Welcome to Gaia! ::

stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.


That doesn't work. If ethical axioms do not have substance, then the cannot be legitimately used to demand action from people. If what you state is true, for you to place any ethical system in place is erroneous and based on a lie, as it is not justified that such a system of ethics be applied. If you throw out that ethical/moral conceptions express are truth, you throw them out as legitimate ideas altogether.



Ethics is a step up from morality since it analyzes the morality of a group and finds similar trends. I.E. Christian Ethic, Nazi Ethic, etc. So it is still subjective but much less so than morality that starts off from a basis of binary right/wrong thinking and does not explore further. Ethics analyzes what societies already do, and presents them along with the possible reasons for why they do it.

I agree that to place any ethical system as the standard is erroneous, but it's based more on the opinions of large groups of people than a lie in and of itself. Morality is much the same, but it uses binary right/wrong switches to immediately determine an idea of correct or incorrect that may or may not be based on real data, unlike Ethics which takes the data from a group of people and isolates it's variables, at least that's the impression i got.

Though Ethical analysis is one way to improve from morality (They are not the same) it still lacks universality aside from the truths presented within the data (Suffering seems to be brought on by physical force in many groups of people around the world for example) but it is this universality that should be pursued rather than the implication of the axiom of right/wrong/good/evil based on binary moral ideas.

It is true there is suffering. It is not true that suffering is right or wrong.

It is true that there is killing. It is not true that killing is right or wrong.

This is where i'm going with this, that it is better to recognize that these things are in existence than to lump them all up into two categories which explain neither their existence nor their function. You gain more knowledge that way.
stealthmongoose
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose

And by comparison you must be blind. What you described was an act of ethical application. You wouldn't want to be tortured, so you don't torture others. That's ethics! You learned a new word today!


Ethics and the "moral truth" of which we speak are one and the same thing. If you are going to apply a system of ethics, you take that it is appropriate to do so. That it is true you should use such an ethical system.

You speak of how you think that something is personally right, of that ethics should be used, yet you fail to realise that this means that you are accepting what was referred earlier as "moral truth." That there is a truth of what action we are obligated to perform and not to perform. When you instate a system of ethics you take it is the case, it is the truth, that people should behave in a certain way and dismiss other ways of acting. You demand that people behave a certain why and not another way because of the truth of the given ethical system.
Not in the way me and my opponent are arguing the matter.

His definitions of morality seems to hinge on a binary axiom of right and wrong that he has not mentioned a source for aside from my assertions of what he should base it off of (Suffering, hardship, etc.) and as such he has failed to provide a source for his morality other than "right and wrong".

The assertion I am making is that his partisanship of morality leads to a subjective viewpoint that if not explored is less founded because it does not validate itself. Why is something wrong? Is it wrong because it causes suffering? Because it goes against the king's orders? Because it's illegal? These ideas are worth exploring and are a much better definition of right and wrong than simply 'right' and 'wrong'.

I as a person can accept something personally and see my lack of knowledge in applying it. I personally accept the idea that torture is wrong because i rarely find cases in which it can be accepted.

Even in such cases, the 'moral truth' is not the truth if it is not universal, since truths are by their very nature universal. My opponent's example of a 'moral truth' in torture being wrong is eliminated in it's content by the application of torture to commit what some, if not most, perceive to be a 'greater good' (saving a family with the information extracted from one tortured person for example). I am not arguing that this greater good exists (in fact, i think it's a piss poor excuse to pretend to know what's right for the world) but assuming to know it on an axiom and a shifting set of ideals that is neither universal nor true or very well founded it seems makes me want to explore the idea in all of it's parts. Ethics are much the same way, where you feel a certain way and either think or do not think that this way should be applied to others. Vis a vis "I like chocolate" leads to "Maybe other people like chocolate" but does NOT EVER become "Chocolate is delicious to everyone!" <<<<This would imply a nontruth (get what i'm saying?)

First, you're trying to tie in ethical ideas with morality, then you try and assert them as 'true', when they are in fact very subjective and differentiate on culture and other societal variables including economic success and other such things.

From this point you actually start pretending to represent my views. Logically speaking, True and should do not follow each other and still make sense. If it is true that torture does not get applied to do good things, then it is not a matter of should or should not, there would be no alternative one way or another if the morals being asserted were 'true'. As such, they are just morals, and at best, ethics, which are still subjective to an extent. I do not demand or imply truth upon the way anything should act towards anyone, i present the outcomes and the effects of such actions and do not label them as right or wrong.

For example, you can say 'killing is wrong' and propose that as a moral truth (not far from what was proposed by my opponent in the torture scenario) and label it as wrong for everyone all the time and there is no excuse for ever doing it. At least, that's the idea i get from the assertion of moral truth.

Then someone kills in self defense after being assaulted and potentially raped. Someone else kills a thief stealing their medication. Someone commits suicide after living in solitary confinement for several years. Someone else kills their patient because it was their wish to not live in a coma.

All of these acts are wrong. No excuse. Axiom et axiom.

Ethics is a little more accurate, but not by much:

By ethics, i see that if i were being assaulted and potentially raped, it would be good ti dispatch my oppressor as quickly as possible. By ethics, i realize that medication when i take it feels relatively important in maintaining my bodily health, so i can understand someone committing bodily harm to a person who stole it from them. By ethics i don't have to say the person who committed suicide was right or wrong since i can look at how i would potentially feel sitting in a locked room for many years and no human contact and see that perhaps no dichotomy fits that act. By ethics, i can look at a person without labeling them good or evil for something as simple as giving another person the peace they wish for just by seeing the amount of suffering they are going through and realize that i would not want to go on living hooked up to a machine either!

This does not make ethics, morality, or anything else with that much subjectivity true or universal, and CERTAINLY not in the way my opponent is presenting it; "Good/Bad" "Innocent/Guilty" etc.

The only truth to morality is that it is thought about, and if that's the case i'll stick with calling it morality.


That is mess of poppycock reasoning. Utter logical incoherence. Why? Because, to use the example of your personal response to a threat, you actually consider it objectively justified to remove the threat. If your are to remove the threat you by definition are taking that what you feel should happen is more important and so you must act. Never mind if the person posing a threat to you feels otherwise. Never mind if anyone else feels otherwise. In thinking you should remove the threat, you reject that any objection to the removal of that threat. This is incomplete contradiction with only describing what results from action and how people personally feel about them; it is to treat your position as being true while rejecting any that opposes you as false.


Do not make that mistake. Truth means universally applied in the given situation, not that any given situation is universal application. One can define a system of ethics where certain actions are okay in some circumstances and not in others.

On the contrary, a truth morality/ethics, that a particular way is definitely right, is required. It is a necessity to morality/ethics,else there is no claim about what should happen made.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.
stealthmongoose
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.


That doesn't work. If ethical axioms do not have substance, then the cannot be legitimately used to demand action from people. If what you state is true, for you to place any ethical system in place is erroneous and based on a lie, as it is not justified that such a system of ethics be applied. If you throw out that ethical/moral conceptions express are truth, you throw them out as legitimate ideas altogether.



Ethics is a step up from morality since it analyzes the morality of a group and finds similar trends. I.E. Christian Ethic, Nazi Ethic, etc. So it is still subjective but much less so than morality that starts off from a basis of binary right/wrong thinking and does not explore further. Ethics analyzes what societies already do, and presents them along with the possible reasons for why they do it.

I agree that to place any ethical system as the standard is erroneous, but it's based more on the opinions of large groups of people than a lie in and of itself. Morality is much the same, but it uses binary right/wrong switches to immediately determine an idea of correct or incorrect that may or may not be based on real data, unlike Ethics which takes the data from a group of people and isolates it's variables, at least that's the impression i got.

Though Ethical analysis is one way to improve from morality (They are not the same) it still lacks universality aside from the truths presented within the data (Suffering seems to be brought on by physical force in many groups of people around the world for example) but it is this universality that should be pursued rather than the implication of the axiom of right/wrong/good/evil based on binary moral ideas.

It is true there is suffering. It is not true that suffering is right or wrong.

It is true that there is killing. It is not true that killing is right or wrong.

This is where i'm going with this, that it is better to recognize that these things are in existence than to lump them all up into two categories which explain neither their existence nor their function. You gain more knowledge that way.


Not quite, ethics, at least how I use the term, refers to the study of the basis of moral positions. It generally involves analysing the underlying systems of the normal proposition, so it would identify different systems and the results they produced, assuming you studied different systems. it also means it it includes the position you stating(even though you will no doubt act contrary to to it) where there is no true ethical system(i.e what is right or wrong is "undefined" ).

I want to focus on this: "I agree that to place any ethical system as the standard is erroneous, but it's based more on the opinions of large groups of people than a lie in and of itself." in particular because it shows you lack a full understating of what the amounts to a true or false position and the consequences of you line of argument.

Your position actually DOES place those systems as LIE. Not a lie in the sense of that people did not feel that way and implement that systems, but rather that those people mistakenly thought they had a truthful code for what amounted to proper action when it was not actually justified. If you are to say that right and wrong are "undefined" you automatically render any instance where someone defines something as right or wrong an error; if right and wrong cannot be defined, then it is impossible for any instance where right and wrong which are defined to be accurate.

That is all well and good, but you are actually losing knowledge in this instance, namely the nature of morality and how it is integral to the lives we lead. It is certainly the case that the binary nature of morality can obscure that there people out there who feel differently(which is why I am generally in favour of refraining from judgment unless I have throughly vetted the given situation), but the conception of it doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible to see that others feel differently.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose
The Willow Of Darkness
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.


That doesn't work. If ethical axioms do not have substance, then the cannot be legitimately used to demand action from people. If what you state is true, for you to place any ethical system in place is erroneous and based on a lie, as it is not justified that such a system of ethics be applied. If you throw out that ethical/moral conceptions express are truth, you throw them out as legitimate ideas altogether.



Ethics is a step up from morality since it analyzes the morality of a group and finds similar trends. I.E. Christian Ethic, Nazi Ethic, etc. So it is still subjective but much less so than morality that starts off from a basis of binary right/wrong thinking and does not explore further. Ethics analyzes what societies already do, and presents them along with the possible reasons for why they do it.

I agree that to place any ethical system as the standard is erroneous, but it's based more on the opinions of large groups of people than a lie in and of itself. Morality is much the same, but it uses binary right/wrong switches to immediately determine an idea of correct or incorrect that may or may not be based on real data, unlike Ethics which takes the data from a group of people and isolates it's variables, at least that's the impression i got.

Though Ethical analysis is one way to improve from morality (They are not the same) it still lacks universality aside from the truths presented within the data (Suffering seems to be brought on by physical force in many groups of people around the world for example) but it is this universality that should be pursued rather than the implication of the axiom of right/wrong/good/evil based on binary moral ideas.

It is true there is suffering. It is not true that suffering is right or wrong.

It is true that there is killing. It is not true that killing is right or wrong.

This is where i'm going with this, that it is better to recognize that these things are in existence than to lump them all up into two categories which explain neither their existence nor their function. You gain more knowledge that way.


Not quite, ethics, at least how I use the term, refers to the study of the basis of moral positions. It generally involves analysing the underlying systems of the normal proposition, so it would identify different systems and the results they produced, assuming you studied different systems. it also means it it includes the position you stating(even though you will no doubt act country to to it) where there is no true ethical system(i.e what is right or wrong is "undefined" ).

I want to focus on this: "I agree that to place any ethical system as the standard is erroneous, but it's based more on the opinions of large groups of people than a lie in and of itself." in particular because it shows you lack a full understating of what the amounts to a true or false position and the consequences of you line of argument.

Your position actually DOES place those systems as LIE. Not a lie in the sense of that people did not feel that way and implement that systems, but rather that those people mistakenly thought they had a truthful code for what amounted to proper action when it was not actually justified. If you are to say that right and wrong are "undefined" you automatically render any instance where someone defines something as right or wrong an error; if right and wrong cannot be defined, then it is impossible for any instance where right and wrong which are defined to be accurate.

That is all well and good, but you are actually losing knowledge in this instance, namely the nature of morality and how it is integral to the lives we lead. It is certainly the case that the binary nature of morality can obscure that there people out there who feel differently(which is why I am generally in favour of refraining from judgment unless I have throughly vetted the given situation), but the conception of it doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible to see that others feel differently.


I submit that willow's argument as the superior one in this instance.

This does not mean that i accept her views as my own nor does it mean that her view is superior to mine, i merely accept that her reasoning for supporting the existence of true morality is such that i can find no reason to contradict her statements.

I can only equate by stating that a sense of right and wrong can be better understood by realizing the source of it's nature, so in that way i suppose I am lacking in knowledge when it comes to the fields you presented.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


I'm mistaken about what I believe?

All righty then. You go ahead and go with that if it's what works for you. lol


Yes, you are falling to realise that the position you hold is one of a moral truth. You lack the comprehension of what your belief entails.


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


You may believe my position is one of moral truth. That is your perception, and you are enttiled to it. You are even entitled to believe yourself so enlightened, or inteligent, or whatever to be able to know another's heart and mind better than they do based on a brief online conversation.

What you are not entitled to do is insult me w/ the implication that I lack the intellect to comprehend my own thoughts. This is a fifty cent college word version of calling the other party a retard. Sorry, I didn't put up with that when I was in kindergarten. I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a did not/did too argument now.

If you have any further points to make I will listen to them, but if all you've got left is cleverly worded ceap shots, then I am no longer interested.


You don't lack the intellect. In fact, I am certain you have the capacity to understand it. In the present state, however, you have fallen for separating the notion of "moral truth," the idea of "making a mistake" and of the personal desires that you apply everyday.

There is no such separation. For someone "to make a mistake" they have to do something that is wrong, which can only occur if there is a truth of something they should not do. If there is no truth that someone did something wrong, then, by definition, there can be no mistake. Similarly, when one gets up in the morning and considers that they should have breakfast, they engage a notion that it is true they should have breakfast. If there was no such truth, then there would be no reason for them to be obligated to have breakfast.


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?
Lucky~9~Lives
Undecillion
Lucky~9~Lives
Undecillion
Lucky~9~Lives
Undecillion
First off, I consider myself an Atheist, and up until now, I haven't put much thought into the subject, but my question is as follows:

What specific/general guidelines would a nonreligious person use to determine what is morally wrong?


I've been thinking about this for about an hour and so far I've come up with:

"For something to be morally wrong, it needs to consequentially cause or contribute to
a significant detriment to others that outweigh any positive consequences."


I'm still trying to evaluate this and think of counter examples, but I'd like your input.


It seems like you've just shifted the problem rather than solving it i.e. how does one determine "significant detriment" and "positive consequence"?


Well, when the initial problem is "How is "morally wrong" determined" and a vague guideline is given, I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

As I said before, it's an incomplete thought requiring more adjustments. However, at this point all that there seems to be left to do is come up with a practical definition of the word "significant".

And I would assume that the word "positive" in this case could mean something beneficial gained or saved.


That's just repeating the process, though - how does one determine "beneficial"?


I don't quite understand the confusion your having. If i didn't already assume you were fairly knowledgeable in the field of philosophy I would be tempted to believe you're over-thinking it.

If you give someone $100 and it makes them happy, that would be something positive.

If you have a choice of saving 100 people and killing one, or having 100 die and one survive, then that would be the difference between saving 100 people or saving 1 person. (assuming that the lives all have an equal value greater than nothing) a net gain (net save?) of 99 is better than a net loss of 99.

Could you tell me where the problem is?


You hadn't qualified "beneficial" - now you've done it twice (as "making another happy", and as "preserving life" ).


Ok, I guess I'd qualify it as causing happiness, relief, improvement, an increase in knowledge or taking away sadness.

But this is more of a guideline, not an absolute law, there's supposed to be some grey area because, as most can agree, morality is not all black and white. I might even suggest for the specifics to be determines on an individual basis by all those involved.
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus
stealthmongoose
I Refute Berkeley Thus


Why not? What's the difference?



I would need more information about the situation. And it's not always obvious.


Your second question answers your first.

Please provide a situation in which true morality can be demonstrated.


If I were to find, rape, torture, and kill you right now, that'd be wrong.
What would i have done to have you pursue me to rape, torture, and kill me?

Every action, even those that seem unfounded, have catalysts. Assuming i did not murder your family, steal your land, or anything else of that nature, i might agree with you.

I can agree with you on a personal level. I would think it's wrong too. But would it be wrong in every situation possible to every person? If not, then can it be true morality?

I'm not saying that your example has to have a catalyst, but without reason what you're proposing is a random killing absent of cause, whereas my example provided room for real world possibilities.

Or are you saying that it's possible to answer your question on the sheer hypotheticality of it's basis without any reason proposed?


You agree "on a personal level?" What does that mean?

How could a specific situation be true in all situations? I'm only talking about one situation.


That means that if I had my imperfect and subjective druthers about it, i would probably never torture a person even if it meant saving a colony of people from utter annihilation, because i cannot personally commit myself to see such a thing as acceptable. That does not mean that my viewpoint is right compared to the truth of the matter, which is that sometimes passive interrogation does not work.

I should have specified that the axiom that torture is good or evil in any situation is a fallacy. This makes morality less of a truth and more of a subjective matter. I understand that your situation is unique to an extent since it involves a random act of sexual violence with no catalyst mentioned, but even if i could answer a reason-less crime with a subjective moral viewpoint as I did in my last post, it would only prove that morality as you perceive it can be extremely subjective.


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.

How would it show that morality is subjective, any more than anything else that you have to make a stance on? Are you saying that because people have to assert viewpoints about things, they are subjective? That criterion renders anything that people can have opinions on or speak about "subjective."

My request was that you differentiate moral truths from factual ones - you have not done this.
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche
The Willow Of Darkness
vwytche


My daughter got some words wrong on her last spelling test. Was this morally wrong of her? Should I have punished her for the "lack of morals" she showed by not being perfect?


Depends on the nature of moral truth. If moral truth was that she should be punished if she did not get a perfect score, then yes. If moral truth was that she should not be punished, then no. If moral truth did not make any judgment on the case, it would be "undefined" whether she should be punished.


Now you're just arguing yourself in circles. You claim a higher morality to the universe, further you argue that I believe in it despite not being able to comprehend that I believe in it. But when I ask you to apply your asserion that it is a moral wrong to be in error to a real life incident you suddenly waffle about it depends on the moral truth of the situation. It can not be both way. Either it is a moral wrong to make and error or it is not.

I believe that would be checkmate for me. Altho I'm reasonably sure you will attempt to counter this by claiming I only erroneously believe to believe this argument.


No, you have just not realised what it means. Namely, that I am referring an inherent part of any moral proposition: that is it a truth that is undeniable. There is no case that the three situations I suggested are all possible. What that was referring to was how, depending on the nature of the higher morality(which has not been stated) of the universe, it would dictate that a given response of what must happen(i.e. if X were moral truth, then X is what should happen).

It does depend on the moral truth of the situation, but not in the way you think. What should happen depends on the nature of moral truth situation in that what should be done is set out in the moral truth that is(i.e. there are not multiple possible truths, but rather there is one truth and the situation that there is such a truth sets out the obligation of what action must be taken)


Do you honestly not see the way you are hopping back and forth over the fence, or are you just hoping I won't?


No, it just appears that way because you are failing to realise the distinction between analysis of what is the case provided that a given something is true(the point is, that in any situation where something is conceived about morality, there is a truth that results, even if you say morality is "undefined," as that means it is true morality is "undefined." ) and actual claim about the nature of moral truth(for example, that it is moral truth that she should not be punished, so she must not be punished, regardless of if anyone happened to feel otherwise).
I Refute Berkeley Thus


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.


No, you did. That a given moral position cannot be a fallacy is assumed in its definition.
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.


No, you did. That a given moral position cannot be a fallacy is assumed in its definition.


Fallacies are erroneous logical inferences; axioms are definitional.

Again, I see no reason to accept your claim that moral statements are inherently taken to be infallible. You're going to need to start arguing for this instead of restating it.
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.


No, you did. That a given moral position cannot be a fallacy is assumed in its definition.


Fallacies are erroneous logical inferences; axioms are definitional.

Again, I see no reason to accept your claim that moral statements are inherently taken to be infallible. You're going to need to start arguing for this instead of restating it.


I've already shown you why this is: a moral position is, by it nature, a claim that a certain way of acting is proper. That a certain way of acting cannot be faulted. That a certain way of acting is correct by definition.

When I say "The moral thing to do is eat carrots" I dismiss that any other way of acting is appropriate. I state that it is infallible that carrots should be eaten.

Of course, this may be wrong, in a same way as if I took the axiom that lava would not injure me and applied it to being the case in the real world, but this does not change that I have proposed it as infallible.
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus


I did not mention an "axiom." Also, axioms cannot be fallacies.


No, you did. That a given moral position cannot be a fallacy is assumed in its definition.


Fallacies are erroneous logical inferences; axioms are definitional.

Again, I see no reason to accept your claim that moral statements are inherently taken to be infallible. You're going to need to start arguing for this instead of restating it.


I've already shown you why this is: a moral position is, by it nature, a claim that a certain way of acting is proper. That a certain way of acting cannot be faulted. That a certain way of acting is correct by definition.

When I say "The moral thing to do is eat carrots" I dismiss that any other way of acting is appropriate. I state that it is infallible that carrots should be eaten.

Of course, this may be wrong, in a same way as if I took the axiom that lava would not injure me and applied it to being the case in the real world, but this does not change that I have proposed it as infallible.


I'm not seeing any reasoning. Asserting that something is true doesn't mean you think the opposite is impossible or your position is infallible. I honestly have no idea what caused you to believe this, but it's generally not the way anyone (save mystics and dogmatists) actually behave.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games