Thank you. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, November 14, 12:32:54am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

Subject: Thank you.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12/28/02 10:04pm
In reply to: Ben 's message, "Interesting question" on 12/20/02 9:02pm

>>I�m curious about the views on ethics of the people on
>>this board, especially Ben's because his seems hard to
>>pin down, almost inconsistent. Which category best
>>fits you?
>>
>Noncognitivism: the belief that moral
>>truths do not exist, and that moral statements are
>>neither true nor false.
>
>I guess I'd be in this first category, in that I don't
>think moral truths exist except in our minds.
>However, this does not negate the usefulness of
>morality within society. For example, I function with
>the belief that homicide is wrong, and I'm glad other
>people function with that belief too. It keeps our
>society relatively safe except where people violate
>it. If we did not have morality, we would not have a
>society. It's as simple as that.

Well, not quite. Why is it good that society functions? By what standard is the welfare and survival of humanity and/or its societies a good thing?

>I think in some
>sense, it's unimportant whether or not moral truths
>exist apart from our minds. The important thing is
>whether or not they are useful.

In what way useful? Some rules are useful in promoting the welfare of society. The absence of such rules can be useful in destroying society. Why prefer one usefulness over the other?

What about the seeming absurdities that result from noncognitivism? Such as the belief that there�s nothing morally wrong with torturing newborn infants?

Yet I feel noncognitivism may not be the best term to describe your philosophical belief of ethics. You apparently believe that objective morals do not exist. But let�s see if we can answer these few questions.

Do ethics exist at all?

If ethics does not exist, how does one overcome the apparent absurdities generated by noncognitivist philosophies?

If ethics does exist, what is the basis for ethics?

If ethics exists but is not objective, how does one overcome the apparent absurdities generated by ethical relativist philosophies?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]