Morality Vote & Discussion

[Morality Games]

The moralist can only work within a statistical degree of certainty. Whereas two engines can be exactly alike , no two humans are exactly alike.

Humans are more alike than their external behavior would dictate, which is why they can easily be reduced to crowds, mobs, and the general public of society. In their innermost being people are guided by the same instincts and desires -- it is the culture they are born in which teaches them how to deal with these mental forces. People are predisposed and are taught to deal with them in different ways, but the underlying uniformity of their instincts and desires makes morality as a practical discipline possible.

The moralist, in so far as he is not a pseudo-moralist, just needs identify these instincts and desires and develop the morality which will satisfy them in a way which benefits humanity. The mortality he develops functions like the technology of engineers in that it aims to satisfy the psychological conditions of human beings.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality GamesHumans are more alike than their external behavior would dictate, which is why they can easily be reduced to crowds, mobs, and the general public of society.

Yes, which is why psychology and sociology work to a degree.

In their innermost being people are guided by the same instincts and desires -it is the culture they are born in which teaches them how to deal with these mental forces. People are predisposed and are taught to deal with them in different ways, but the underlying uniformity of their instincts and desires makes morality as a practical discipline possible.

Here though I somewhat disagree. The desires and instincts are relatively similar , but they differ in intensity for each individual and this not only because of culture but because of social status within the culture. Also to a degree because of physical upbringing. A child well nourished will react better than a child half starved.

The moralist, in so far as he is not a pseudo-moralist, just needs identify these instincts and desires and develop the morality which will satisfy them in a way which benefits humanity. The mortality he develops functions like the technology of engineers in that it aims to satisfy the psychological conditions of human beings.

My problem with this is it appears to reek of conditioning. I am a great believer in diversity. I do not see that humans are meant to be satisfied by a rigorous regime of morality, it works only for those who seek to rule others.
Albeit we need a basic similar attitude towards a morality , but no one rule fits all cases.

[Tycoon]

Killing only becomes immoral when it can't be justified. It is not immoral to kill to save yours or another's life. Nor is it immoral to assist a suicide if that person is dieing and in pain, or even abortion is not immoral. Yet many would say it is.

You're putting two separate acts together that cannot be put together. Killing is one act, and saving somebody is another. To kill a murderer is immoral but saving the person they're trying to murder is necessary.

Yet telling a paedophile that his actions harm children also causes him to feel harmed by the accusation. Sometimes causing harm is unavoidable, yet moral.

But it is necessary. They are two separate actions, protecting the children and accusing the pedophile. One is immoral but justified by the other.

[SoylentGreen]

Tycoon;]You're putting two separate acts together that cannot be put together. Killing is one act, and saving somebody is another. To kill a murderer is immoral but saving the person they're trying to murder is necessary.

Why would killing a murderer be immoral if by doing so you save another's life. And I don't mean a public execution of a murderer, but shooting someone just before they shoot you or another.

But it is necessary. They are two separate actions, protecting the children and accusing the pedophile. One is immoral but justified by the other.

I used the pedophile analogy deliberately. As can be shown on the pedophile threads ,( and yes , i know your to young to read them, he he) Many of the pedophiles feel that they cause no harm by their actions but are harmed by the banning of their activities. Harm is relative to the beholder.

[loser]

Personal relativism obviously can lead to many opposing views of what is right, which is a logical impossibility (after all, who is right: the serial killer, or the pacifist?)

It doesn't matter...it's relative. It's not logically impossible, it's impossibly logical. What's morally acceptable for you may not be so for me. Your conscience dictates your morals and they indeed may change in time. This doesn't make them frivolous or meritless. It's perfectly acceptable for a two year old toddler to run down the aisle of a church naked; it would not be so if he was 50. This is why different cultures have different standards and we should not be so quick to judge the behavior of people from other cultures. What we find unacceptable in our world may actually be the norm in theirs.

Personal relativism...how could it be any different?

[Tycoon]

Why would killing a murderer be immoral if by doing so you save another's life. And I don't mean a public execution of a murderer, but shooting someone just before they shoot you or another.

You're still putting together two separate actions. The act of murder is still immoral by definition, but in such a situation that act is justified by the act of saving yourself or another.

I understand the point of view you are coming from, looking at the situation overall rather than breaking it down into separate actions, but the situation is made up of separate actions, what matters is how they fit together. Is the immoral act justified by a necessary one?

I used the pedophile analogy deliberately. As can be shown on the pedophile threads ,( and yes , i know your to young to read them, he he) Many of the pedophiles feel that they cause no harm by their actions but are harmed by the banning of their activities. Harm is relative to the beholder.

No, it is not. The morality of actions is determined through logic, not through perspectives. Logic says that it is immoral to do sexual things to young children because they cannot give true consent and because they will not understand, they will be confused, scared.

You cannot look at it through the eyes of the pedophile or through the eyes of the man arresting them or the eyes of the man making the laws against it.

Logic says pedophilia is wrong, logic says causing them emotional harm is wrong, but necessary.

[Yasa]

Quote by: loser It doesn't matter...it's relative. It's not logically impossible, it's impossibly logical. What's morally acceptable for you may not be so for me. Your conscience dictates your morals and they indeed may change in time. This doesn't make them frivolous or meritless. It's perfectly acceptable for a two year old toddler to run down the aisle of a church naked; it would not be so if he was 50. This is why different cultures have different standards and we should not be so quick to judge the behavior of people from other cultures. What we find unacceptable in our world may actually be the norm in theirs. Personal relativism...how could it be any different?

I am in full agreement. What I was saying is that given my definition of personal relativism, when someone thinks something is right--it is right because what is right depends on only their opinion. This, of course, leads to the arbitrary standard of morality in which everybody is right--even the opposing views. All I was saying is that it's impossible for logical opposites to both be right given the law of non-contradiction (it's impossible for something to be right and wrong at the same time).

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon No, it is not. The morality of actions is determined through logic, not through perspectives. Logic says that it is immoral to do sexual things to young children because they cannot give true consent and because they will not understand, they will be confused, scared. You cannot look at it through the eyes of the pedophile or through the eyes of the man arresting them or the eyes of the man making the laws against it. Logic says pedophilia is wrong, logic says causing them emotional harm is wrong, but necessary.

I strongly disagree with this. Is it wrong to do something necessary? If so, then how can it be necessary? Shouldn't wrong things be unnecessary and avoided?

You can look at it through the eyes of anybody and yet will only have your own personal thoughts on the matter. Logic cannot account for morals in entirety because right and wrong deal with much more than the logic side of people. Actions that could be considered right or wrong are done a lot of the time out of instinct and mostly emotion. You can attempt to give an argument to defend why something is wrong using your logic, however that is not always satisfying because what you believe to be bad and good is purely subjective.

Ex.
1. Bubblegum is gross.
2. Anything gross should be illegal.
Therefore,
3. Bubblegum should be illegal.

This is the kind of stuff that morality is often about. While most of us with similar capacities for sympathy, empathy, perception of various feelings, etc. can come to many conclusions about what should be considered wrong, it's only a faulty appeal to majority. There is no absolute say on the matter of what is right and what is wrong, especially as long as there exist those who disagree (as there undoubtedly always will be).

So, serial murder may indeed seem wrong to most of us, but for the killer it might be seen as a need, an instinct, and most certainly a good/correct thing to do. Your logic will only give you your opinion and not an absolute say on the matter.

The problem arises when you try and define just what "wrong" or "right" is. As you are probably aware, people will disagree. When you base logic off of such a definition, it becomes arbitrary to what you see as right and wrong, so the logic is not universal.

[Tycoon]

I strongly disagree with this. Is it wrong to do something necessary? If so, then how can it be necessary? Shouldn't wrong things be unnecessary and avoided?

War is wrong, war is terrible, but in some cases it is necessary. World War Two was necessary because a man like Hitler could not be allowed to continue his campaign.

You can look at it through the eyes of anybody and yet will only have your own personal thoughts on the matter. Logic cannot account for morals in entirety because right and wrong deal with much more than the logic side of people. Actions that could be considered right or wrong are done a lot of the time out of instinct and mostly emotion.

Just because the actions themselves were done out of instinct or emotion does not affect their morality. Murder could be done for revenge, for pleasure, for any number of reasons that would seem good to the murderer but do not truly justify that action.

You can attempt to give an argument to defend why something is wrong using your logic, however that is not always satisfying because what you believe to be bad and good is purely subjective.

What you believe is purely subjective, what the truth is is not. If you want to understand morality truly you must look at it from all sides of the issue, from no side of the issue. You must be entirely neutral, and use logic to determine the truth.

Ex. 1. Bubblegum is gross. 2. Anything gross should be illegal. Therefore, 3. Bubblegum should be illegal.

But this is an example of looking at the issue from a biased perspective rather than a neutral perspective. Not everybody believes bubblegum is gross. Gross is an opinion, a perspective, and therefore what is considered gross can never be outlawed because to some it is not.

This is the kind of stuff that morality is often about. While most of us with similar capacities for sympathy, empathy, perception of various feelings, etc. can come to many conclusions about what should be considered wrong, it's only a faulty appeal to majority. There is no absolute say on the matter of what is right and what is wrong, especially as long as there exist those who disagree (as there undoubtedly always will be).

There is a correct answer to every issue, if you look hard enough and try to overcome your own personal issues or opinions.

So, serial murder may indeed seem wrong to most of us, but for the killer it might be seen as a need, an instinct, and most certainly a good/correct thing to do. Your logic will only give you your opinion and not an absolute say on the matter.

Logic is not a matter of opinion, logic is impartial.

The problem arises when you try and define just what "wrong" or "right" is. As you are probably aware, people will disagree. When you base logic off of such a definition, it becomes arbitrary to what you see as right and wrong, so the logic is not universal.

I'm not basing logic off of such a definition, I am basing such a definition off of logic. Logic is always universal.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonThe act of murder is still immoral by definition,

Whose definition.? Your starting from the point that murder has already been defined , but given nothing to show why it has been defined.

Logic says pedophilia is wrong, logic says causing them emotional harm is wrong, but necessary

.
The point is though the pedophile will construct a personally developed logic to justify his position. Even though others can find fault in the logic , to him it does not matter, in the end his morality is justified to him self.

Developing a logic to morality is all very fine if we were Vulcans , but we are not we are human. We define morality from a personal perspective not a universal one. that they can be similar to others only shows that humans are similar to other humans.

Logic is not a matter of opinion, logic is impartial.

And the logic of those who wish to rule is for others to be subservient. The logic for those who feel oppressed by their ruler is not to be subservient.

Yasall I was saying is that it's impossible for logical opposites to both be right given the law of non-contradiction (it's impossible for something to be right and wrong at the same time).

Unfortunately when dealing with emotions , logic doesn't always cut it.
What about a white lie, The lie you tell to spare someone's feelings.
Lying is wrong , but sometimes it is the right thing to do.

[Tycoon]

Whose definition.? Your starting from the point that murder has already been defined , but given nothing to show why it has been defined.

Murder is wrong because it denies other people their natural right to live, murder is a disregard for life, and I'm fairly certain it's something you wanted want to happen to yourself.

The point is though the pedophile will construct a personally developed logic to justify his position. Even though others can find fault in the logic , to him it does not matter, in the end his morality is justified to him self. Developing a logic to morality is all very fine if we were Vulcans , but we are not we are human. We define morality from a personal perspective not a universal one. that they can be similar to others only shows that humans are similar to other humans.

But it is not his morality that matters, it is flawed, it is false. Regardless of personal justifications the issue should be decided by impartial logic.

We define morality from a personal perspective, but we are wrong. There is always a correct and logical answer.

And the logic of those who wish to rule is for others to be subservient. The logic for those who feel oppressed by their ruler is not to be subservient.

Then neither is true logic, it is biased.

Unfortunately when dealing with emotions , logic doesn't always cut it. What about a white lie, The lie you tell to spare someone's feelings. Lying is wrong , but sometimes it is the right thing to do.

Then it's justified.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonMurder is wrong because it denies other people their natural right to live, murder is a disregard for life, and I'm fairly certain it's something you wanted want to happen to yourself.

A natural right to life? Where do you get that from?
In nature each animal is a potential food source for another. They have no natural right to live, only the ability to survive. The spider has as much right to survive as the fly.

Regardless of personal justifications the issue should be decided by impartial logic.

In logic if the premise is true and the conclusion is true then we have a true argument. But, true only works for objective truth. ie. the sky is blue. it does not work for subjective truth, ie. A pedophiles belief that he causes no harm.
Logic is a form of reason, not the reason itself.

Then neither is true logic, it is biased.

True, which is why objective morality doesn't work. There is always a bias.

Then it's justified.

Even though it is biased?

[Tycoon]

A natural right to life? Where do you get that from? In nature each animal is a potential food source for another. They have no natural right to live, only the ability to survive. The spider has as much right to survive as the fly.

Is it necessary for the murderer to end the other person's life? Are they doing it for survival? Or are they doing it just to make themselves feel better? They are not truly justified.

In logic if the premise is true and the conclusion is true then we have a true argument. But, true only works for objective truth. ie. the sky is blue. it does not work for subjective truth, ie. A pedophiles belief that he causes no harm. Logic is a form of reason, not the reason itself.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. All I know is that logic says the pedophile is causing unnecessary harm to children for selfish, unjustified and immoral reasons.

True, which is why objective morality doesn't work. There is always a bias.

Objective morality is the only true morality, if we don't follow it then that is our mistake. That does not mean we shouldn't strive to.

Even though it is biased?

It's not biased. They are lying, and they know it, but they are justified because they are trying to protect somebody. There's no bias in that logic.

[Morality Games]

Here though I somewhat disagree. The desires and instincts are relatively similar , but they differ in intensity for each individual and this not only because of culture but because of social status within the culture.

The moralist would take these differences into account -- there are certain statistical patterns who can analyze and develop the appropriate responses to. For instance, an aggressive person might have more trouble exercising the moral not to beat up their kids when they do something annoying, but on the other hand he might be better at practicing the moral to help a person being attacked by a mugger.

Also to a degree because of physical upbringing. A child well nourished will react better than a child half starved.

Which is why taking good care of children is a common value wherever you go -- much as aspirin is as a common medicine and a vacuums a common household appliance.

My problem with this is it appears to reek of conditioning. I am a great believer in diversity. I do not see that humans are meant to be satisfied by a rigorous regime of morality, it works only for those who seek to rule others.

Most moralities aren't rigorous once you grow accustomed to them.

Albeit we need a basic similar attitude towards a morality , but no one rule fits all cases.

Well, Aristotle taught that human beings can be divided into types depending on their nature (which would be our instincts and desires and such), and that each type practices a different morality, but these moralities are all compatible with one another, and each contributes toward the totality of society's well being -- so there is no need for there to be just one morality, anymore than there is a need for there to be just one type of technology or medicine.

[SoylentGreen]

Tycoon;]Is it necessary for the murderer to end the other person's life? Are they doing it for survival? Or are they doing it just to make themselves feel better? They are not truly justified.

But the question isn't whether it is necessary, but when it does occur.
First you state that murder has been defined, now you change it to not justified.
Who defined it? Who says it is not justified?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. All I know is that logic says the pedophile is causing unnecessary harm to children for selfish, unjustified and immoral reasons.

No logic does not say that , logic does not say anything.
Logic is not reasoning itself. It is a tool used to show that an argument has the qualities of being valid, sound and true.

Objective morality is the only true morality, if we don't follow it then that is our mistake. That does not mean we shouldn't strive to.

For it to be objective then it must show that it is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
What facts do you base morality on when there is nothing that can actually be pointed to and say that is a moral.

It's not biased. They are lying, and they know it, but they are justified because they are trying to protect somebody. There's no bias in that logic

So on one hand we have the fact that it is a lie, Lying is immoral.
On the other hand it is justified to act immoral to avoid hurting someones feelings unnecessarily. You break one moral, telling the truth, to create another moral, being nice to someone. So you have weighed up the value of two morals to find one in preference to the other. That is taking a bias.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality Games;The moralist would take these differences into account -- there are certain statistical patterns who can analyze and develop the appropriate responses to. For instance, an aggressive person might have more trouble exercising the moral not to beat up their kids when they do something annoying, but on the other hand he might be better at practicing the moral to help a person being attacked by a mugger.

The key words there are statistical pattern.
For morality to be a science like enginerring or physics it needs to do better than a statistical patern. That is why subjects like philosophy , sociology and psychology are humanities subjects , not science subjects.

Which is why taking good care of children is a common value wherever you go -- much as aspirin is as a common medicine and a vacuums a common household appliance.

But until that can be garanteed then all the combined random influences will make morality unpredictable

Most moralities aren't rigorous once you grow accustomed to them.

Must try that one day

Well, Aristotle taught that human beings can be divided into types depending on their nature (which would be our instincts and desires and such), and that each type practices a different morality, but these moralities are all compatible with one another, and each contributes toward the totality of society's well being -- so there is no need for there to be just one morality, anymore than there is a need for there to be just one type of technology or medicine.

I may be wrong but didn't Aldous Huxley write a novel about that idea, Brave New World

[Tycoon]

But the question isn't whether it is necessary, but when it does occur. First you state that murder has been defined, now you change it to not justified. Who defined it? Who says it is not justified?

Murder alone is immoral and unjustified. However when you put it together with the act of saving someone else or yourself it becomes justified.

No logic does not say that , logic does not say anything. Logic is not reasoning itself. It is a tool used to show that an argument has the qualities of being valid, sound and true.

If that's the case then logic supports the argument that pedophiles are immoral and it is necessary to stop them even if it causes them emotional harm.

For it to be objective then it must show that it is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: What facts do you base morality on when there is nothing that can actually be pointed to and say that is a moral.

There is always something to be pointed to because only action can be deemed moral or immoral, and the nature of the action determines its morality.

Like the pedophilia example. Children cannot give true consent to a pedophile and will probably be disturbed by what is done to them.

So on one hand we have the fact that it is a lie, Lying is immoral. On the other hand it is justified to act immoral to avoid hurting someones feelings unnecessarily. You break one moral, telling the truth, to create another moral, being nice to someone. So you have weighed up the value of two morals to find one in preference to the other. That is taking a bias

Well, no. It's like... would you rather a man murdered children or molested them? Logic says you'd rather they be molested, though neither is good.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonMurder alone is immoral and unjustified.

I have yet to see any reason for this , only your assurance that it is.

If that's the case then logic supports the argument that pedophiles are immoral and it is necessary to stop them even if it causes them emotional harm.

True only if you hold to the idea that the premise of "pedophiles cause harm," is true. If you do not then logic dictates that the argument is false.
The truth of that premise is entirely subjective. This is so because we have objective proof that pedophiles will argue this.

There is always something to be pointed to because only action can be deemed moral or immoral, and the nature of the action determines its morality.

I disagree, the action itself is neither moral or immoral. It is only the perception of the cause for the action that can be deemed so.

Children cannot give true consent to a pedophile and will probably be disturbed by what is done to them.

True , but try and convince a pedophile of that. His perception is completely different.

Well, no. It's like... would you rather a man murdered children or molested them? Logic says you'd rather they be molested, though neither is good.

Can you guarantee that 100% of people will agree to that. To be objective you must.

[Morality Games]

The key words there are statistical pattern. For morality to be a science like enginerring or physics it needs to do better than a statistical patern. That is why subjects like philosophy , sociology and psychology are humanities subjects , not science subjects.

I'm not really at the stage where I need to be convinced morality as a practical discipline can work. It was firmly established the instant I noticed soceties throughout history have adopted new moralities in order to better satisfy their instincts and desires, and that adopting new moralities enhanced or lowered the duration and quality of one's life -- in effect, I realized the success or failure of a morality at its aim, the enhancement of aim, was in all practical terms determinable.

A morality can't work for everybody the same way technology and medicine don't work for everybody -- but perfection and completion aren't requirements. What matters is that it works for most people, the same as technology and medicine -- that is what drives the continuing and adaptive existence of morality.

I may be wrong but didn't Aldous Huxley write a novel about that idea, Brave New World

Yes, but he had Plato in mind, and I don't mean exactly like Aristotle -- the general idea is that diversity is acceptable so long as it doesn't lead to social tensions which propagate unnecessary suffering.

But until that can be garanteed then all the combined random influences will make morality unpredictable

Morality (or at least what people will call moral) is one of the most predictable things in the world as far as I'm concerned. As predictable as the estimation of many that there would be some kind of conflict between the Sovet Union and the United States in the years immediately following World War II -- all the writing was on the wall.

If people seem complex, then it is only because you haven't thought about them enough.

[SoylentGreen]

I'm not really at the stage where I need to be convinced morality as a practical discipline can work.

I very much am. As a general guide to life yes, but a practical discipline , no. To many variables in life to make it so.

It was firmly established the instant I noticed soceties throughout history have adopted new moralities in order to better satisfy their instincts and desires, and that adopting new moralities enhanced or lowered the duration and quality of one's life -

Which to me showed there is no such thing as a universal morality. It constantly changes to suite the environment, and in most cases to suite the ruling class.

in effect, I realized the success or failure of a morality at its aim, the enhancement of aim, was in all practical terms determinable.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If it is determinable then have you worked out a way to show this?

the general idea is that diversity is acceptable so long as it doesn't lead to social tensions which propagate unnecessary suffering.

On this I agree.

Morality (or at least what people will call moral) is one of the most predictable things in the world as far as I'm concerned. As predictable as the estimation of many that there would be some kind of conflict between the Sovet Union and the United States in the years immediately following World War II -- all the writing was on the wall.

Mob mentality is predictable. Individuals never are. There is no guarantee that any individual will act predictably.

If people seem complex, then it is only because you haven't thought about them enough.

I would say it's because I think about them to much.