How many philosophy students or former philosophy students in this thread? A lot of our answers sound like answers to essay questions on philosophy exams.
What happened to the divine inner voice when humanity was all "slavery is ok" in the entire world? People were deaf? How can we recognize the divine inner voice *objectively*? Have you got a criteria that's not counting how many people make the same judgement?
You claimed there is objective right and wrong yet you did not provide any objective criteria. You even went so far as saying it's "on a level that transcends logic and reason." Sounds not objective at all. This is likely an ungrounded belief.
How many philosophy students or former philosophy students in this thread? A lot of our answers sound like answers to essay questions on philosophy exams.
What happened to the divine inner voice when humanity was all "slavery is ok" in the entire world? People were deaf? How can we recognize the divine inner voice *objectively*? Have you got a criteria that's not counting how many people make the same judgement?
You claimed there is objective right and wrong yet you did not provide any objective criteria. You even went so far as saying it's "on a level that transcends logic and reason." Sounds not objective at all. This is likely an ungrounded belief.
Well, first off, the inner divine voice is naive. You cannot expect it to hold the answer to complex issues. The inner divine voice must be mated with honest intellectual discourse - where is where the danger lies, as the antagonist is a master of logic and reason. When you see a slave getting whipped across the face for spilling some milk or some other minor offense, and instinctually react with "This is wrong", that is your inner divine voice speaking to you.
Demanding critera is a typical failure of an understanding of the inner divine voice. Like I demonstrated with the example in concept #2), logic and reason can be used and misused to prove most anything, especially in any concept void of tangible, measurable, components, such as justice.
Especially since an agent of the antagonist, when tested, could easily claim "No, I dont feel sorry for the slave" as it is whipped across the face, even as this agent really DO feel sorry for the slave. In fact, the antagonist would urge the agent to do so, for the very purpose of obfuscating. Secondly, the inner divine voice can be overpowered, and an individual deeply culturally adjusted to slavery, might not hear the inner divine voice loudly or at all.
Which is why I pointed out the importance of an independant third party (who is not damaged, such as a sociopath). Without cultural influence EITHER WAY, (naturally, a society strongly condeming of slavery would also scewer the results, but in the other direction) a third party will instinctively react with "This is wrong!"
Now, go ahead and claim *you* would not feel sorry for the slave, and mayhaps you wouldn't, in this one instance. But without previous cultural influence, a (non-sociopath) would instinctively be appaled by necrophilia and cannibalism, and also of whipping slaves for minor offensives. The non-vestment of a culture into any given topic would cause it to spontanously drift toward the take which is the divine justice, regardless of its starting point. For instance, as I mentioned, the UN declaration of human rights will resonate with most any human, unless they are culturally vested into the opposite. Basically, in the absence of the antagonist, a society will choice divine justice.
If you want a more scientific term, try "least common denominator" for non-vested cultures. The truth is that you have felt the inner divine voice, and you know that it exists. You can fool yourself and those likeminded, but you cannot fool those that understand my arguments.
@Einhardt That depends, justice certainly exists, but it exists according to each individuals code of morals. If something happens to a person and they think it is fair, that is justice for them. The real question is, does justice exist for everyone?
Fair and just are synonyms. They think it is fair = They believe it is just. It doesn't imply there is justice at all. What it can imply is only that they believe so.
I will be convinced that justice exists only if it can be explained in other manner than "people believe that [insert something here] is justice", because perhaps people are just delusional in believing so.
If they are perhaps delusional, then it is just as likely that they are perhaps correct. The problem with arguing everything as relative is that it works both ways.
@DrakeICN So you didn't understand why I asked for the criteria. Consider this situation: Person A did something to another person. Then Person B saw the event and said that what Person A did was wrong because his inner voice says so. Person A then argued that what he did was justified because his inner voice says it is the right thing to do. Now, whose inner voice was the divine one? I purposely didn't describe what exactly happened because if I went into more details you might answer this question based on your own morality and that's biased. If you have to know the content to say which one is justified then how could I know that your answer is not chosen according to your own morality, which there is indeed a chance that you understand the divine justice inaccurately too?
I think I understand what you tried to explain. I simply don't agree. You claimed there is objective right and wrong. You still haven't shown me a reliable way to know that. Gut feelings aren't reliable (even from the third party), as you've said yourself that some people are deaf to the divine justice and that the divine voice is naive. And this is a very very very not objective way of knowing. Try to explain how does this differ to something that can only be experienced subjectively. They're both inexplicable by reason alone, they both depend on feeling and they both lack criteria. Isn't it obvious that they both must be as objective/subjective?
If they are perhaps delusional, then it is just as likely that they are perhaps correct. The problem with arguing everything as relative is that it works both ways.
@ThacoBell I was arguing "If something happens to a person and they think it is fair, that is justice for them." If you can't refute that they aren't delusional then the claim that they think it is fair isn't evidence that it is justice anymore. Perhaps they are correct, yes. But "perhaps" isn't evidence.
@Einhardt Then I perhaps misunderstood you. As your whole argument to seemed to hinge on people believing something that does not exist because "Perhaps they are wrong".
@ThacoBell My argument is mainly "if you claim that it exist, how do you know that fact?" and "How do you know for certain that you're not mistaken?". Notice that in my first comment I already said that "if I'm wrong", which means I already take into consideration that justice could exist because I cannot prove that it does not (no one can prove negatives anyway). But if someone thinks it certainly exists, doesn't it imply that they think they know the reason that it is certainly so? If someone says that something objectively exists, doesn't it imply that they think there is a way of knowing that that is guaranteed to be unbiased?
I said "I think justice simply doesn't exist" then I went on to say that because it doesn't, we struggle as we do. It just fits (at least from what I see). Then I said that "if I'm wrong at least the difference's not significant" because you can't know that objectively, you can just believe in what you feel is right. I didn't say that objectively or certainly it couldn't exist. It was merely a speculation which I know full well that can be wrong.
Then you said it certainly exists, of course that interests me. I asked "how?". Turns out you can't answer "how" is it "certain". Then why do you think "perhaps they are right" is enough for claiming that it "certainly" does? I would not argue for perhapses if you said that you think it is justice when people believe it is fair, and instead I can only say why I don't agree. If you're going for "certain", "perhaps" is good enough for me to argue because "perhaps" already entails noncertainty.
@Einhardt Justice certainly exists for individuals at least. Its pretty simple, if a person experiences something that they feel is fair, they see it as just. It doesn't if you believe it exists or not, because fo rthat person, it does. They experienced it.
Then I will try to challenge this viewpoint by comparison. Some years ago there were swindlers that claimed they can teach children to be able to see things while blindfolded. They explained the principles with pseudoscience, claiming to train the children's psychic power or something like that. What they did actually was teaching children how to "cheat" the test, but those children did so unknowingly! They didn't know that they were cheating because they were taught to biasedly believe they can do it. From their viewpoint, they learned how to use their minds to see while blindfolded. Does this mean their psychic power exists for them because they experienced it? Why shouldn't we just say that such power doesn't exist and they're fooled by some adults instead?
@DrakeICN So you didn't understand why I asked for the criteria. Consider this situation: Person A did something to another person. Then Person B saw the event and said that what Person A did was wrong because his inner voice says so. Person A then argued that what he did was justified because his inner voice says it is the right thing to do. Now, whose inner voice was the divine one? I purposely didn't describe what exactly happened because if I went into more details you might answer this question based on your own morality and that's biased. If you have to know the content to say which one is justified then how could I know that your answer is not chosen according to your own morality, which there is indeed a chance that you understand the divine justice inaccurately too?
I think I understand what you tried to explain. I simply don't agree. You claimed there is objective right and wrong. You still haven't shown me a reliable way to know that. Gut feelings aren't reliable (even from the third party), as you've said yourself that some people are deaf to the divine justice and that the divine voice is naive. And this is a very very very not objective way of knowing. Try to explain how does this differ to something that can only be experienced subjectively. They're both inexplicable by reason alone, they both depend on feeling and they both lack criteria. Isn't it obvious that they both must be as objective/subjective.
The very point is that we share common basic instincts. The situation you describe will not occurr on the basic level. We all react with disgust, when a man unprovoced beats his girlfriend unconscious, does not call an ambulance but instead takes a break, read the newspaper, jacks off, finish his coffee... then gets back to beating his still unconscious girlfriends. Your argument is that some react with disgust, but that it is equally likely the bext guy is fine with this occurrence. I propose to you that you are wrong. Only someone damaged - be it by a deveplopmental defect or by a rather horrendous local culture, such as membership of a local gang or perhaps of some religion - will not be outraged by the actions of this man.
Now, if you want to create a situation where the "gut feeling" is different, like, I dunno, who won a pokemon tournament, when rumours of misconduct are aboundent on both sides, you do not prove nothing. First off, "gut feelings" are different from the divine inner voice, secondly, I already told you the divine inner voice is naive. This situation is far to complicated.
Thirdly, which you also failed to realise despite me mentioning it, we can extract the least common nominators from the divine inner voice. Yes, situations can arise where there are disagreements. Say that party A have seen the fox cry itself to sleep when it hungers, while party B only sees the death anxiety of the rabbit as it is caught. But there is no two-sidedness in the man-beats-girlfriend situation I described above. Because we all mostly share the same inner divine voice - some of us are damaged, as I pointed out several times, but most are not - we all have the same basic fundament upon which two build our sense of justice, approximations of how we can in a principled way follow the inner divine voice as close as possible. Mind you, these attempts will always be imperfect, because the written word can never be meticulous enough. But that is not the point. The point is that given the same numbers and positions, it does not matter if I or you solve the sudoku, for there is only one correct answer. Now, writing down ethos is not that strict, but we have virtually the same numbers and positions - the same inner divine voice - which is why, again in the absense of the antagonist, both our written ethos would be very similar in the basics, though perhaps not in the details. For instance, we would both want to punish the man in the man-beats-girlfriend situation above - we both agree it is wrong - but one of us perhaps proposes therapy while the other proposes the death penalty.
Because these common denominators exist, it does not matter whether you can find a situstion with conflicting inner divine voices, for there sre a thousand and one situations where there will be no conflicts, and these situations places the numbers and the positions. That is why most all - again, excluding the damaged, those with vested interest and those led astray be the antagonist - instinctively approve of the UN declaration of humsn rights.
@DrakeICN Your explanation only applies to very common justifications, the "basic level", essentially "popularity votes" which you already claimed that that is not the case. Why don't you try explaining moral dilemmas with your model? To test an explanation you should border it on cases where it may not work (and defend that it actually does work), not just bring up comfort zones. Another good explanation is to demonstrate a case that the divine inner voice clearly contradicts the majority, if there is such a case it would be very clear that it's not just popularity vote. Bringing up "basic levels" does nothing on this point.
I did not fail to realize the common nominators, but it does nothing to the discussion. Even if there is no divine justice, there will be cases which are commonly judged the same way despite cultural differences. It does not support your point and it does not contradict an opposite point. Because your explanation is equivalent to another possible explanation that the "divine inner voice" is just an "inner voice", and if it's retrospectively accepted then it's divine, which is why I asked for a criteria. If there is one then these two explanations are not equivalent and there's a good chance yours is true and another isn't. The way you explained it until now makes these two very indistinguishable.
It doesn't work outside of the comfort zones. The inner divine voice is naive. Slavery, for instance, is a complex issue, involving discussions about lebensraum, of ownership, of debt, of whether prison is better or worse than servitude, of the inherent dangers with prisoners of wars if you let them live so they can fight you again, of the debt they therefore owe you if you instead let them live despite the dangers etc.
It works only on a level transcending logic and reason. When you stand above your defeated enemy, ready to deliver the coup the grace, but cannot as your heart will not permit it. You stay your hand, and then what? Let him live, to later ambush you and do not show the mercy you did? The inner divine voice will not answer that question! It will only tell you to stay your hand.
But this fact does not negate the fact that as we draw our ethos, the inner divine voice is the dots bewteen which we connect our lines... in the ideal case - the antagonist easily hijacks the entire process from here on.
The inner divine voice is perfect in its innocense and purity, but this mudball of ours is imperfect. The written word is a comprimise with the inner divine voice and the real-politics of the time and place of the creation of the written word, and will therefore always be tainted. Asking of the inner divine voice to be principled is to ask it to be tainted - and precisely becuase it refuses to be principled, it is more eternal than any ethos of man, and thus in its own way more principled than any principle.
HOWEVER, the inner divine voice yet assists us in writing our ethos. When an ethos is unjust, such as the stoning of a raped girl, it screams out to us "This is wrong!". When an ethos is wise, such as the UN declaration of human rights, it resonates with us. In these subtle ways, the inner divine voice will ever pull the moral justice towards the divine justice - yet it can never reach there, as one, the written word is always imperfect, and two, power will sooner or later change hands, overturning prevailing ethos, for better or for worse, but in either case, a varying degree of moral justices are in the divine sense returned to square one.
You know, this whole inner divine voice concept would be quite a nightmare in the Forgotten Realms. Given a staggering amount of 230+ deities on that planet alone. I sure as hell would bash my head into the nearest wall if I'd hear such a concert nonstop in my head.
Even if it is just one inner divine voice, this voice would very likely be different from race to race. If a Shield Dwarves inner divine voice would be that of Moradin's then a Drow's inner divine voice is surely that of Lolth's. Not counting Clerics who probaply receive divine revelations of their deity of choice. All of them would hear different things in the same situation. The majority of which most likely won't be innocent nor pure any way you'd look at it. Making divine justice a fickle thing indeed.
You're right, @Kamigoroshi, but (even though you originated this thread) it'd probably be better not to get drawn into feeding the trollish drivel which it has now become.
Comments
You claimed there is objective right and wrong yet you did not provide any objective criteria. You even went so far as saying it's "on a level that transcends logic and reason." Sounds not objective at all. This is likely an ungrounded belief.
Demanding critera is a typical failure of an understanding of the inner divine voice. Like I demonstrated with the example in concept #2), logic and reason can be used and misused to prove most anything, especially in any concept void of tangible, measurable, components, such as justice.
Especially since an agent of the antagonist, when tested, could easily claim "No, I dont feel sorry for the slave" as it is whipped across the face, even as this agent really DO feel sorry for the slave. In fact, the antagonist would urge the agent to do so, for the very purpose of obfuscating. Secondly, the inner divine voice can be overpowered, and an individual deeply culturally adjusted to slavery, might not hear the inner divine voice loudly or at all.
Which is why I pointed out the importance of an independant third party (who is not damaged, such as a sociopath). Without cultural influence EITHER WAY, (naturally, a society strongly condeming of slavery would also scewer the results, but in the other direction) a third party will instinctively react with "This is wrong!"
Now, go ahead and claim *you* would not feel sorry for the slave, and mayhaps you wouldn't, in this one instance. But without previous cultural influence, a (non-sociopath) would instinctively be appaled by necrophilia and cannibalism, and also of whipping slaves for minor offensives. The non-vestment of a culture into any given topic would cause it to spontanously drift toward the take which is the divine justice, regardless of its starting point. For instance, as I mentioned, the UN declaration of human rights will resonate with most any human, unless they are culturally vested into the opposite. Basically, in the absence of the antagonist, a society will choice divine justice.
If you want a more scientific term, try "least common denominator" for non-vested cultures. The truth is that you have felt the inner divine voice, and you know that it exists. You can fool yourself and those likeminded, but you cannot fool those that understand my arguments.
I think I understand what you tried to explain. I simply don't agree. You claimed there is objective right and wrong. You still haven't shown me a reliable way to know that. Gut feelings aren't reliable (even from the third party), as you've said yourself that some people are deaf to the divine justice and that the divine voice is naive. And this is a very very very not objective way of knowing. Try to explain how does this differ to something that can only be experienced subjectively. They're both inexplicable by reason alone, they both depend on feeling and they both lack criteria. Isn't it obvious that they both must be as objective/subjective? @ThacoBell I was arguing "If something happens to a person and they think it is fair, that is justice for them." If you can't refute that they aren't delusional then the claim that they think it is fair isn't evidence that it is justice anymore. Perhaps they are correct, yes. But "perhaps" isn't evidence.
I said "I think justice simply doesn't exist" then I went on to say that because it doesn't, we struggle as we do. It just fits (at least from what I see). Then I said that "if I'm wrong at least the difference's not significant" because you can't know that objectively, you can just believe in what you feel is right. I didn't say that objectively or certainly it couldn't exist. It was merely a speculation which I know full well that can be wrong.
Then you said it certainly exists, of course that interests me. I asked "how?". Turns out you can't answer "how" is it "certain". Then why do you think "perhaps they are right" is enough for claiming that it "certainly" does? I would not argue for perhapses if you said that you think it is justice when people believe it is fair, and instead I can only say why I don't agree. If you're going for "certain", "perhaps" is good enough for me to argue because "perhaps" already entails noncertainty.
Now, if you want to create a situation where the "gut feeling" is different, like, I dunno, who won a pokemon tournament, when rumours of misconduct are aboundent on both sides, you do not prove nothing. First off, "gut feelings" are different from the divine inner voice, secondly, I already told you the divine inner voice is naive. This situation is far to complicated.
Thirdly, which you also failed to realise despite me mentioning it, we can extract the least common nominators from the divine inner voice. Yes, situations can arise where there are disagreements. Say that party A have seen the fox cry itself to sleep when it hungers, while party B only sees the death anxiety of the rabbit as it is caught. But there is no two-sidedness in the man-beats-girlfriend situation I described above. Because we all mostly share the same inner divine voice - some of us are damaged, as I pointed out several times, but most are not - we all have the same basic fundament upon which two build our sense of justice, approximations of how we can in a principled way follow the inner divine voice as close as possible. Mind you, these attempts will always be imperfect, because the written word can never be meticulous enough. But that is not the point. The point is that given the same numbers and positions, it does not matter if I or you solve the sudoku, for there is only one correct answer. Now, writing down ethos is not that strict, but we have virtually the same numbers and positions - the same inner divine voice - which is why, again in the absense of the antagonist, both our written ethos would be very similar in the basics, though perhaps not in the details. For instance, we would both want to punish the man in the man-beats-girlfriend situation above - we both agree it is wrong - but one of us perhaps proposes therapy while the other proposes the death penalty.
Because these common denominators exist, it does not matter whether you can find a situstion with conflicting inner divine voices, for there sre a thousand and one situations where there will be no conflicts, and these situations places the numbers and the positions. That is why most all - again, excluding the damaged, those with vested interest and those led astray be the antagonist - instinctively approve of the UN declaration of humsn rights.
I did not fail to realize the common nominators, but it does nothing to the discussion. Even if there is no divine justice, there will be cases which are commonly judged the same way despite cultural differences. It does not support your point and it does not contradict an opposite point. Because your explanation is equivalent to another possible explanation that the "divine inner voice" is just an "inner voice", and if it's retrospectively accepted then it's divine, which is why I asked for a criteria. If there is one then these two explanations are not equivalent and there's a good chance yours is true and another isn't. The way you explained it until now makes these two very indistinguishable.
It works only on a level transcending logic and reason. When you stand above your defeated enemy, ready to deliver the coup the grace, but cannot as your heart will not permit it. You stay your hand, and then what? Let him live, to later ambush you and do not show the mercy you did? The inner divine voice will not answer that question! It will only tell you to stay your hand.
But this fact does not negate the fact that as we draw our ethos, the inner divine voice is the dots bewteen which we connect our lines... in the ideal case - the antagonist easily hijacks the entire process from here on.
The inner divine voice is perfect in its innocense and purity, but this mudball of ours is imperfect. The written word is a comprimise with the inner divine voice and the real-politics of the time and place of the creation of the written word, and will therefore always be tainted. Asking of the inner divine voice to be principled is to ask it to be tainted - and precisely becuase it refuses to be principled, it is more eternal than any ethos of man, and thus in its own way more principled than any principle.
HOWEVER, the inner divine voice yet assists us in writing our ethos. When an ethos is unjust, such as the stoning of a raped girl, it screams out to us "This is wrong!". When an ethos is wise, such as the UN declaration of human rights, it resonates with us. In these subtle ways, the inner divine voice will ever pull the moral justice towards the divine justice - yet it can never reach there, as one, the written word is always imperfect, and two, power will sooner or later change hands, overturning prevailing ethos, for better or for worse, but in either case, a varying degree of moral justices are in the divine sense returned to square one.
Even if it is just one inner divine voice, this voice would very likely be different from race to race. If a Shield Dwarves inner divine voice would be that of Moradin's then a Drow's inner divine voice is surely that of Lolth's. Not counting Clerics who probaply receive divine revelations of their deity of choice. All of them would hear different things in the same situation. The majority of which most likely won't be innocent nor pure any way you'd look at it. Making divine justice a fickle thing indeed.
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/155
"Water" ... "Everything is water!"
Problem solved