So why don’t we start with a basic question: Does a given act cause harm?Pug:
From what I’ve seen in practice, most moral systems develop by working backwards. People take basic, common sense moral statements and reason about why certain things are wrong. Then they use those principles to figure out what we should do with harder cases.
This was written to me, Pug, but IQ170 is the original poster. I’m thinking there is a mixup? No worries, though.
Most people don’t seem to follow an overarching system, meticulously worked out and consistently followed, I agree. And when I investigate a system I want to know if it allows crazy things that seem wrong.
I agree nearly all have an idea of right and wrong conduct. I agree there are some major areas of overlap, like rules about killing. Principles, hmmmm, I don’t know.
Exactly.
To create a functioning society we need a working legal system. Whether that system is “moral” or not can only be debated, but cannot be decided, due to the fact of different meta-ethical approaches.
I have to disagree. That “innate” sense of ethics is not “innate” at all. It is the result of our upbringing during the early years of development. If you look at a random selection of small children, they are all vicious, selfish, little brutes, and it takes a considerable time and effort to “chisel them down” into decent, cooperating little human beings.
I wish we had moved away from it. But every nation-state (or any subset of it) is based upon forcing a legal or similar code upon its subjects.
Yes, that is THE starting point. We are biological creatures, which means that we try to avoid pain and obtain pleasure. Of course it would be ridiculously simplistic to stop here. Because we are also individuals and herd animals. And these two aspects of our nature must be taken into consideration. (Observe the lack of “scare quotes” around the word nature.
)C’mon, Pug. This isn’t a Most Difficult Question Of The Week contender.
If you were actually lying to your wife in the above example then despite her not being harmed and despite the fact that you were saying this to make her feel good, if you have lied then you have committed an objectively sinful act (even if it is a venial sin).
Well, those are the rules under which you play, Brendan. I’m not harmed, she’s not harmed (in fact I’ve made her feel pretty good). So there’s no problem.Wozza:
If you were actually lying to your wife in the above example then despite her not being harmed and despite the fact that you were saying this to make her feel good, if you have lied then you have committed an objectively sinful act (even if it is a venial sin).
Was harmed. You mean could be or will be? Otherwise if I shoot to barely miss (and the guy doesn’t notice) there was no harm no foul?
Its a system based on objective morality, as opposed to subjective morality. Once we go down the road of subjective morality, then ultimately anything goes. And there is also another factor to consider, the relationship with God, which is harmed by sin. Lying creates the illusion of a false reality and by doing so are we not effectively denying the reality that God has created?
That’s a fallacy.Wozza:
Its a system based on objective morality, as opposed to subjective morality. Once we go down the road of subjective morality, then ultimately anything goes.
Yes, humans seem to benefit from working legal systems or societal structures/controls. I think people can discuss pragmatic outcomes with some profit (do this and it results in that, etc). We already seem to largely agree that it is not “best” to dump all criminals down a hole and cement it over, since we don’t do exactly that (in my locale).
These are not mutually exclusive possibilities. And considering certain questions gives us the opportunity to learn from listening other viewpoints.
Indeed there was not. Whether you aim to miss by a hair-width or a mile does not matter. And littering can cause harm to others.
No one is harmed by discrimination, unless being offended constitutes harm. Or does indirect harm count?
I can’t agree, unless we qualify that the shooter had serious reason to run the risk. I agree one instance of littering could cause harm to some unknown future person, but it seems remote in many instances.
I don’t think we can just limit it to physical harm. You can be mentally harmed by constantly being considered a second class citizen.Wozza:
No one is harmed by discrimination, unless being offended constitutes harm. Or does indirect harm count?
talking past each other,… seems I just noticed this in a discussion about climate change,…IQ170:
The conclusion seems unwarranted. A consequentialist say, and a deontologist may well agree on some things. To better understand each other, they should be clear about their own underlying axioms. Often people offer some type of “why” even if you don’t ask. I see no reason why with time they might not come to understand the position of the other to some extent. If they understand each other well enough, person X might even help person Y refine Y’s own position.
here an irresistible force “science” seemingly meets an immovable object “faith”
and WRT the issue being discussed in the other thread,… does not seem like a possibility???
What if she finds out the truth later? I would say that would be more harmful than telling her the truth when she asks.
I can’t act with such disregard for the life of another without internal harm to myself. For no reason I have exposed another to significant risk to life should the wind change or I trip or whatever. Choosing to do so expresses a change in my valuation of the other. I value them less. I don’t want to value people less, so this would cause a loss of consistency or maybe integrity in me. They are worth basic precautions for their life to me. I’m probably of less overall use to them/society as well, if I can’t see it worth my time to take basic precautions. Being the way I am, it could cause me to proceed to overvalue or more likely undervalue myself too, right along with the other.