Laurens
New Member
Vic 2.0 said:Laurens,
"Just because we sense things it doesn't mean that sensed something exists objectively."
Well precisely. And my point is that this goes for our so-called "physical" senses as well. And so while we can play the role of the eternal skeptic, sooner or later we'll have to choose between trusting our senses and rejecting what they're telling us.
The physical senses can be trusted the majority of the time because they because they provide a coherent, non contradictory, consistent basis for our perceptions. Not only that but these senses do not contradict what other people report that they experience with their senses. Of course philosophically speaking one might say that we are all being tricked consistently in agreement with one another and that our perceptions don't match reality, however it makes just as much sense to say its equally likely that something does exist externally and that we should trust our senses. We may not have 100% dead certainty but we have good reason to assume.
The same cannot necessarily be said for morality. For instance someone might "sense" that having an abortion is morally repulsive, but equally someone might get a similar sense about someone denying a woman's right to an abortion. Both people feel something is wrong, but the outcome of their both being right in their feeling is contradictory.
Sure there are lots of things we agree upon. Many of which are due to our evolution as a social species. The taboo against random unprovoked violence for instance. You'd never make it far in the group if you behaved like this. So it makes sense that those who survived were the ones predisposed to not wanting to randomly attack others without provokation.
"The first thing I would say is that culture can have a huge impact on what we sense. If we are to look at some of the food eaten in certain cultures, some cultures routinely consume things that would make us physically repulsed."
And so our senses can be altered by our environment and experiences. Now, first, I must point out that this can apply to truly objective things. Being around certain chemicals for extended periods of time may affect your ability to taste ANYTHING. But more to the point, I concede that there ARE subjective examples of taste as well as morality. So I wouldn't mean to imply that EVERYTHING is either right or wrong (unless we agree that "right" can just mean "okay", so as to conclude that the taste of broccoli and the act of playing basketball are "right"). But that of course doesn't mean that the very sense itself isn't telling something about that realm, whether it be about the "physical" realm or the moral one. And indeed that IS confirmed in experience, because sometimes a person might sense immorality in an event without even identifying it AS immoral (the same victim of the aforementioned child molestation being a prime example). But whether I like broccoli or not, I can taste it and by that sense confirm that it exists.
Yeah but now you are conflating the existence of broccoli with the value judgement. Broccoli exists we can agree on that. Child molestation occurs we can agree on that too. The value judgement broccoli is horrible/child molestation is bad do not exist by extension. One is simply inconsquential personal preference and the other is an extrapolation based upon reasoning. You appear to suggest that the answer to whether or not something is wrong exists even before that act ever occurs. Lets say there is an action that no one has ever done, or ever will do, is it written into the universe that said thing is wrong even though it has never nor will ever happen, or even potentially happen? Child molestation was wrong before human children existed? I think our morals come from society assessing an action and reasoning based on factors such as social harmony, ideas about rights, fairness and so. Once an action happens people decide whether it is wrong or not based on those factors. When something has been wrong for a long time it becomes ingrained and thus felt to be wrong. New information and factors come into existence as humanity progresses hence why some things such as slavery were deemed okay in the past but are now not. Your "sense of morality" postulation doesn't explain this.
I don't agree, either, that if the sense of immorality were there (when that torture was taking place) then it wouldn't have happened. I think it's simply a choice we make to ignore/downplay the senses we do experience. A person may be in great pain and refuse to acknowledge it with action. That pain is telling them to get to the doctor! And in such cases where it is ignored until it's too late, we don't deny that the person was in pain. We just say "They should've heeded their senses". Same for morality.
But real quick now, WERE those people wrong to torture children? Or were they justified simply because they thought they were?
Judging by todays standards those people were wrong. I'm sure they were also judged to be wrong in their day by some. I believe that even with the limited information available to them at the time those people ought to have been able to deduce that their actions were wrong and thus cannot have justified it even by their standards.