Morality? What morality?

[Spock]

And, sorry, I too am not sure what is your point.

There is no such thing as “absolute morality decoupled from the details.” Morality depends on the details. Morality is the application of moral standards on the real world. It is like saying “there is no absolute technology without matter,” for technology is the application of science on the real world. It is stating the obvious.

I agree with you, but many people do not. You can see examples all over the place. Just one example is the “absolutist” assertion that murder is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Or that certain forms of sexual activities are always “gravely disordered”. The examples are endless.

Fanatics and extremists, by definition, are NOT being very objective. You have to convince them first to look at things objectively.

Good luck with doing that

Indeed. The question is: “who is an extremist or a fanatic?”. It reminds me of the joke about the definition of a “sect”. Question: “Who is the member of a sect?”. Answer: “The people who attend the church next to yours”.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I agree with you, but many people do not. You can see examples all over the place. Just one example is the “absolutist” assertion that murder is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Or that certain forms of sexual activities are always “gravely disordered”. The examples are endless.

I cannot agree with what you just said, if I understood it correctly. Moral standards do exist, are fixed, and are inflexible. However, what I was trying to say was that you have to examine the details of a case to determine which moral standards do apply to the said case in the first place.

All murders are immoral. However, to say that a death of a person was immoral, you first have to prove that a murder took place, and you can know this only by knowing the details of the case. When murder did happen, then you can safely say that what happened was immoral, because a murder took place. What could change is the culpability of the murderer (whether the murder was coerced or pre-meditated, for example) and the severity of the immorality (swiftly killing vs. torture or rape before the murder).

The same thing with “gravely disordered sexual activities.” Let us take for example homosexual practices. All homosexual behaviors are immoral. However, to be a homosexual is not. You have to know the details first of a case of sexual impropriety to determine whether homosexual behavior, or any other kind of sexual impropriety did happen before you can say what happened was immoral. And then you still have to check the details for the severity of the impropriety and the culpability of the participants.

Indeed. The question is: “who is an extremist or a fanatic?”. It reminds me of the joke about the definition of a “sect”. Question: “Who is the member of a sect?”. Answer: “The people who attend the church next to yours”.

IMHO, an extremist or fanatic is someone who can listen only to themselves or their favorite teachers/philosophy/religion/whatever without even considering the point of view of others.

God bless!

 

[Betterave]

It means the effect of some action has on someone else. Killing someone is much more intrusive than picking your nose in a party.

It seems that you’ve very dogmatically espoused the position that “thoughts don’t matter,” morally speaking, since(?) morality is only about the effect one has “on someone else.” So, questions:

1. Do you grant that you have done so?
2. Are you satisfied with doing so?

 

[Betterave]

I gave my answer to the dilemma in post #66 to you - “btw, yes I would push the button”.

okay… relevance?

You say I don’t make sense but I note you seem to be extra careful not to show too much emotion, as often happens on morality threads .

LOL! You “note” that, do you? Could you explain your method for doing so?

Have you ever noticed the emotions on atheism or evolution threads? Supposing you agree that emotions run high on these subjects, do you agree that discussions about such ‘emotional’ topics is also reducible to subjective preferences? If not, why not?

The idea is fairly simple, so at the risk of being told I’m repeating myself, reexamine the dilemma in post #34.

Please note that the only “risk” involved in repeating yourself is that you are ignoring the criticisms of whatever it is that you are repeating.

If I consistently use a do-least-harm reasoning then I will say it’s wrong to kill the girl if it won’t save anyone else and that it’s right if it will save one million others. Alternatively, if I consistently use a do-no-evil reasoning I’ll say it’s wrong to kill the girl no matter what.

But we all recognize that harm is evil and evil is harm, so your little dichotomy seems to break down, doesn’t it? Isn’t that why we have a ‘dilemma’?

(If inocente is right, then there are people reading this who disagree violently with this claim; if you exist, please make yourselves known, and don’t spare the emotion. )

Both types of reasoning also lead to the same conclusion that in general killing is wrong. There are other possible types of reasoning too, but we would probably all agree that any type of reasoning is faulty if it doesn’t conclude that in general killing is wrong.

Sticking with just do-least-harm and do-no-evil, the contention is:

(a) There’s no objective means to choose between them, no logic by which we can conclude either is inherently faulty. Therefore whichever we happen to choose is a subjective preference.

(b) It’s hard for us to openly-minded switch between the two – we intuitively want there to be one good answer to the dilemma and find it hard to accept other answers.

(c) The fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general can fool us into believing there’s one objective morality.

Here’s where you’re repeating yourself (not bad in itself) but ignoring the criticism that has been offered of your view (that’s bad).

1. Your proposition (c) still does not follow from (a) and (b).
2. Proposition (c) is an arbitrary and groundless assertion that begs the question about there being no objective morality. If “both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general,” why conclude that we are being ‘fooled’ into believing “there’s one objective morality”? Why is it not the case that the “general production of same answers” is evidence FOR the existence of objective morality?

 

[inocente]

okay… relevance?

I know it’s been a few days but you said “Or could it be that you never gave your own answer [to the DILEMMA] …” and I was replying that I did already give my answer and that you appeared to have missed it. Clear now?

But we all recognize that harm is evil and evil is harm, so your little dichotomy seems to break down, doesn’t it? Isn’t that why we have a ‘dilemma’?

It’s kind of basic that different systems produce different answers in specific cases – do-no-evil says never kill, do-least-harm says otherwise.

*Here’s where you’re repeating yourself (not bad in itself) but ignoring the criticism that has been offered of your view (that’s bad).

1. Your proposition (c) still does not follow from (a) and (b).
2. Proposition (c) is an arbitrary and groundless assertion that begs the question about there being no objective morality. If “both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general,” why conclude that we are being ‘fooled’ into believing “there’s one objective morality”? Why is it not the case that the “general production of same answers” is evidence FOR the existence of objective morality?*

1. Prop (c) doesn’t need to follow from (a) or (b), did I say it did?
2. The Earth’s average temperature is 13 degrees Celsius, so you objectively assert that everywhere on Earth is always 13 degrees Celsius?

 

[Betterave]

I know it’s been a few days but you said “Or could it be that you never gave your own answer [to the DILEMMA] …” and I was replying that I did already give my answer and that you appeared to have missed it. Clear now?

You’re right, I missed that. Please note your post 57, however: “Note I never gave my own answer because it’s irrelevant.” Now yes, you did give your own answer (completely unreasoned and unexplained), but still: weren’t you right the first time? It’s irrelevant? And it may be the case that you are the type to jump to some unreasoned conclusion and get emotional about it and ignore the other side of this issue - but my contention is that that isn’t typical when it comes to recognizable moral dilemmas (and even if it was typical, as I’ve pointed out, so what?), so your response still invites the question: relevance?

It’s kind of basic that different systems produce different answers in specific cases – do-no-evil says never kill, do-least-harm says otherwise.

Well you’ve obviously got your basic facts wrong here: do-no-evil certainly does not say “never kill” - where did you get that idea from?

1. Prop (c) doesn’t need to follow from (a) or (b), did I say it did?

So what is it’s relation to the other statements then?? Were you intending to piece together a coherent series of thoughts… or what?

1. The Earth’s average temperature is 13 degrees Celsius, so you objectively assert that everywhere on Earth is always 13 degrees Celsius?

What?! Are you trying to imply that this statement is analogous to mine? (You didn’t SAY that you were, so I won’t assume… )

 

[Spock]

I cannot agree with what you just said, if I understood it correctly. Moral standards do exist, are fixed, and are inflexible. However, what I was trying to say was that you have to examine the details of a case to determine which moral standards do apply to the said case in the first place.

Of course, I do not agree, but that is not relevant right now. Let’s play on your playing field, and explore it a bit further.

All murders are immoral. However, to say that a death of a person was immoral, you first have to prove that a murder took place, and you can know this only by knowing the details of the case. When murder did happen, then you can safely say that what happened was immoral, because a murder took place. What could change is the culpability of the murderer (whether the murder was coerced or pre-meditated, for example) and the severity of the immorality (swiftly killing vs. torture or rape before the murder).

All that hinges on the definition of murder. You say that all the circumstances must be taken into account to decide if a murder actually took place or not. Which is fine, but without a proper definition it just hangs in the air. So please, define “murder” for me, so we can go on. To show the difficulties, let me present a few problems.

1. State sanctioned executions are usually not considered “murder”.
2. Killing in a war is usually not considered to be a “murder”. (Also consider “colleteral damage”.)
3. Killing someone in self-defense is usually not considered to be a “murder”.

Also what does “self-defense” mean? Does it only apply to oneself? Or does it apply to protect one’s children? Or the neighbor’s children? Or the neigbor’s life ? Or protect a total stranger’s life?

1. And do not forget suicide, as well.
2. Consider a patient in presistent vegetative state. To maintain “life” costs a ton of money, and that money could be spent on saving other people’s lives (who will die, if you keep on maintaining the person in coma).
3. What about life-boat situations? Two people, limited supply of provisions, enough for one, but insufficient for two.

You see, it is not that simple at all. Try to make sure that your definition of murder will answer all these problems.

The same thing with “gravely disordered sexual activities.” Let us take for example homosexual practices. All homosexual behaviors are immoral. However, to be a homosexual is not. You have to know the details first of a case of sexual impropriety to determine whether homosexual behavior, or any other kind of sexual impropriety did happen before you can say what happened was immoral. And then you still have to check the details for the severity of the impropriety and the culpability of the participants.

On this topic we cannot agree. The behavior of adults is their own business. But I will quote an old joke to show the problem.

An old lady calls the police and tells that the couple in the apartment across from hers engages in most disgusting sexual practices, and she asks the help of the police to stop those people. Two officers come out and ask the lady to show them what happens. When they look out the window, they see nothing at all. The lady says: “Well, you cannot see it from where you stand. But come up here…” - and she climbs up on the top of a wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, and leans out way to the side - “… and then you will see how disgusting their behavior is!”.

All I can say, mind your own business, and stop judging other people’s behavior, as long as that behavior does not interfere with yours. And, no, “knowing about” what they might or might not do, in none of your concern.

 

[Spock]

It seems that you’ve very dogmatically espoused the position that “thoughts don’t matter,” morally speaking, since(?) morality is only about the effect one has “on someone else.” So, questions:

1. Do you grant that you have done so?
2. Are you satisfied with doing so?

I think so, but I sense that you disagree, which is fine. By the way, I don’t like the adjective of “dogmatic”. I am not in the position to issue “dogmas”.

To make sure that I stated my postion clearly, I will repeat: “A thought, which does not result in an action is morally irrelevant”. Now suppose that “telekinesis” actually can happen, and just by thinking about a brick to hit someone on the head will make that brick hit that person, then I will change my views.

 

[inocente]

You’re right, I missed that.

btw I’m using do-least-harm reasoning but as you agree with me that it’s irrelevant, perhaps we could drop it.

Well you’ve obviously got your basic facts wrong here: do-no-evil certainly does not say “never kill” - where did you get that idea from?

In the case of the dilemma doesn’t do-no-evil say it would always be murder? If not, swap it for Kantian ethics, where killing the girl would always be wrong by violating her human dignity.

So what is it’s relation to the other statements then?? Were you intending to piece together a coherent series of thoughts… or what?

Never said the conclusions were interdependent, they follow independently.

What?! Are you trying to imply that this statement is analogous to mine? (You didn’t SAY that you were, so I won’t assume… )

Yes, you would be ignoring the distribution by taking an average (“Why is it not the case that the “general production of same answers” is evidence FOR the existence of objective morality?”). That is, if you stand back far enough you’ll find agreement. I mean congrats on your diplomatic skill for finding a compromise, but the math doesn’t follow.

 

[Betterave]

btw I’m using do-least-harm reasoning but as you agree with me that it’s irrelevant, perhaps we could drop it.

Would do, but…

In the case of the dilemma doesn’t do-no-evil say it would always be murder? If not, swap it for Kantian ethics, where killing the girl would always be wrong by violating her human dignity.

aren’t you going right back to the same well of irrelevance here? So I can’t drop it if you won’t.

Never said the conclusions were interdependent, they follow independently.

But here’s the problem(!): What conclusions?? They follow independently from what?? Are your (a), (b), and (c) all conclusions? Where are the premises they are supposed to follow from? You need to explain stuff like this. It’s is not at all obvious from what you write (at least to me - if there is anyone else who understands the intended logical structure of inocente’s argument, please speak up).

Yes, you would be ignoring the distribution by taking an average (“Why is it not the case that the “general production of same answers” is evidence FOR the existence of objective morality?”). That is, if you stand back far enough you’ll find agreement. I mean congrats on your diplomatic skill for finding a compromise, but the math doesn’t follow.

That’s nonsense though. There was nothing about “taking an average” in what I (and you) wrote. We were referring to (and I quote *you *here) "the fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general ." If you think that that is “taking an average,” I must suggest that you don’t know what it means to take an average. You seem to be confusing “in general” with “on average.” (You also seem to be selectively ignoring a great deal of the criticism I post of your view - is that intentional?)

 

[Betterave]

I think so, but I sense that you disagree, which is fine. By the way, I don’t like the adjective of “dogmatic”. I am not in the position to issue “dogmas”.

You’re not in that position, maybe true (or maybe not? - you can still issue dogmas, even if no one agrees with you, can’t you?), but that’s not what ‘dogmatic’ means, so that’s irrelevant. According to Merriam-Webster:

dogmatic: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

So you may still not like the adjective ‘dogmatic,’ but do you have any real reason to object to its use to characterize your position?

To make sure that I stated my postion clearly, I will repeat: “A thought, which does not result in an action is morally irrelevant”. Now suppose that “telekinesis” actually can happen, and just by thinking about a brick to hit someone on the head will make that brick hit that person, then I will change my views.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Spock]

So you may still not like the adjective ‘dogmatic,’ but do you have any real reason to object to its use to characterize your position?

Personal preference. And also I made sure that it is visible that my opinion is not cast in stone, by stipulating that “if thoughts could have physical effects, then I would have to reconsider and accept that thoughts can be included in the realm of moral questions”. Without this ability, it is my opinion (and not a “fact”) that one’s thoughts should not be characterized either as “moral” or “immoral”. Wanted to add this as clarification.

Thanks for the clarification.

You are most welcome.

 

[dskysmine]

There already was a discussion about “objective morality” that was closed in the morality area.

Objective morality is real in the same sense that existence is real. Once you acknowledge the world is real, objective morality is the only possibility.

The premises for objective morality are: Life, knowledge and universality.
Why? Life is the only way to perceive reality, knowledge is the only way to understand it, and universality is the acknowledgement of reality and human nature.

One can do immoral things that don’t have to end someone’s life, but universality makes us understand that if everyone would do the same it would lead to death (for example: excessive resource consumption) and that everything we do affects everything around us.

The fact that these premisses result in a variety of “rules” like: “Thou shalt not kill”, and others doesn’t mean that they weren’t present before… they are “just” some conclusions of the premises.

Of course this only makes sense if you are human and have “premises”, that is, you “value”. People without values don’t understand the “value” of knowledge, or life, or universality.

Best of wishes,
Daniel

 

[inocente]

That’s nonsense though. There was nothing about “taking an average” in what I (and you) wrote. We were referring to (and I quote *you *here) "the fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general ." If you think that that is “taking an average,” I must suggest that you don’t know what it means to take an average. You seem to be confusing “in general” with “on average.” (You also seem to be selectively ignoring a great deal of the criticism I post of your view - is that intentional?)
(sigh )

(c) The fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general can fool us into believing there’s one objective morality.

OK, let’s try a diagram for (c). Two circles, A representing conclusions from do-no-evil and B for do-least-harm.

http://cnx.org/content/m15196/latest/i3.gif

The intersection in cyan represents the common conclusion that in general murder is wrong.

We could add circles for other systems C, D, etc. but we make it a criterion that these systems can only grace our diagram if they also intersect (i.e. we exclude any system that says murder is generally good on the basis it is downright unreasonable).

So we end-up with lots of intersecting circles, one for each reasonable system. They each draw different conclusions in some specific cases (where they don’t intersect) but happen to agree in others (where they do) because we made that a criterion for inclusion.

But hang on, that doesn’t mean the intersection represents an objective morality, it’s just an artifact produced by our criterion. So we may be fooling ourselves by thinking there’s an objective morality - not only is it based on us subjectively wanting certain general conclusions, it also ignores all the specific cases where differing systems don’t intersect.

(graphic - Singh, Sunil. Intersection of sets. Connexions. 19 Oct. 2007)

 

[Betterave]

(sigh )

“sigh”? What does that mean, inocente?

 

[Betterave]

(c) The fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general can fool us into believing there’s one objective morality.

OK, let’s try a diagram for (c). Two circles, A representing conclusions from do-no-evil and B for do-least-harm.

http://cnx.org/content/m15196/latest/i3.gif

The intersection in cyan represents the common conclusion that in general murder is wrong.

We could add circles for other systems C, D, etc. but we make it a criterion that these systems can only grace our diagram if they also intersect (i.e. we exclude any system that says murder is generally good on the basis it is downright unreasonable).

So we end-up with lots of intersecting circles, one for each reasonable system. They each draw different conclusions in some specific cases (where they don’t intersect) but happen to agree in others (where they do) because we made that a criterion for inclusion.

And you do get that none of this has anything to do with “taking an average,” don’t you??

But hang on, that doesn’t mean the intersection represents an objective morality, it’s just an artifact produced by our criterion.

No, the intersection is *not *" just an artifact produced by our criterion" (whatever that means); it’s a visual presentation of the convergence of various strands of reasoning towards a set of common conclusions.

So we may be fooling ourselves by thinking there’s an objective morality - not only is it based on us subjectively wanting certain general conclusions,…

How is it “based on us subjectively wanting certain general conclusions”??

…it also ignores all the specific cases where differing systems don’t intersect.

How does it do that?? How is “thinking there’s an objective morality” contingent upon “ignoring all the specific cases where differing systems don’t intersect”? You don’t explain this. And it appears not to make sense.

 

[Betterave]

Personal preference. And also I made sure that it is visible that my opinion is not cast in stone, by stipulating that “if thoughts could have physical effects, then I would have to reconsider and accept that thoughts can be included in the realm of moral questions”. Without this ability, it is my opinion (and not a “fact”) that one’s thoughts should not be characterized either as “moral” or “immoral”. Wanted to add this as clarification.

Given this clarification, the adjective ‘dogmatic’ clearly no longer applies.

The question seems to be, however, how could we possibly NOT affirm the antecedent of your conditional? Surely thoughts have physical effects? I don’t see how one could deny this.

 

[P_A_L]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

If by “agree or disagree” you’re talking about his “motives”, his motives are irrelevant, he deprived others of their right to live and pursue happiness.

 

[Spock]

Given this clarification, the adjective ‘dogmatic’ clearly no longer applies.

The question seems to be, however, how could we possibly NOT affirm the antecedent of your conditional? Surely thoughts have physical effects? I don’t see how one could deny this.

Yes, of course. Thoughts do have physical effects on our own bodies. Thoughts cannot have effects on someone else’s bodies, unless the thought is transformed into actions. In and by themselves (without actions) thoughts are “inert”. If I imagine (or think) to give some some donation to a homeless (but do not carry it out), there will be no change in the life of that homeless. So the thoughts themselves are not subject to “moral judgment”.

I am aware that Jesus said: “Whoever looked at a woman with lust, already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Since adultery is “sin”, this would make the thought itself a “sinful” act. But I do not accept this.

 

[dskysmine]

Yes, of course. Thoughts do have physical effects on our own bodies. Thoughts cannot have effects on someone else’s bodies, unless the thought is transformed into actions. In and by themselves (without actions) thoughts are “inert”. If I imagine (or think) to give some some donation to a homeless (but do not carry it out), there will be no change in the life of that homeless. So the thoughts themselves are not subject to “moral judgment”.

I am aware that Jesus said: “Whoever looked at a woman with lust, already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Since adultery is “sin”, this would make the thought itself a “sinful” act. But I do not accept this.

You think that racist people who don’t act on their “thoughts” are no longer racists?
I fail to see why… It is a sin in that it is a sin to yourself and your knowledge of the world around you, just like the lust example.