Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

[Holiday20310401]

Ok I'll just get right to it then. My brother has psychosis, among other things. He gets these voices in his head that tell him to do stuff which in his normal frame of mind... wouldn't dream of doing.

Anyways, it has gotten me pondering what is reality? We base our decisions off of a frame of mind which is not tuned to actuality, but to reality. Reality is potential, and actuality is not, so we cannot mean to live and therefore be conscious in actuality. Reality is not this purely objective form like actuality is. Reality is subjective in accordance to the mind with objectivity in terms of similarities to other minds. I mean, two people can perceive an apple as edible, so that's objective in that perception. Perhaps the qualia of the two minds are very similar too to getting the sensory input of the apple. (qualia to me is a function of experience, so it may not mean much as a term to use, but it counts when trying to relate to subjective measures).

Anyways, my brother recently ran away from home because he began to think and feel that we (the family) were aliens, today. I don't know why, but I do realize that this seemed logical to him. So I have two very important questions I am struggling to answer and could use some help without being suggested with books (becaue I already know I need to start reading more).

First, If somebody commits a crime under the logical influence of their reality, then what do you call that? Is that insane? Is there any form of justice that is necessarily right or wrong?

If a person commits a crime, lets say murder, and under their own reality felt that it was the only logical option based on any such influences as feeling threatened, delusions that are not awared to be delusions, etc. ... then is it a crime. I mean, how is this any different from us in a "logical situation". How do we know whether our reality is logical? It is merely a delusion. The logic comes when it si as objective as can be, right? But then why are there those ahead of the game who see evil in the norm and knowit is evil and they can use what you'd call "logic" to substantiate the idea. Because it's true, valid logically correct? No... we cannot look at rational boundaries for the irrationed subjectivity. It is because it is emotionally correct, and morally sound to the mind. Morally sound.... that's like the intuitive grasp of something equivalent to the logical grasp of a quantum infinity complexity. (or whatever you want to call it)

Does this make us to some extent insane (everybody)? Sanity has been realized as undefinable in terms of just comparing somebody to the social norm. I believe this to be true, however, if the social norm were compared to as purposefully healthy of body and brain, then why is there reciprocity of the people beyond the norm?

Second, what is sanity? Sanity has to do with the will in my opinion, something that if deterministic there can be no sanity, because it would be an irrelevant term. If we label will as much as the conscious thought then there is room for it, but then everybody is insane. Everybody has conscious thought but is it appropriate not to realize it is just a deterministic product of our being, which is of sensory input and chemical reactions that play no role in our purpose. And without purpose there is nothing to ponder and if the purpose is to ponder the question of what the purpose is exactly... well then that is circular and definitely insane.

If everybody goes about their lives acting consciously withing the bounds of self interest, then there is little room for understanding the lives of others and living peacfully with others. Social interaction is a purpose to life. Yet if all actions were based subconsciously so as to leave out self interest then what do you call that? Definitely not sane, but not insane either because there is indifference. Yet I'd probably deduce that to insanity anyways. Its like amoralism, and apathy... insane for actions to be always rooted upon those two.

So this topic is to discuss sanity, reality and justice, and their links to one another. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[BrightNoon]

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

If nothing is inherently right or wrong, then morality can't be relative because there would be no right or wrong to be relative to. You have a fallacy of self-contradiction.

There is no empirical or a priori evidence to support "morality is relative." That people disagree on questions of ethics/morality doesn't prove that it is relative or subjective. It only proves disagreement. It is possible for parties to disagree and one party be right the other party be wrong.

Sanity is not judged by "normality" but by rationality.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If nothing is inherently right or wrong, then morality can't be relative because there would be no right or wrong to be relative to. You have a fallacy of self-contradiction.

There is no empirical or a priori evidence to support "morality is relative." That people disagree on questions of ethics/morality doesn't prove that it is relative or subjective. It only proves disagreement. It is possible for parties to disagree and one party be right the other party be wrong.

Sanity is not judged by "normality" but by rationality.

These two posts make for a very good beginning to this discussion.

First off, I agree, with reservations, with BrightNoon. I agree that morality is relative to the point that each person makes his or her own moral measurements and that without that measurement, morality simply wouldn't exist. However, that doesn't mean that we define them, rather I believe it has been defined for us. Morality is a function of emotions and reason, both of which are evolved traits. In that sense, I believe that while morality is relative, it is also universal (again with reservations, at typified by Holiday's brother), and based in our nature as humans and the nature of human understanding.

From this I break away from BrightNoon and slightly agree with Steerpike. Sanity, justice, and morality are not free-floating, but judged against these rational (and to a lesser extent, emotional) standards.

With that said, moral relativity does non fall to self-contradiction as Steerpike says. It is the very point of moral relativism that there is no moral absolute for moral codes to be judged by. When someone argues for moral relativism, they do not argue that morality is relative to some other code, but relative to the holder.

EDIT: With that said, I am only inclined to say that justice may not be material, but that it still matters.

For some reason, these Aristotelian terms concerning reality seem to get brought up in the most abstract and inapplicable manners on this forum. I hate them and avoid them like the plague.

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

It is the very point of moral relativism that there is no moral absolute for moral codes to be judged by. When someone argues for moral relativism, they do not argue that morality is relative to some other code, but relative to the holder.

If morality is relative to the holder, then it is self-referential. This makes it question begging. Moral relativism is logically fallacious and therefore has a truth value of 0.

There is no way to logically salvage "moral relativism."

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If morality is relative to the holder, then it is self-referential. This makes it question begging. Moral relativism is logically fallacious and therefore has a truth value of 0.

The moral itself is self-referential and the holder must accept that he cannot appeal to the objective truth of his morality.

The concept of moral relativism is not self-referential itself, in fact I cannot imagine how the idea of moral relativism could rest on someone's personal morality. Who has ever argued that moral relativism is true because it is "good"?

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

The moral itself is self-referential and the holder must accept that he cannot appeal to the objective truth of his morality.

The concept of moral relativism is not self-referential itself, in fact I cannot imagine how the idea of moral relativism could rest on someone's personal morality.

The bolded areas contradict each other.

Playing with words will not alter the logical flaws of "moral relativism."

Why can't he appeal to the objective truth of his morality?

If person A believes it is right for her/him to murder person B and person C believes that it is not right for her/him to murder person B, then are both beliefs equal (from a moral relativist standpoint)?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Steerpike

The bolded areas contradict each other.

Playing with words will not alter the logical flaws of "moral relativism."

Individual morality =/ the concept of moral relativism.

The truthfulness of "Thou shall not kill" has no bearing on the truth of moral relativism. Can I disprove moral absolutism by saying that "respect property" isn't a true moral.

Why can't he appeal to the objective truth of his morality?

Because there is no objective truth to his morality.

If person A believes it is right for her/him to murder person B and person C believes that it is not right for her/him to murder person B, then are both beliefs equal (from a moral relativist standpoint)?

They are not equal but neither is more objectively true.

[Khethil]

Steerpike: A question, if I may interpose. I am a bit confused trying to understand where you're coming from.

Which are you saying:

1. Morality shouldn't be relatively determined
2. Morality isn't relatively determined

If morality (in practice in the world today) isn't relatively-determined, then what absolute or planetary "Guide to Right and Wrong" is everyone using these days? In discussing morality and justice, I think there needs to be a distinction between: How things are -and- How we think they should be. Otherwise we go whole-hog talking in vastly-divergent directions.

Hoping to understand - Thanks

[Steerpike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Because there is no objective truth to his morality.

Thank you. You just lost.

If "there is no objective truth to his morality" is true, then it has contradicted itself and is false.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

They are not equal but neither is more objectively true.

If neither is more objectively true, then why aren't they equal?

Fallacious thinking calls for re-examination of thought processes.