our longer life spans by delaying a natural process in pursuit of education and career.

And those are just "supposed" moralities. What you've actually got in those cases are just prissy dickheads with too much free time. Whether or not teen pregnancy is a problem is entirely an issue of practicality. Conservatives have always felt a need to micromanage the reproductive behavior of others. Don't confuse that morality.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:50 am My own great-grandmother was murdered by an Orthodox priest - he was offended at the sight of an old Jewish woman in the street, so he pulled out a pistol and shot her - who was never reproached for what he did, because it did not violate the "situational morality" of the time and place - 19th century Belarus.

And do you think that NO ONE at all considered it wrong for an old woman to be murdered in cold blood like that? There were probably lots of people around who considered such a shooting the act of a cowardly monster. But that's precisely the danger of religion -- it makes it too easy to brainwash people to the point of overriding their natural moral tendencies.

Good people will naturally do good things, and evil people will naturally do evil things. But only religion can make good people do evil things.

Markdf, you're using circular reasoning to prove your point - you dismiss the numerous examples of moral inconsistency as the product of "brainwashing," and claim everything else as "natural." This makes it impossible to reason with you, since you automatically reject all counter-arguments as irrelevant.

What you call brainwashing is more commonly known as civilization or culture. Human beings are inherently social, and can't be contemplated with accuracy outside the societies in which they live. The rules of society govern people's behavior, and take precedence over any "natural" tendancies. If you don't believe this, try breaking the law and excusing your misbehavior by saying it was mandated by "natural law." You'll go straight to prison. The "natural law" argument is often invoked to excuse "crimes of passion," and rightly rejected by the courts because it undermines the foundation of civil society, which is an agreement for all to be bound by the same rules.

Often, but not always, these rules are in accord with popular sentiment, which is, I believe what you're calling natural morality. Read enough history or anthropology or even sociology, and you'll see that popular sentiments are not universal at all outside the culture that produces them. (Please, no more talk of "brainwashing" - what counts is what determines behavior.)

Even the prohibitions against murder, kidnapping children, etc., are far from universal. These prohibitions typically apply only to members of one's own group - a critical distinction. Outsiders, strangers, or enemies are often subject to anything. Morality safeguards the integrity and continuity of the group by preventing its members from destroying one another. So does the absence of moral sanctions for the abuse of outsiders - this draws a clear line between group members and outsiders, and allows a social safety valve of sorts, because people can direct at outsiders the savagery impermissible among neighbors.

Of course, the more advanced civilizations have, within the last one or two centuries, begun to extend the protections of morality to outsiders and to argue for the universal application of their morals. This is an admirable project, and one made necessary by the soaring frequency of contact between previously remote peoples brought about by technology and trans-national economics, but we should not delude ourselves that this project is complete or that it is anything less than revolutionary. We may ardently wish for a universal morality, we may even need it, but it is premature to say that it exists already, and presumptuous to say that our own beliefs must be its basis.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm Markdf, you're using circular reasoning to prove your point - you dismiss the numerous examples of moral inconsistency as the product of "brainwashing," and claim everything else as "natural." This makes it impossible to reason with you, since you automatically reject all counter-arguments as irrelevant.

No, I'm reasoning from base principles -- that human nature is genetic and instinctual. When you see deviations from those instincts, those deviations are due to society. Anything created by society is -- by definition -- unnatural. Anything that comes from natural evolution is -- by definition -- natural.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm What you call brainwashing is more commonly known as civilization or culture. Human beings are inherently social, and can't be contemplated with accuracy outside the societies in which they live.

Humans are also inherently animals, with powerful instincts that dominate our behavior. No animal denies its instincts, and we aren't an exception.

If a society has the practice of removing everyone's foreskin at birth, that still doesn't change the fact that the natural form of the Human penis has foreskin. There is a basic, underlying form for the penis, shared among all people of all races. Some societies may try to alter it, but it requires deliberate effort. The penis still naturally grows a certain way. Likewise, there is a basic, underlying set of moral principles, and it requires deliberate, concerted effort to override them with social conditioning.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm The rules of society govern people's behavior, and take precedence over any "natural" tendancies. If you don't believe this, try breaking the law and excusing your misbehavior by saying it was mandated by "natural law." You'll go straight to prison. The "natural law" argument is often invoked to excuse "crimes of passion," and rightly rejected by the courts because it undermines the foundation of civil society, which is an agreement for all to be bound by the same rules.

Excuse for a moment while I laugh my ass off at this "point". I mean seriously, that's some circus-grade bullshit.

Why do you think that people violate the law in the first place?! Because our natural tendencies take precedence over the rules of society. And I'm not just talking about the stuff people go to jail for -- people flagrantly violate the law everyday. Tell me honestly that you've never jaywalked or ran a red light.

The thing is, we also have a natural tendency to punish those who act against society. So you see? Assuming that humans are animals following their instincts leads to a perfect description of the real world -- people violate society's rules, because we are slaves to our instincts. And we punish those who violate society's rules, because that is also one of our instincts. We naturally create societies, and naturally try to enforce compliance with that society.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm Often, but not always, these rules are in accord with popular sentiment, which is, I believe what you're calling natural morality.

No, what I'm calling natural morality is the product of 10 million years of evolution that crafted us into the only species of Mammal capable of living in groups larger than a few hundred without them all tearing each other to pieces.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm Read enough history or anthropology or even sociology, and you'll see that popular sentiments are not universal at all outside the culture that produces them.

Actually, anthropology says exactly the opposite. Anthropology says that all societies share a number of consistent, underlying principles that attest to the fact that the formation of societies is something that we do instinctively. That's the whole point.

Why aren't there any societies where you can kill your neighbour's children? Why aren't there any societies where you can steal from your neighbour? You can find countless things that every single society in all of history has agreed on. Of course, if you focus on the differences, that's all you'll see. But the point here is to look for the common elements -- not just to pretend that they don't exist.

If you only focus on the differences between Michael Crichton's books, it will seem like they're all quite different. But once you start looking for the commonalities, you notice that they're almost identical to each other, and the differences are trivial. Of course, if you're a fan, you'll still pretend that his books are all highly original, unique works of fiction. But don't be surprised when people who are more well-read laugh at you for being so silly.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm Of course, the more advanced civilizations have, within the last one or two centuries, begun to extend the protections of morality to outsiders and to argue for the universal application of their morals. This is an admirable project, and one made necessary by the soaring frequency of contact between previously remote peoples brought about by technology and trans-national economics

All that has changed is the concept of outsider -- when you are regularly exposed to people from all around the world, you cease to think of them as outsiders. The status of outsider is typically associated with strangeness and novelty.

Take note of which group of people tend to be the most liberal -- people who live in cities, where contact with people from other cultures is routine. People who live in rural areas still typically hate everyone who isn't like them, because they live in a monoculture... although television is changing even that.

bobov (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:19 pm but we should not delude ourselves that this project is complete or that it is anything less than revolutionary. We may ardently wish for a universal morality, we may even need it, but it is premature to say that it exists already, and presumptuous to say that our own beliefs must be its basis.

Anytime you start thinking that we are doing something "revolutionary", think again. That's simply not how Humans operate. We are animals and we follow our instincts. We can no more deviate from them than an ant can. People who have been exposed to a wide variety of cultures just happen to lose most of their xenophobia -- and since they feel just as close to someone from Iraq as they do to a redneck from Texas, they naturally don't want to see them trying to kill each other. It's not revolutionary, it's simply Humans following the same old instincts in a new setting.

I thought there would be more discussion about the difference between the Moslem and non-Moslem views of morality. Again and again, I get the impression that, when in doubt, and they could choose a more "humanistic" interpretation of their moral code, rather than an "authoritarian" interpretation, Moslems choose the more authoritarian (or, if you will, Koran-based) one.

I understand where people are coming from when they argue that a moral code is something agreed upon by a specific group or society. The problem is, that means that just about anything could, according to arguments of that kind, be considered moral. Undoubtedly, there were people who considered it moral when that crowd of Yezidis murdered a girl who had married outside the sect. Some people probably thought it was moral for the Nazis to gas millions of Jews, Gypsies, and gays, because of their ethnicity or their sexual orientation. People in the South Pacific and elsewhere must have thought it was moral to kill and eat humans, whose meat they liked. And I would guess that everyone who blows himself up in Iraq, must think that he's doing a morally right thing when he destroys himself and dozens of people who belong to a different sect. I think it was Ernest Hemingway who said that something moral was what you felt good after. Hemingway, of course, killed himself with a shotgun, and couldn't have felt either good or bad afterwards.

On the one hand, there's no question that it's difficult or impossible to get common agreement about a universal moral standard. It's even tough to define "moral" in a way that takes in all the nuances of the ideas involved. But, at the same time, it might be pointed out that the World Court was set up to apply something that could be considered a set of universal moral standards, and, presumably, representatives of most of the world's population ratified the establishment of the World Court. Maybe the set of ideas which could be called universal moral standards is quite small--in mathematical terms, it has be the intersection of billions of Venn diagrams. But in my view it still has to be there, or we can't really define righ† and wrong.