Of course.Jing or Jang wrote: ↑May 16th, 2020, 11:39 pmAlready "we" have this concept? You may have the concept of shoes without socks being "wrong" but do not speak for humanity on the subject of "right" and "wrong". That in itself is a "wrong".Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pmWell, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold. So, already we have the concepts of "right" and "wrong". ....
God and Good
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: God and Good
- Jing or Jang
- Posts: 42
- Joined: May 16th, 2020, 7:08 am
Re: God and Good
If you are aware of it ... then why did you say it?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 8:38 amOf course.Jing or Jang wrote: ↑May 16th, 2020, 11:39 pm
Already "we" have this concept? You may have the concept of shoes without socks being "wrong" but do not speak for humanity on the subject of "right" and "wrong". That in itself is a "wrong".
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: God and Good
I assume you are aware that many people these days choose to wear their footwear without socks? Grown-up people; adults able to make their own (moral) decisions. Are we to assume your concept of right and wrong, as it applies to footwear, places these other people in the wrong? I think not.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pm Well, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold.
Yours is a great example of how this sort of morality is not universal, and in this sense not objective.
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: God and Good
I presumed that the reader would know that I wasn't speaking of a universal moral rule that applied at all times to all people, but simply a situational case of "this is better than that in this situation". The situation was one where the parent was teaching the child to put his socks on first, and then the shoes. That is a common situation that everyone is familiar with. Now, in cultures where people do not wear socks, it would not apply. But why should I spell it out in such detail, when the reader would already understand what I was talking about?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: God and Good
Objective morality is situational. What is objectively good to do in one situation may be objectively bad to do in another situation. For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert, but objectively bad to give the same glass of water to the man drowning in the swimming pool.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:23 amI assume you are aware that many people these days choose to wear their footwear without socks? Grown-up people; adults able to make their own (moral) decisions. Are we to assume your concept of right and wrong, as it applies to footwear, places these other people in the wrong? I think not.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pm Well, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold.
Yours is a great example of how this sort of morality is not universal, and in this sense not objective.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God and Good
Not if he wants to die of thirst in the desert.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert,
- Jing or Jang
- Posts: 42
- Joined: May 16th, 2020, 7:08 am
Re: God and Good
Or if he's an alcoholic and needs "a drink".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 6:53 pmNot if he wants to die of thirst in the desert.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert,
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023