Which is more important?

I think the truth will always elude us, it's a chase not a journey. Better to try to be good. There isn't a higher aim than to cause no harm.

Well, knowledge of the former might well affect one's ability to ascertain the latter - i.e. if you can't tell what's true, how can you be sure if something's good or not? Conclusion: question posits an unhelpful and unrealistic dichotomy.

I'd say that your definition of 'true' is inherently linked to your definition of 'good' and vice versa. Most people who pursue what is 'true' usually end up with a very different idea of what's 'good' from other people who haven't spent so long on that exploration. And again, vice versa. I'd say that you couldn't divide the two, if both were based on an active process of exploration. For example, were you to live in an area of the world where there was very stark division between rich and poor, and you spent your life protecting vulnerable rich people from crime, you could be said to be doing a good thing, or living a good life. After some exploration, you realise that the people you're protecting are in some way complicit in creation of the situation of the poor people around them and that morally you are acting in a way that is moral within a limited frame of reference. Discovering the 'truth' of inequality would shift your notion of what was a 'good' life. This is a very simplistic example. Cheers, Mark

"True" in what sense? Factually accurate? Or some spiritual sense of True (with a capital "T"!)...? Does Good pertain to happiness, success, wealth... or increasing the positive vibes of the universe? I think one should always strive to increase-the-positive-vibes-of-the-universe, but one needs to seek the Truth (or truths) relating to how to do this in order to... erm... do it. The latter should be the ultimate goal, fuelled by the former... in an endless cycle of learning and action... ... in my most humble opinion! ;) (PS. good question, Jude!) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Pepsoid, wooly thinking does not make for happy universe. Most repressive, despotic or otherwise destructive, unfair, agressive or prejudiced regimes have felt that they were always striving "to increase-the-positive-vibes-of-the-universe, but one needs to seek the Truth (or truths) relating to how to do this in order to... erm... do it." You answer nothing and make a noise here. You certainly don't answer Jude's question. Cheers, Mark

Well truth and goodness are both abstractions, but if we have to wait until we know the truth (we never can) before we can be good - in the sense of not knowingly doing harm - then we're pretty much sunk. I don't see kindness is an abstraction. I think we all know how to be kind.

Don't buy the idea of objective truths. And if there are objective truths, they must be pretty deeply buried - I mean, the Greeks didn't find any, and no-one else has since, either. So for me, internal moral compass wins by default - probably with a few checks every now and then with the outside world that you've not lost the plot altogether... you know, if you find yourself running down The Strand naked save for an Arsenal scarf screaming "Alan Sugar fired me for being a shambles" - I'd suggest asking a mate for advice. Enzo.. Buy my book! http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

Truth. The 'good' don't, and never has, worked. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I'm only really repeating what Tim said, but: They both affect each other, so how can you possibly say which is more important? Someone who strives to be good but makes no effort whatsoever to ascertain what is true may well end up doing the opposite of what they intend, like some kind of blundering comedy character. Take the proposed new Mental Health Bill. It's supposed to be in the cause of public safety by allowing the incarceration of mentally ill people before they've done anything wrong. In reality, it will probably increase the danger to the public, because people who *could* get treatment and help will avoid seeking it, lest they suddenly be put away. So the Bill achieves the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. On the other hand, someone who seeks truth but doesn't have any intention of doing any good with it isn't going to be much help to mankind in general. On balance, I'd go for truth, because I'd rather be utterly ineffectual than going round making the world a more dangerous place whilst under the delusion that I'm doing good. "Don't buy the idea of objective truths." In turn, I don't like this strain of thinking that says we don't know anything (or: there are no objective truths). I think it's a reaction to understandable confusion. I'm confused. You're confused. Hey! Maybe confusion is actually the supreme state of knowing? We don't know anything, so maybe there is nothing to know? Doesn't cut it with me. Short of the world actually being a Matrixesque simulated reality, we know plenty of things for certain. We know an orange is an orange, because 'orange' is our name for what that thing is, and so on. We know that the Iraq war is a waste of life. We know our government's policies are increasingly authoritarian. We know corporations are devices for making maximum personal gain whilst avoiding all personal responsibility. We know we are going to run out of fossil fuels and switch to a very dangerous replacement. And on a moral level, if we have no faith whatsoever in our powers of reasoning and ascertaining knowledge, then we'll just blunder about not doing anything to stop the myriad bad things that go on. You need some moral conviction to take action. Uncertainty is a weapon used against us by people who're determined to get what they want - they know that if we're not sure one way or the other, we won't stand in their way. While I'm as aware of the slippery nature of the truth as anybody, I think we need to admit how vulnerable it makes us, and try our best to combat it, rather than sit back and say, "Oh, well, let's just build a philosophy that says it's all hunky-dory." Surely that kind of thinking is just as dangerous as being determined to believe what you want to believe in the face of all evidence.

"That I looked outside myself to try to discover what should be important in my life. or I tried to do the 'right thing' and live a good life based on my internal moral compass?" I'm with Mark in that I can't see what the difference would be between these two things. Unless you believe that there's an outside force determining right and wrong, then there's no choice other than to operate on the basis of a moral compass that is developed in reaction to other people and society. In practice, it's not much different if you do believe in an outside force because you're still left interpreting it's directions through the medium of the world around you.

We've been here before, you and I, JC. We ain't gonna agree but I want to say a couple of things. Firstly, I would observe that "blundering about not doing anything to stop the myriad of bad things" is pretty much the sum total of 'civilised' man's history. On the morals thing, I'm not saying there's no such thing as right and wrong and I'm not putting down moral conviction. What I'm saying is they're not objective rules, they move with the times. And I'm not saying that means fuck it all, there is still lots and lots of room for subjective moral agreement. What was that Plato thing? Symposium, something about the Gods agreeing that something is good because it is good in and of itself. That's what I don't buy. It doesn't mean the Gods can't see eye to eye sometimes. You're not right if you're suggesting a rejection of objective morals is a rejection of moral motivation to action. I hope that isn't what you're saying because that's like saying that you've no morals without God. I think I know where you're coming from broadly, Jon, and I think you know where I'm coming from. I don't think you're a moral vacuum because of your perspective, I hope you would say the same of me. Different path, similar destination. As with most people on this site. Enzo.. Buy my book! http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

sorry wrote too quickly. Read: "And I'm not saying that means fuck it all, there is still lots and lots of room for subjective moral agreement. " as "I'm not saying that morals are worth fuck all, just because there's not a moral Truth doesn't mean there isn't room for subjective moral agreement" Ah, whatever. My brain's broken. Enzo.. Buy my book! http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

Just testing how to post a comment to these forums.

We live in a realm of value judgments rather than truth, big truth, grand abstraction truth. There's very little we know for certain, other than in the small practicalities of life. We're stuck with value judgments and we must do our best to judge wisely. I think vanity, selfishness and the need to subject others come between us and a better world and I believe that most of us know when we're in the grip of these behaviour patterns and we often choose to carry on in a destructive manner despite this. There's little we can do about everyone else, but we can try to act as responsibly as we can ourselves.

"You're not right if you're suggesting a rejection of objective morals is a rejection of moral motivation to action." It's not an outright rejection, but it significantly weakens the case for any 'moral' action. If you really believe that your moral outlook is entirely down to your upbringing and personal preferences, then philosophically, you don't have any right to impose those preferences on other people who have different ones. If you act on your moral convictions in a manner that interferes with other people's choices (which means anything from removing a dictator to telling someone when they've had enough) you must be doing so either because you believe your moral convictions have a basis in objective truth (ie. you think it's better for everyone) or because you're putting your preferences ahead of theirs. If the latter, then you simply don't have a legitimate reason for taking action. (Unless you say selfishness is a legitimate reason, in which case your 'moral' action has the same claim to legitimacy as a robbery or murder.) When there was that scandal over the Mohammad cartoons, some commentators used this exact leverage to justify the rioting and threats of violence, saying something along the lines of, "Your culture values freedom of speech, but we don't have to respect that." I've got my own issues with freedom of speech, but the fact is they're absolutely right *if* your view is that morality has just a matter of tradition and preference. People of different cultural upbringing do not have to respect freedom of speech and they don't have to see women as equal citizens. There is no philosophical basis on which we can demand that of them. What's more, since the law is based entirely on moral convictions, you're essentially arguing that this is arbitrary too. In which case, how can you blame people for breaking it? If it isn't rooted in objective morality, it is nothing more than the will of the majority (perhaps even a minority?) imposed upon the masses. If that's the case, then it is perfectly reasonable to break the law if such actions don't interfere with your own personal moral convictions. And let's face it, in multicultural Britain, the law simply does not tally with many people's personal moral convictions! So that, I think, is the pertinent point. You're right that it does not immediately follow from moral subjectivism that you must take no moral action at all, but it does critically weaken the philosophical 'need' to do so because any such action immediately becomes an imposition on other's freedom to draw different moral conclusions. The fact is that Human Rights Laws are based on a philosophy of moral absolutism (so, really, are all laws) and anyone who acts with any true conviction must do so because they believe there is *legitimacy* to their actions, legitimacy that cannot exist without a firm foundation of truth. I'm not sure where you stand on this, Enzo - I suspect you have made a categorical error, rather than a philosophical one. You cannot believe your personal morality is 'right', but at the same time, no more 'right' than anyone else's. There is no need to bring objectivity/subjectivity into it. You either believe in right and wrong, or you believe in personal and cultural preferences expressed as 'right' and 'wrong' with no legitimacy to them. There is no middle ground. As a sidenote, I wasn't really talking about 'moral objective truths' but objective truths in general, of which there are plenty. I maintain that it is dangerous thinking to attempt to build a philosophy around the notion that 'we know nothing'. I also, I'm afraid, reject Tom's somewhat cosy belief (and maybe I am misrepresenting him here, in which case I apologise) that it is the best we can do to simply be 'nice' and act when it occurs to us, rather than to seek greater truths and act on them. There are innumerable actions that can be taken by people that have a positive impact on others *if* we stick our heads out of our shells and take notice. There are innumerable truths that can be found if we dig through all the attempts to muddy matters by people who would prefer we not interfere. That's what Amnesty International is all about, isn't it? I'm very concerned about this because, as I say, it is a *weapon* in the hands of those in power that most of us are so confused and ignorant. The more boring they make it sound, the more red herrings they throw out, and the more difficult they make it to ascertain concrete facts, the less people will stand in their way. There is a difference between admitting this is a sorry state of affairs and beating ourselves up about it. I'm not advocating we all go round with deeply guilty consciences, but admitting that there is always more we can do would be a start. We cannot afford to go round thinking, "Oh well, it's all too bewildering and nothing is really 'true' anyway - I guess I'll just keep holding doors open for people." It's easy, it's comforting, and it never fails to get a good reaction when people espouse this view, but I contend that it is also wrong. And you can take this as a cheap shot if you will, but I think it is far more in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut to try to find out what else we can do to 'help each other through this thing, whatever it is' than it is to satisfy ourselves with being nice chaps. (I also need to add that I'm not holding myself up as an example of someone who is doing a particular good job of what I am advocating, although I did finally find out who my MP was the other day and write to her about the Mental Health Bill.)

Jack, I find myself in agreement with most of what you have said here. If we would disagree on anything it “might” be (but I’m not really sure): 1 – That we might draw different, and admittedly, wavy lines between what we could consider to be the objective and subject truth. I say that partly because I am not really sure if I grasped where you would exactly draw your seemingly wavy line. Nor my own, really. And 2 – I’m not sure, but it seems when you talk about being open-minded, you seem to leave out a vital step in the process. Let me explain my confusion this way: I believe that a wise person is one who will enter the decision making process with an open mind and is, therefore, probably wise enough to, at some point, come to a conclusion for himself. I mean, that is what the “open minded” approach is all about isn’t it? Once a person has come to a final decision, it seems silly for him to continue to “have an open mind” about an issue he has already gone through that process about. I hope that made some sense to you. I’m not sure I did a good job of explaining myself.

The first point is opening up quite a tricky area. I don't think it's very helpful to think of truth as being divided into objective and subjective. It's better to say that truth is always objective - it is what it is - truth. When people talk of 'subjective truth', they're really talking about tastes, unproveable beliefs and private experiences. So you could say, 'My favourite artist is Leonard Cohen', which would be a fact (if you're telling the truth). But we have this difficult area of language where we say instead, 'Leonard Cohen is the best artist' and you seem to be making a claim to a truth that other people plainly won't accept. And since it's impossible to prove whether or not Leonard Cohen is 'the best artist', people have come up with this notion of 'subjective truth', where two people can uphold two different versions of the truth but feel no real need to prove their version to the other. Plainly though, two people can't both be right about a matter of fact. So the distinction is unhelpful. We should just have truth on the one hand, and tastes/unproveable beliefs on the other. On the second point, maintaining an open mind means, I think, having your conclusion and acting on it, but being open to the possibility that you have got it wrong. There are plenty of things I think I've made my final decision on that I've later changed my mind about. Always worth a rethink, particularly if there is new data to be considered. As a general rule, there is simply no point in entering into an argument if you're not prepared to rethink the issue. If you're so certain that nothing in the world could possibly every sway you, then an argument or debate will have no advantage whatsoever to you, and your certainty (which inevitably manifests itself as arrogance) will just tick other people off.

To give my opinion of your original question, poetjude, I would have to say first seek what is good, because I believe if you find that, you may also find what is true. I think if you proceed the other way around and first seek truth, you may error in finding what is good. I think that way because it seems to me, truth can more easily be made, or twisted, into something that is much more subjective. That might cause more confusion in the end.

Okay JC, then we do agree on the first point. On your second point, I would have to say that if you indeed did change your mind, then you, in fact, did not come to a conclusion after all, even if you thought you did. My point is about one who has indeed come to a final solution. You seem to be saying that we can never be sure in our own mind that we are right on any subject. I think that is absurd. If you carry that thought out to it's ultimate conclusion you will arrive, it seems to me, at a point where there can never, ever, be ultimate truth. I would have disagree with that conclusion. As far as your statement 'there is simply no point in entering into an argument if you're not prepared to rethink the issue' is also absurd. Are you saying once you have firmly made up your mind, you shouldn't discuss it with anyone, not even try to debate or possibly persuade?

"My point is about one who has indeed come to a final solution." A Final Solution, eh? Paul, it is plainly possible to come to a conclusion, and yet be able to revisit the thinking behind that conclusion, open up the issue again. A person can make up their mind, and yet change their mind later on. Only the cripplingly proud and the fanatical imagine their conclusions can never be challenged or retested. "Are you saying once you have firmly made up your mind, you shouldn't discuss it with anyone, not even try to debate or possibly persuade?" If you are close-minded, and your opponent is close-minded, no possibility for persuasion exists. Neither of you will change your mind, so what, therefore, is the point of dicussion or debate? Of course, you are thinking of a situation where one person enters a debate close-minded in an effort to persuade another who is more open-minded. From the point of view of the close-minded person, this might seem worthwhile - the possibility for persuasion exists, and it will advance your cause. But in reality, such a debate will very likely be fruitless, because a persuasive argument must be reasonable, and close-mindedness is inherently *unreasonable*. That's a fact - if you think the possibility for you being wrong, on reexamination, does not exist, then you being irrational.

Some examples of "objective truth" might be helpful from you here, Jon. Also some provable beliefs.

"Some examples of "objective truth" might be helpful from you here, Jon." Yes! This is what I don't get about 'objective truths', especially with morals. If we say objective means that anyone rational can see it, that it is true regardless of us - then it should be easy to give a few examples that we all agree on.

Well, I find 'objective truth' to be a tautology. If two people disagree, they can't both be right. It's really for someone who believes in subjective truth to explain what it is, and how it's different from 'objective truth'. I generally find they're talking about something where, really, no truth exists (there is no 'best' artist) but emotional responses are expressed as if it does. It's kind of like if two people are arguing about what should be done with the cat on the roof when there is no cat on the roof. That's what 'subjective truth' seems to be - a failure of language to properly reflect the reality. 'Provable beliefs' is easy enough. If I believe I have my keys in my pocket, and I reach in and lo and behold, they are there, my belief has been proven. Slightly more complicated example: a body on the lawn. Two detectives examining the case might come to two different conclusions about how he died. Now, even if they never find any evidence that proves one's theory over another, the fact is that he can only have died one way, and the potential for proving it exists. So both detectives still have 'provable beliefs' even though they pertain to a matter that might never be resolved.

Evasive. I was after an example of an objectively true moral standpoint. I can give you two examples of subjectviely ones, if you like. Let's say my view is this: 1. Rape is bad. Always. 2. Killing is bad unless it seems reasonable. Now let's say Bob agrees with me about rape. And Tina does too. In fact, almost everyone does (except the rapists). Rejoice in the agreement! Hey, let's make a law. "Rape is wrong." But we all know that doesn't make it objectively wrong. It just means we say it's wrong. And then, when people do rape others, we can come down with the wrath of justice on our side because although we accept it's not an objective thing, we care a lot about our subjective morals and want to see them enforced. Now, what about this killing thing? We can't decide when it's okay. I say it's okay in revenge, but Bob over there says it's never okay. Tina reckons it's always okay but she's fucking mental anyway so let's not listen to her. Will an objective moreal standpoint come to our aid? Show us the truth? Not likely. So we muddle something together. We're all passionate about our views, but Tina's nuts and Bob's a peasant so my rule goes. Hurrah! Law and order, my way. Sound familar? Sounds like the way the world really goes,I think. There's no TRUTH. There's a lot of people with opinions that overlap to varying degrees. But hey, that's just my (subjective) opinion. So there's an explination for my thinking, examples and all. Now let's hear an example of an objectively true moral standpoint.

"It's better to say that truth is always objective - it is what it is - truth." Exactly. The rest are value judgements. An example of just such a truth would be helpful.

This is where it seems that I so often hit a brick wall with a lot of my discussions here in these forums. I agree with JC (now that I understand better his point of view) and also with Enzo. Strange? No. This is why we need God, an absolute law on the moral dilemma.

Enzo, I said in my last post that I agreed with you. I would like to add one thing, though. You first have to be sure that you have properly defined the issue you are judging. You used 'rape' and 'kill'. ‘Rape’ is pretty clear to me, but ‘kill’ is not. Do you mean self-defense, murder, capital punishment, war or what? Once you have ‘properly’ defined the ‘subject’ truth can be more easily gleaned.

"Now let's hear an example of an objectively true moral standpoint." That wording just doesn't make any sense. Leaving aside the fact that 'objectively true' doesn't really mean anything, how can a moral standpoint be 'true'? What exactly are you asking me for? Your examples are really only examples of disagreement. It's exactly the same as my body on the lawn situation. By your way of thinking, if two detectives disagree as to how the man came to die, then it must be subjective! Say both of them are stubborn, and neither of them can convince the other that their opinion is correct. What do you conclude? He died in two different ways for two different people? There is no *true* way in which he died? Your argument basically conflates having different opinions on a difficult subject with all the realms of taste and, well, subjectivity. Think about how many weeks and months lawyers spend in court arguing over a subject - does that mean the subject is, basically, just a matter of preference? Is the whole idea of having a judge or arbitrator a total sham and nonsense, since one person's judgment on the matter can't possibly be closer to the truth than another's? This is how it is: two people who disagree about something cannot both be right. In the same way, you cannot simultaneously believe that something is right, or correct, and that it is also a matter of preference. Enzo, that is a total nonsense. You can say: "It suits me, but it doesn't suit other people," but you cannot say, "It is right, but depending on who you are, maybe it is not right." That is a contradiction. What confuses the matter, of course, we often use the expression that something is 'right' or 'good' when really we mean we like it. We might say, "Mm, these mushrooms are so, so good," but what we really mean is that we like these mushrooms - we are not demanding, with that statement, that it be recognised as a fact that mushrooms are so, so good. If someone did not like the mushrooms, we wouldn't think they had somehow got it wrong, because clearly, when it comes to genuine matters of taste, there is no right or wrong. But when we talk about morality, we manifestly do not mean to express that we like or dislike things. When we assert that something is morally right, or good, we are claiming it as a truth that must be recognised. The very reason we have the concept of morality - and things like justice - is in recognition of something beyond preference, desire, taste, between what we might *want* and what is genuinely *right*. We don't think, "Oh, it's OK if someone thinks murder is right - I guess it's right for them and wrong for me." Is it difficult to understand and to prove what exactly is morally right? You bet. But that in itself doesn't prove anything. The only opposition point of view you can take without wrapping yourself in a plethora of self-contradictions is to say that such high concepts as morality and justice do not exist at all, and they are just fancy ways of expressing a very strong desire for certain things to come about. You are free to take that position, if you wish, and there is still some scope for argument and progress, as long as you can agree with another person on your specific goals. But there is no point in making any argument based purely on morality if you don't believe in it, or if you believe it just a rhetorical expression of personal preference, because it would basically be like trying to make someone go on the fairground ride you want to go on instead of the ride they want to go on. How can you ever assert that your wish is more right than someone else's unless you think yours follows more closely some higher law or authority? I'm still fairly sure, however, that this is not your position, and you do believe in a moral right and wrong, that there is some dimension of moral truth that supercedes personal preference - you just represent your position improperly.

"How can you ever assert that your wish is more right than someone else's unless you think yours follows more closely some higher law or authority?" This is just a sidebar, but I find it interesting, in light of other discussions we’ve had, that you seem to believe in a “higher law or authority”. What do you mean exactly? What, in your opinion, would be that higher authority?

"When we assert that something is morally right, or good, we are claiming it as a truth that must be recognised." Indeed, but morally-speaking different societies often claim different things to be true. So which true is true? That we have to choose how to live without any recourse to absolute knowledge is our quandary and our responsibility. At the beginning of this discussion you seemed to think that the striving for the truth and striving to be good are one and the same thing and we can't do one without first doing the other, a stalemate position if there ever was one. Now you're saying that we know the truth in moral matters, or at least that we as a society have decided we know the truth. So presumably it's all right to strive to be good now?

"...that such high concepts as morality and justice do not exist at all, and they are just fancy ways of expressing a very strong desire for certain things to come about." Correct. This is what I am saying. BTW high concepts is an amusing phrase. It seems to me that Paul is right in his last post. He has his God (his moraliser-on-high), and you have your high concepts (which come from I-don't-know-where). So now, please can you try to help me out by working with me on this one question I want answered, which I seemingly haven't the wit to propose correctly. Let's use your own language to try to get the answer: You say, "...there is some dimension of moral truth that supercedes personal preference." I say: No there isn't and I ask you to give a practical example of one.

JC, forgive me for having too much fun reading this debate, but I am also very interested to see what you have to say to Enzo on this point. It seems to me that your augment, which I do agree with in concept, has now come full circle. You are now left with the dilemma of answering the question “What is real truth”, which you seem to believe in without any real moral foundation to rest your case on. Or am I wrong? You’re doing fine JC, in my opinion, but it seems that I still rest in a more comfortable position. As I understand truth as defined by the Word of God, I can judge it so easily to be the ‘truth’ indeed. As I judge the ‘issues’ of life against it, I find truth to be a very simple matter, where you seem to have to go on and on and round and round to what? – arrive at a point where you find yourself arguing semantics, I think, and never really come to a convincing conclusion, even though you are right.

I don’t think ‘truth’ and ‘good’ are such hard things to find at all. The only reason it ‘seems’ to be hard is that we have taken God out of the equation. Without any solid foundation to place our trust, we will always flounder with such questions, when in fact; there is clearly a simple bar by which to judge if something is true or good. But because we don’t want to live by the so-called rules that we think God is placing on us, we throw out his guidebook of life and…well, flounder – and argue – and debate - and spit – and guff and go on and on and round and round. If it wasn’t so deadly important in the end – it would be a joke. It’s like I have said so many times before, you can mock “my faith”, “my Bible” and “my God” but you will never come to a better conclusion on such things as truth than I can, and you can never solve the problems of the world with out God. If you ever do settle on what is truth in the end, you will only discover what God’s Word has been telling you from the beginning. So why are you making it so complicated?

Tom: "Now you're saying that we know the truth in moral matters, or at least that we as a society have decided we know the truth." No, I'm not saying that. Moral truth is very difficult, and we don't know everything yet - maybe not very much at all - hence, it is very difficult to make a sure statement on morality that holds up to close examination. I think we may be closer than we were a hundred or so years ago when equality of opportunity between different sexes and different races was still an idea that the vast majority had a great deal of trouble with. But there are also moral ideas that have varied very little across hundreds, maybe thousands of years, like the idea that killing is a generally negative act that requires substantial justification, if it can be justified at all. Enzo: "It seems to me that Paul is right in his last post. He has his God (his moraliser-on-high), and you have your high concepts (which come from I-don't-know-where)." We also have Maths, which comes from who-knows-where, but is entirely useful and rational, and seems to facillitate our understanding of the world. And yes, the idea of a God and the idea of high concepts are linked - the 'god' idea is one way of expressing this notion of something greater than a conflict of personal desires. It has, of course, become corrupted, because where an authority is recognised, people will wish to control it, so you get to the ugly state where the God concept is used in a manner entirely disconnected from rationality. But the Romans, say, were capable of understand that their gods, while not literally true, were a way of expressing a plain of awareness. "I say: No there isn't and I ask you to give a practical example of one." I can probably use your earlier one. 'Rape is wrong'. You show me a rational argument that weighs in against that. Even if I couldn't come up with a single example, however, it wouldn't prove your argument. Go back to the body on the lawn. You might as well be saying to the detectives, "Look, prove to me that this man died in a particular way, in a manner that cannot be disputed, otherwise the matter must be subjective and he died in no particular way at all." Just because there is a truth doesn't mean it is readily accessible, and moral truth is a longstanding issue of disagreement throughout human culture. It is far beyond the simplicity of 'my keys are in my pocket'. The fact remains that from a practical point of view, if you don't believe in these high concepts you can't call them on me. If I, say, steal your wallet, you have no foundation on which to judge me. As far as you're concerned, I got what I want at the expense of what you want, and that is how the world works, and no such action is more 'right' than any other. There is no greater authority against which to judge our actions. So even if you can't believe in morality and justice from a purely philosophical view, it still makes practical sense to act as if you do, because a belief in justice and morality inspires people to act as if there is more than their personal preference at stake. By your belief, there is nothing to be won, nothing to be gained by society at large - it is just a case of an ever-shifting rule by majority (or powerful minority) with no justification whatsoever. Really, guys, the thing I find strangest about this is that a couple of Kurt Vonnegut fans are essentially telling me that any moral system is OK - as grounded in reality as the next. There really is no question that KV believed in moral good, and in justice, even if he thought humans were too rubbish to ever get close to achieving it. Paul: "I don’t think ‘truth’ and ‘good’ are such hard things to find at all. The only reason it ‘seems’ to be hard is that we have taken God out of the equation." No, bringing God into the equation, from the example of pretty much every Christian I have encountered, just enables them to accept a simple supposition of what 'truth' and 'good' might be as a substitute for a more rational and realistic one. It is ducking out of the issue, giving up, pretending that simplicity will suffice in place of reality. We are not complicating things. They *are* complicated. Politics is complicated. Morality is complicated. Pretending otherwise is comforting but foolish.

I don't preach a godless world to the truly religious and I won't preach a world devoid of "greater authority" to you. I am a little confused that you apply philosophical terminology ("rationality", "objectivity") to your spiritual belief in a greater authority, yet you reject the idea that it can be applied to Christianity but that's a different matter. On the other point, it is possible to admire and be impressed by a world view without adhering to it - I feel a little aggrieved at that being thrown back in my face, and more than once now. I love KV's writing for sure, but I love Dostoyevsky's and Sartre and Kierkegaard too. I loved Houellebecq but I'm not an islamophobic misogynist... I could go on and on... Perhaps agree to disagree?

"Really, guys, the thing I find strangest about this is that a couple of Kurt Vonnegut fans are essentially telling me that any moral system is OK." No, I'm still telling you (and this will be my last post in this pointlessly extended and sophistical thread) that our moral system cannot be grounded in big truth and that we must accept responsibility for our own actions and attempt to choose as wisely as we can when faced with individual moral decisions. We've got to try to be kind, caring and respectful of those around us and do our damnedest not to do harm. Human vanity, greed, selfishness and the desire to hold sway over others are unlikely ever to be defeated - I've seen little hope of this in my lifetime - but in whatever small way we can we must do our best all the same. You need to go back and reread your Kurt Vonnegut, Jon. "No damn cat, no damn cradle." "And so it goes . . ."

OK, firstly, I think I should apologise for the Vonnegut remark, because it's really irrelevant, and came from being tired. Enzo: "I am a little confused that you apply philosophical terminology ("rationality", "objectivity") to your spiritual belief in a greater authority..." I don't think it is a spiritual belief, and if it is, then clearly, spirituality and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, because there is a long history of moral philosophy which simply could not exist if morality was not a philosophical matter. It has engaged both the rational and the emotional sides of us since the year dot. 'God' and 'gods' spring from it, but just because these are matters of spiritual belief does not mean morality is. In a rational sense, morality can perhaps be regarded as a plain of awareness on a parallel with our sense of self, or a thing we have 'willed' into being, or as an inevitable aspect of greater intelligence, or in many other ways. But subjective? Spiritual? Elevated rhetoric? These are only particular approaches to it, not, as you seem to regard your own position, some kind of uninvolved, neutral position with no need to prove itself. Like all the other approaches, they must be examined not just on the strength of the supporting rationality, but on the outcome that follows from that rationality. I don't think there is an absolutely firm, unquestionable logic that says "morality exists", but equally, I don't think you have an absolutely firm, unquestionable logic that says "morality doesn't exist." So that leaves me in a position where I look also at the outcomes, and the fact is that if you take up the POV you are taking, the necessary conclusion is that Amnesty International has no business interfering with Article 301 in Turkey, there are no such things as human rights and your 'values' are nothing more than restrictive behavioural hiccups that serve no useful purpose. To live by values - it's as if you have a curse put on you that prevents you doing what you want on certain occasions. Either that, or you must think 'values' is just another rhetorical trick - a name for a greater scheme of getting what you want (ie. you don't steal because you don't want to encourage a society where you yourself can be stolen from). If that last clause describes your position, then I'd examine your values very carefully, because I think you'll find that not many of them will be of much benefit to you in the long run. As well as that, a philosophical stance of non-belief in morality completely sanctions all selfish, anarchic, cynical action. As long as the dice are on your side - as long as you play your cards right - there is surely nothing that says a person shouldn't take what they want whenever they want, whatever the means. Your position seems to stem from the feeling that there is more rationality to the non-existence of morality than the existence of it. Obviously, a totally sound logic overrides an incomplete one, worse outcome or no, but to believe the logic behind the non-existence of morality is completely sound, beyond reproach, is surely as blinkered (and spiritual?) as a belief in God. If it is a case of you feeling the one is slightly more convincing than the other, then neither is proven, and surely the consequences should decide where you stand. Furthermore, if you don't accept all the negative outcomes I have listed, then unless I've made some grave miscalculation (and you can demonstrate it), you can't have fully taken up that philosophical position at all. You've talked before, I think, about having a 'subjective belief' about what is right and wrong - well, that doesn't fit at all. If you don't believe morality exists, you don't believe right and wrong exist. It would be like claiming there is no answer to an ancient riddle, and yet at the same time that you believe in a particular answer. So I'd like to agree to disagree, Enzo, but only if I can actually understand that your position on this is completely clear - not a convenient mixture of two irreconcilable positions (which it is, if you claim to have any personal belief in anything being right and wrong) - and only if you care to understand that my position is as philosophical as yours, not dismissable as a purely spiritual belief. -- TOM: "No, I'm still telling you that our moral system cannot be grounded in big truth and that we must accept responsibility for our own actions and attempt to choose as wisely as we can when faced with individual moral decisions." I really don't see how your latter two propositions (which are entirely right) follow on from the first, and I don't know what you mean by 'big truth'. 'Big truth' usually means some kind of overly simplified set of rules, like the ten commandments. If so, I agree that there are 'big truths' - morality, as I keep saying, is very complicated. We do not make the decisions about how best to react based on an ultimate rulebook, no. Neither is all moral debate geared towards uncovering some kind of rulebook. You have got entirely the wrong end of the stick if you think this is what I'm proposing. But it is awfully convenient - and self-contradictory, as I keep saying to Enzo - to claim to do good or to say that we *should* do good at the same time as believing there is no such thing as 'good', which is the only thing that follows from thinking morality is subjective, with no truth in it. "Human vanity, greed, selfishness and the desire to hold sway over others are unlikely ever to be defeated - I've seen little hope of this in my lifetime - but in whatever small way we can we must do our best all the same." Yes, entirely. But again, you're sidestepping the real debate here. You must believe in moral truth, in moral objectivity, if you can believe that there is a 'best' we can do. If morality is all just high-falutin' language covering an abyss of truth, then no one does 'good' and no one does 'evil'. We just do what suits us - or what doesn't suit us, if we're silly enough to restrict ourselves. What do you think is 'the best we can do', Tom? It must be based on your values, right? You value human life and freedom, and not just your own, right? Those values are your take on moral truth. You don't just think they are weird expressions of self-serving desire, or arbitrary social control mechanisms - you think they are *worth* something, don't you? My argument against Enzo is only that they *are* worth something, and are not just meaningless fancies. "You need to go back and reread your Kurt Vonnegut, Jon." No, I don't think I do, Tom. I understand that he would want us to be as good as we can to those around us, and not to go charging off hot-headedly in the name of some moral crusade - like he says in 'Cat's Cradle', evil is hating and thinking that God hates with you. More broadly, evil is doing wrong in the name of good. But Kurt Vonnegut never said, and wouldn't have said, that you should stop at just being a nice bloke. He wrote plenty of political articles and rants, because he believed we should try to do further good on that level as well, whether or not we could ultimately defeat evil. It's really, really easy to just get cynical and dispassionate and decide we're all finished anyway, so let's just forget it and be nice and jolly. I think it's hard to confront the fact that there are things we can all do to make other people's lives easier - to help each other through this thing, whatever it is - through paying attention to such dull things as politics. Amnesty do good work. They save people's lives. They couldn't do that if everyone decided there wasn't any point in doing anything apart from being nice to those in the immediate vicinity. Quoting you again: "In whatever small way we can we must do our best all the same." That is entirely my position. It is just that I believe our best involves thought, some measure of positive action - maybe political - and careful consideration of the truth - not grossly simplified, grandiose truth, but small, important truths. In order to do the best we can do, we have to keep asking ourselves, 'what is the best we can do?'

Jack: you have written 5,190 words on this topic over the last thirteen days. Your first post began with the words: "I'm only just repeating what Tim said, but:"

Jack: you have written 5,190 words on this topic over the last thirteen days. Your first post began with the words: "I'm only just repeating what Tim said, but:"

"Really, guys, the thing I find strangest about this is that a couple of Kurt Vonnegut fans are essentially telling me that any moral system is OK - as grounded in reality as the next." is as grounded in reality as the next - true. But moral systems operate in the same way as natural selection does - therefore moral systems will evolve over time, dependent on the environment we live in. Apocolyptic moral development - while temporary - will demonstrate how everything (including the meta-system) is as malleable as nature. And it all comes down the same thing: dna. Anyone who puts faith in the illusion of man travelling through time and space towards some ultimate 'revelation' about truth is dreaming. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

'Which is more important, to strive to discover what is 'true' or to strive to live a life that is good?' In my view Jude. Humans are predisposed to strive regardless of what in reality is true or good. I'm not saying that we have no free will, at a Social level it would seem that we do have some, but at a Bio/Gen/Psycho, it could be argued that we strife toward such aspirations according mechanisms that are not fully within our conscious control. Just my view. :D

Hold on a mo. Everyone else here seems to be going by a very narrow definition of 'truth' here. Yan: "Anyone who puts faith in the illusion of man travelling through time and space towards some ultimate 'revelation' about truth is dreaming." Who says it's about 'ultimate revelations'? Truth can be: my keys are in my pocket. Or: the war in Iraq was misjudged. Clearly, there is a point in trying to ascertain truths. How can you proceed without doing so? How do you get someone the birthday present they want without knowing what they want? I'm talking about truth in general here, not the answer to life, the Universe and everything. Morality is also full of minor truths. "But moral systems operate in the same way as natural selection does - therefore moral systems will evolve over time, dependent on the environment we live in." That's a phoney comparison. Natural selection moves towards a purpose - adaptation to environment. By your argument, a moral system serves no purpose except a kind of self-governance. Therefore it can't evolve - it merely changes arbitrarily. It certainly can't 'improve', so I don't know what your point is. It's just a random set of unfounded notions in constant flux. "In my view Jude. Humans are predisposed to strive regardless of what in reality is true or good." Um... so what are we striving for? Aren't some of us striving to *learn* what is one or the other? "Jack: you have written 5,190 words on this topic over the last thirteen days." What's yer point? You know I'm interested in this kind of stuff. I'm not necessarily just looking for someone who is prepared to debate on my terms - I'm also interested in how far people are prepared to go into something, and where they shrink away and hide behind simple mantras or huffy resignation. It also changes my own POV - I better philosophically understand a moral subjectivist position now. What still defeats me is how far exactly Yan and Enzo are prepared to really buy into this position - follow it through to its conclusion - because I am still not convinced either of them has thought it through properly. Or if they have, they haven't explained at what becomes of their inclinations towards morality, to right and wrong. Is it like indigestion? Subconscious desire? If someone dropped a £10 note in the street and no one was around to see, why would a moral subjectivist deprive themselves and return it? I see barristers do this all the time these days, on much more minor points than this - all serious discussion requires a certain amount of going round in circles, eking out points, rephrasing etc. Communication between people who don't agree, even on minor points, is very difficult. The easy option is to dismiss those you disagree with as flawed in some way, or decide that it's horses for courses. For practical reasons, you can't always do that though. And sometimes, for other reasons. All my considerations, decisions etc. depend on what I understand of other people.

Oooh posted a long post but it's gone. Probably for the best. In brief: I'm not going to go into the altruism debate but I *may* give the tenner back becasue it *may* make me feel warm and fuzzy to do so. What is not apparent is that there is something I should *always* do in that situation, a correct course of action that exists regardless of circumstances. If I were living on the street and I saw TH14 drop a tenner, I'd keep it, and I'd feel morally fine about it. Especially if he pisses off to Barca. "The easy option is to dismiss those you disagree with as flawed in some way" Is it? "...I am still not convinced either of them has thought it through properly" Ah, so it is! Fuck this anyway.

"I'm not going to go into the altruism debate but I *may* give the tenner back becasue it *may* make me feel warm and fuzzy to do so." Would you spend £10 on a warm and fuzzy feeling? Otherwise, the decision makes no sense. It's like adrenaline in your driving test - an involuntary reaction that hinders you more than it benefits you - except that whether or not you give back the money is hardly involuntary. "If I were living on the street and I saw TH14 drop a tenner, I'd keep it, and I'd feel morally fine about it." Not sure what a TH14 is, but your feeling 'morally fine' is, is it not, due to the fact that you feel this thing can easily stand to lose a tenner and probably doesn't deserve its wealth anyway? That's not necessarily a lack of morals, is it? If morals are only self-serving, then most of the time they aren't serving their purpose. They are faulty. There is absolutely no reason not to shift your values around, depending on what fits your intentions best - such a person is normally called a hypocrite, but that is, of course, a moral judgement, and thus completely incorrect. Hypocrites don't exist. Wanting world peace is the same as wanting an ice cream. "What is not apparent is that there is something I should *always* do in that situation, a correct course of action that exists regardless of circumstances." Of course not. The circumstances always count for something. What you believe though is that there is no correct course of action at all, ever. There is just what you want to do.

"Would you spend £10 on a warm and fuzzy feeling? Otherwise, the decision makes no sense." The decision makes alot of sense in that it is a deeply ingrained, primal urge to help others. Those who helped others - displayed their wealth, courage and honour - were more likely to get mates and were more likely to advance to higher status in a group. I'm not saying that altruism is a habit we've got to shake, because it still has it's benefits, ie: providing a sense of security for a species in the environment (better to be onside with as many people as possible) and it DOES provide the donor with a sense of well-being, which is off course beneficial health-wise. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Um... so what are we striving for? Aren't some of us striving to *learn* what is one or the other? Well Jack. I would argue that the in pulse to learn, or for that matter - any in pulse, is in part a consequence of Social group dynamics. You know.. The need to gain recognition from others, the need to survive within a complex Social framework, that sort of thing. On the other hand, I could argue that Humans demonstrate self determination at two distinct levels, at a bio level, and in particular 'Specificity to environment'. I would suggest that the desire to 'learn' is no more significant than the chemically induced in pulse to feed, drink, have Sex, etc. My point being Jack, that Humans motivation to action can be described as autonomic out side of a Social framework.

"My point being Jack, that Humans motivation to action can be described as autonomic out side of a Social framework." I'm very much inclined to agree, although I expect it's something that could be debated. Yan: "The decision makes alot of sense in that it is a deeply ingrained, primal urge to help others." So your evidence is really not that it makes sense, but that it is a residual instinct from a time when such an action did make sense. I'm really not convinced by what you say about a time when this action meant you were more likely to get a mate - why? That's not what happens in most animal communities - the one's most likely to get a mate are the ones who throw their weight around most, knock the others down etc. In any case, you are arguing instinct, and instinct is not rational, by definition - it is instinctive. It can also be overcome - when we hear a sound in a dark alley, our instinct might be to run, but we are able to employ our rational thought and say, "No, that's silly." Similarly, I would think that we are perfectly capable of overcoming the instinct to hand money back and help others if we think it's a foolish response. So you then argue for the benefits which, to my mind really don't outweigh the benefit of a £10 note. The sense of security you mention is surely false, if it follows from the action at all, and should be ignored. The warm feeling can be got for free on any other number of occasions, and isn't urgently needed. If, as I suggest, I can overcome 'primal urges' and say, "Hang on - this moral stuff isn't helping me. It's really all about what I want versus what other people want," then, in many ways, yes, I would act as I do, because it helps you progress smoothly through society etc., but I would undoubtedly benefit more from a £10 (which can buy me twenty times the beneficial brain chemicals in the form of chocolate). I would also, surely, be inconsistent, because no value would overide the immediate social situation. I would steal *if* I thought I could get away with it, no?

Jack - I have no point to make except I thought it was funny. You said: "I'm only really repeating what Tim said, but:" and then you proceeded to write a novella... I haven't read this thread.