Pissed off Instructors

[Szczepankiewicz]

There is no soup.

[Ryu (JKD?)]

Originally posted by Great Sage
Well said Lizard...

Ryu, I’m afraid your logic if flawed by ideologies of nature. In nature, only the strongest survive... There is no lion who will take pity on a gazelle. A lion is not wrong by killing it’s prey, nor is the prey innocent. A stray lion, or wolf for that matter, is not wronged by his decisions... Animals make decisions based on survival needs, not morals..

Sage, Morals are survival. An animal makes "moral" choices based on its survival, that's something seen in scientific study. And in actuality, there are cases where wild predators have for whatever reason seemed to take "pity" on prey. A wolf's code of "morality" is based on the survival of its pack. Without its moral structure, the pack dies.

Originally posted by Great Sage
The Law of Halfs states that there are certain givens in nature where there are two conclusive results... Hence, 1+1=2 and animals can still have no morals..

Science has seen elements of what we consider "morality" in many animal groups.

Originally posted by Great Sage
Ryu qoutes: “In a world where "right and wrong" don't exist, it becomes harder and harder to hold people responsible for their actions. In this way, moral relativity can (and a lot of times does) lead to nihilism. And acceptance of damaging behavior. This of course is not always the case, and moral relativists DO have points that they are trying to make such as morality in given situations might be harder to truly understand unless lots of effort is given to doing so.”

Right and wrong are human ideas and therefore we abide by them because they sanction us. It does not mean they are universal truths. Each society will have their own idea of right or wrong. Each individual will have their own idea... But there is a general consensus, or set of laws to govern our human perception of right or wrong. Can you honestly say that what humans believe to be right or wrong are actually right or wrong? I think not. Again, it’s a human thought that we use to govern ourselves.

Having been all around the world, I find these arguments rather insulting to other cultures. Each society does not have their own idea of right and wrong to the complete opposite of other humans. We are not seperated species with no common ground in the issues or morality. To say so is quite insulting to culture for two reasons.
1. It implies that people do not share obvious human traits. Morality and the issues of morality are within all cultures.
2. It implies everyone in a culture thinks the same. There are many people in cultures who do not agree with what their culture states is "moral" or vice versa. You will find a Japanese person with the same morals as a conservitive American the same way you'd find a Japanese who is completely opposite that conservative.
Each individual has their own opinions about things too, but as science has proven over and over again....not all opinions are created equal.
Just because an individual has incorrect knowledge of morality (a measurable scientific thing) does not mean his morality is correct. His morality is incorrect.
It is the same thing as saying that his "opinion" on the world being flat is incorrect.

Originally posted by Great Sage
Ryu qoutes: “Right and wrong exist in math, biology, science, philosophy, morality, astronomy, cooking, herbology, etc.
It's all over nature.

In order to find what is truly "right" in the situation takes some careful understanding, and some good insight. Based on scientific criteria, "right and wrong" must be held up to the correct facts, historical accuracies, proper cultural understanding, etc. etc.

This does NOT mean right and wrong is relative. Not in the least. It simply means finding what is right requires MORE than just opinion. It requires just as much effort as any other complex issue in nature.”

Again, I have to disagree. These are all human assumptions of what right and wrong are. In the human thought process, ideas can lead us to believe someone is right or wrong, but outside of our minds, it may be a different view. History, science and math — all that proves is what we believe... Is a tree really called a tree? NO... but it is an object and we are right in assuming that, so we can give it a name. We think it’s a tree now because what we believe is right. We BELIEVE so... .

A tree is a reality. It makes no difference what we call it or see it as. Without us, this reality still exists. A tree's name means very little in realistic science. I could call it a "hhhhhowwaa!" but it wouldn't change the fact that the "tree" is a real object in reality outside human existence.
History, science and math do not just prove what we believe, they disprove what we believe. Science has been disproving what we believe for centuries. Morality and issues about right or wrong are also scientifically based. Like I've said in the past, it matters not where it comes from. Math may be a man-made thing too, but there are rules, and universal truths to it that must be followed for it to truly be "math". Morality is the same, but the problem is too many people are defensive when that is said, because it means they must follow someone else's guidelines of what morality is.
This is not generally the case in such a sinister way. But morality (all over the world) holds universal standards at guidelines. Go around the world and find out.
Now, having said that, I do believe in NORM relativity...just not moral relativity. I'll explain what I mean below.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Ryu believes he is right, Lizard believes himself right... Who's right? My right may be totally different from your right, because no two humans share the same emotions. Thus, we rely on opinions. Is it right for me to feel this way, may be, may be not... But that's a human thought. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well to find out who's right on any subject requires more than opinion. We must face facts, our logic must work well, and we must examine history, science, and other such factual evidence.
Opinion means nothing in the face of factual evidence.

This is just reality.

Ryu

[Ryu (JKD?)]

Originally posted by Lizard
What is moral right and wrong then? It was created by people, it varies from person to person, it seems to be a measure of whether or not something helps or hinders us. I look at the action or idea, decide whether or not it helps me, if it does then it is right, if not then it is wrong. We all do it, that is what right and wrong are, it's the way in which the human brain works, encourage what helps you (right) discourage what does not (wrong), people who share your views on right and wrong will help you to do this, they are "good", people who have opposite views of good and evil will work against your interests, they are "evil".

If I convince everyone that I am right then it will make me happy.
Convincing everyone that I am right is therefore "right"

Great sage is also trying to convince people that I am right.
This helps me so in my opinion he is "good"

Arguing against me prevents people from believing what I say.
Arguing with me is therefore "wrong" in my opinion

Ryu is arguing with me but has SOME similar views on what is "right and what is "wrong"
So you see Ryu, from my point of view you are not completely "evil" but you are doing "wrong"

Then by all means, you are free to refute me with logical understanding, scientific evidence, etc.
You see this is what we must do to find what is "right and wrong" we must put forth the effort to do so. Just as we'd do in math, just as we'd do in astronomy.
The problem is that too many people are quite defensive of morality. They don't want to follow a "guideline" of how to behave because it kind of sounds a bit totalitarian, or even bigotted.
But people don't feel math guidelines are biggoted.

A lot of what is "right" and "wrong" does deal with how it helps or harms another. You're right there, Lizard.
But the reason why "moral relativity" is a weak school in higher philosophical debates, is because the logic doesn't hold well when people begin discussing the actual scientific evolutions of people, etc.

Let's talk about moral relativity vs. norm relativity to give an example.

Taking off your shoes in a Japanese house is considered "right" ettiquete because no one wants the dirty shoes in the house. To simply walk around with your shoes on is considered rude, and yep you guessed it "wrong"!

Now, in America we don't have that norm to the same extent as the Japanese. In fact, in America some think it is rude to take your shoes off in a strangers home! It's considered rude because it makes us look like we're making ourselves at home, and no one wants to smell our smelly feet anyway. So we consider taking our shoes off in a strangers house, rude while the Japanese consider it "Right".
Sounds like a big difference

But it's not. Going deep into the motivations of each group, the true motive behind both their actions is one thing.....to create an atmosphere of politeness, thoughtfulness, and gratitude for the stranger and his home. Each person in the completely different culture wants to insure that the stranger is made to feel comfortable.
This is the same moral. This moral only shows itself in different ways. While the Japanese think the best way to show politeness is to take the shoes off so as not to dirty his house, and the American thinks the best way is to keep the shoes on so as not to appear like he owns the place, each of them are demonstrating the same motive. The same moral motive.

Now. Scientifically, its been shown that every culture survives around the ideas "morals" of compassion, tolerance, love, not killing, not raping, not stealing, and not lying. These are universal morals that span over all cultures. Its been documented. I've seen it through my own travels.

Now, that's not to say other people in other cultures don't kill, lie, cheat, rape, steal, etc. But they are "immoral" in the eyes of these universal principles and ethics that all humans share.
Again....its not based on opinion, its based on science. Human sociology and biology.

Anyway,
This is why things like "morality" is so hard to explain. Especially since a lot of people consider things like "norms" as morals.
They're not.
This is why I prefer to use the term "ethics" instead of morals, but to me they're really just the same word.

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say.
I can't argue whose opinion is right based on opinion alone. The only way we can find out whose opinion is more correct depends on whose opinion is closest to scientific fact, and cultural accuracy.

So if you think morals are based on simply opinions, like what color ice cream cone you like best.....well LOL, of course we can't find out who's really right. And in that situation there is no "right or wrong".......

But....if Morality is based on science, which many many people now understand it to be, we have to realize that our opinions on morality may be incorrect opinions. And if that's the case, we can find what is right and wrong. The opinion means nothing.

One last example. The universe. A scientific thing. Not an opinion.
One person may hold the opinion that the sun revolves around the earth. He may think that the person who claims the earth revolves around the sun is WRONG.
He may believe that guys wrong till the grave.........but in reality, the earth revolves around the sun.
So the man with that opinion is "right" in reality" whereas the other man may believe he's "right" but actually be incorrect in the scheme of realistic science.

Right and Wrong exist outside human existence. They exist in math, science, astronomy, philosophy, biology, and yes, morality.

Hope that helps.

Ryu

[Ryu (JKD?)]

I'd like to add also, that this thread has
actually had some very decent philosophical debate.


Very good job guys.

Ryu

[Great Sage]

Ryu, my point is simply this... We cannot think outside the confines of our mind, therefore whatever we see, experience or hear is based on our bias judgement or hypothesis. Regardless of what conclusions, hypothesis or science we use to confirm things, it is merely for our own understanding and does not reflect TRUTH. Truth is the ultimate knowledge that is devoid of human bias. Man cannot define it because we simply do not know it. Does one understand the true essence of an apple? All things are self-defining, autonomous.

Perhaps you misunderstand my point on individualism... We are not restricted by concensus, but we all act upon certain characteristics. You and I can may disagree on the existence of say "God," but the very idea that we can share an opinion as such, bonds our human characteristics... Hence, all cultures understand the agony of say, getting burned by fire... We all know because of our experiences, and the natural reaction of humans. That is human characteristics.

In terms of culture, it may be different... some cultures have advocated human sacrifice, and may still. Cultural morals and Human characteric morals are not one and the same, but are sometimes similar... Cultures define the role of men and women, children etc... Morals are our inherent values based on the idea that we feel pain and we want to live.

Okay, no more philosophical debates for me... at least not for now... Ryu, you have the last word.

[Ryu (JKD?)]

No problem.
Debating does get tiresome, I know.

But for what its worth, I do understand where you're coming from.
Yes, all that we know is restricted to our own human minds. That's just reality as well.
But we must be careful of using that as an excuse to not try to get outside our shell and continually search for what TRUTH may very well be.

Karl Popper put it best when he said that we may never find Truth, but we can always refute and discover what is not TRUTH.

Take care,
and thanks for the discussions.

Ryu

[Lizard]

Ryu, I understood what you were trying to say and although I still dont agree, it was well argued. No one actualy talks about Jeet kune do here, they argue about philosophy and "what would Bruce do? Bruce-do?" Ryu, that was the longest post I have ever seen, perhaps you're trying to compensate for something...

[Szczepankiewicz]

Ryu is indeed attempting to compensate..... for the sheer amount of stupid posts made by stupid posters.


Have you attempted my experiment yet? Gone into someone's house and done as you pleased? I want to be there when you explain the whole 'there is no right and wrong' theory.

Perhaps you'll be on the next episode of Judge Judy?

I love that show!

[Ryu (JKD?)]

Hey I'm trying to talk about Jeet Kune Do. I even started a thread about JKD pricing plans.

Ryu

[Szczepankiewicz]

Yeah, but were you right in doing so?