0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here is a list of words synonymous with hostile. Which one suits best for my case?
None, I'm afraid, because they all imply intent to do harm. The arctic is often called a hostile environment but it was there long before people and will be there long after we have all killed each other: it simply has no interest in our survival. The art of survival in an indifferent environment often begins with that knowledge - nature isn't trying to kill you, but you will die if you don't act sensibly in your own interest, so don't get angry.
I guess the word deadly or destructive are better expression for our purpose here, so I'll start to use them in my future posts. Do you have any other concerns?
That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.
...Life can be short or longLove can be right or wrong...
will be there long after we have all killed each other
Quote from: Just thinking on 20/06/2021 09:26:23Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard One of the most powerful tool in philosophy is Rand's razor Quotefirst blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion. "Slashing Your Way to Certainty" https://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Slash.htmQuoteThe requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."Lexicon - “Rand’s Razor” - ARI Campus" https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/rands-razor/So, you have acknowledged that some moral standards are good, while some others are bad. A universal moral standard is that which are good in every circumstance, without exception.
Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard
first blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion.
The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.
Quote from: Just thinking on 20/06/2021 14:12:46That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.This reminds me of a beautiful song titled Make It with You by B.R.E.A.D.Quote...Life can be short or longLove can be right or wrong...They seem to realize that love can't be the basis for a universal moral standard. We may find a lot of examples where love goes right, but we may need someone to remind us that it could go wrong too.Here is a famous example. Some sisters love their father so much that when their mother died, they decided to make their father drunk so they can make love with him. Some ancient societies, and some modern counterpart still think that it's a moral behavior, But I think many others would say that it's immoral. In some other cases, the father would do it willfully, so they don't even need to make him drunk first.
Meanwhile, I also found another word: harsh.
There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.
Quote from: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 09:29:39There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.By definition, there is no exception for the universal moral standard. Let me know if you find one.
If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.
Quote from: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 18:01:20If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.
You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 23:17:44You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 23:17:44Quote from: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 18:01:20If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right. I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.
My answer was NO in my first post.
Quote from: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 23:25:40Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 23:17:44Quote from: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 18:01:20If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right. I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.By claiming that there is no universal moral standard, you just recused yourself from judging others' moral standards. You can't say that Ted Bundy's actions were universally immoral, since they are in compliance with hedonistic morality, albeit the extreme one. You can only say that his morality is different than yours, and the dispute can only be settled by force, or if one of you stops existing. The same applies to other actions deemed immoral by most of modern societies, like genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, misogyny, religious violence, etc.Relativist morality is self defeating, thus useless. Most people don't hold this position. They are likely thinking that there must be a universal moral standard in some form, but they just haven't find it yet.
This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.
Quote from: alancalverd on 22/06/2021 00:13:25This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.You can build as beautiful and/or complex mathematical model as you like. But if it's not based on objective reality, it won't have much use, except perhaps for amusement purposes.
Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.