Morality Vote & Discussion

[Tycoon]

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

For the last time, taking life is wrong because it is obviously harm to another person, harm you would not want to come upon yourself! You are not listening to a thing I am saying! We are not talking about this in the subjective, as I am trying to prove that logic is objective! Murder is wrong regardless of personal opinion and perspective, logic dictates that!

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.

The truth of the premise is not subjective, it is proven by logic! Children cannot give consent and will be disturbed by what is done to them, so logically pedophilia is wrong, regardless of the pedophile's subjective and biased opinion.

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.

The cause of the action is not what is being examined, but the effects. The effects can be examined logically, as shown with the pedophilia example and the murder example.

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

It does not matter! Objective standards are not subject to subjective standards! Logic does not bend simply because you want it to!

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

No, an objective standard is not subject to subjective standards. If people have different perspectives or opinions than the objective standard that truly follows logic then it is the people who are biased.

[Tycoon]

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.

And you think that that is the truth of morality? No, that is the biased, twisted, false human perception of morality.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon For the last time, taking life is wrong because it is obviously harm to another person, harm you would not want to come upon yourself! You are not listening to a thing I am saying! We are not talking about this in the subjective, as I am trying to prove that logic is objective! Murder is wrong regardless of personal opinion and perspective, logic dictates that!

Your logic works only when you define wrong as "bringing harm" which can be quite vague and not agreed upon be everybody. In order for logic to dictate objective morals we have to know solidly what is right and wrong in every situation--something to which no one can claim fairly.

You use logic to deductively prove whether an action/event is right or wrong. However, you need premises which indicate just what is right and wrong. While such a premise is debatable, the logic will never 100% suffice.

Ex. Is euthanasia wrong?

Possible argument:

Things that cause harm are wrong.
Euthanasia causes harm.
Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.

However, as you might have guessed, not everyone will agree on just what "harm" is. Not only that, but even if they agree to something being harmful, it does not necessarily mean they will agree it's wrong.

Also, before you were defending things that were "necessary" yet wrong. What if causing 'harm' to another (which by your definition is wrong) is the only way for the person(s) causing harm to do something necessary. Is such an action right or wrong? Remember, it cannot be both otherwise logic can prove either conclusion and is thus useless.

[Yasa]

On a further note, if we take objective to mean the following:
"of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." it is hard to see how such morals exist. Given that for something to be good/bad right/wrong it must be judged by an observer and perceived by us. Unlike the existence of my desk, morals are not objective.

[Tycoon]

Your logic works only when you define wrong as "bringing harm" which can be quite vague and not agreed upon be everybody. In order for logic to dictate objective morals we have to know solidly what is right and wrong in every situation--something to which no one can claim fairly.

It doesn't have to be agreed upon by everybody, when I talk about objective morality I mean morality that is not subject to the biased perspectives of us humans but rather the closest we can get to unbiased reasoning.

You use logic to deductively prove whether an action/event is right or wrong. However, you need premises which indicate just what is right and wrong. While such a premise is debatable, the logic will never 100% suffice.

There is a correct answer to every question, and as long as use logic correctly it is sufficient.

Ex. Is euthanasia wrong? Possible argument: Things that cause harm are wrong. Euthanasia causes harm. Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.

It obviously depends on the situation. The person's motives must be considered, if they are doing it for the wrong motives then the right thing t do would not be to assist them in their suicide but rather to help them deal with their problem. If they have an uncurable disease that causes them great pain, and want to end it, then it is the right thing to do.

However, as you might have guessed, not everyone will agree on just what "harm" is. Not only that, but even if they agree to something being harmful, it does not necessarily mean they will agree it's wrong.

Again, objective morality is not subject to their opinion if it is unsupported by logic. If something is wrong then that can be determined by logic.

Also, before you were defending things that were "necessary" yet wrong. What if causing 'harm' to another (which by your definition is wrong) is the only way for the person(s) causing harm to do something necessary. Is such an action right or wrong? Remember, it cannot be both otherwise logic can prove either conclusion and is thus useless.

Take the example of pedophilia, when a pedophile molests a child they are doing it for selfish reasons with complete disregard to the harm they are doing to the child. It is necessary to stop that even if it causes the pedophile emotional harm.

On a further note, if we take objective to mean the following: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." it is hard to see how such morals exist. Given that for something to be good/bad right/wrong it must be judged by an observer and perceived by us. Unlike the existence of my desk, morals are not objective.

No. Take a situation, and imagine that it happened twice, and each time a different person judged the morality of the actions taken in that situation. There is only one correct and logical answer, so even though the exact same situation is being percieved two different ways only one can be correct.

[SoylentGreen]

For the last time, taking life is wrong because it is obviously harm to another person, harm you would not want to come upon yourself! You are not listening to a thing I am saying! We are not talking about this in the subjective, as I am trying to prove that logic is objective! Murder is wrong regardless of personal opinion and perspective, logic dictates that!

Well if your trying to prove it is objective then why bring it down to a subjective stance by saying " harm you would not want to come upon yourself!:. That is a subjective position.
But your wrong about what logic is. Logic does not dictate that murder is wrong. Only an argument that is sound, valid and true by the dictate of logic can do that.
What causes harm is subjective it can be true or false depending on the subjective view of it. So whether taking life is wrong or right depends entirely upon the subjective view point.

The truth of the premise is not subjective, it is proven by logic! Children cannot give consent and will be disturbed by what is done to them, so logically pedophilia is wrong, regardless of the pedophile's subjective and biased opinion.

Even given that that is true, you will still find that a pedophile will argue the truth of that premise. For him it is entirely subjective as he does not see the harm he causes.

The effects can be examined logically, as shown with the pedophilia example and the murder example.

And logic only provides a means of understanding whether an argument fits a certain criteria, not whether the argument is true or false.

It does not matter! Objective standards are not subject to subjective standards!

Again you make a statement without giving reason to accept it. There is no objective standard here, nor have you given a reason for one , just your assurance.

No, an objective standard is not subject to subjective standards. If people have different perspectives or opinions than the objective standard that truly follows logic then it is the people who are biased.

You have yet to give a reason for accepting that murder is an objective standard , you just keep repeating that it is wrong.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonIt doesn't have to be agreed upon by everybody,

For something to be objective then it does have to be agreed on by everybody.

There is a correct answer to every question, and as long as use logic correctly it is sufficient.

And what is correct for one person can be seen to be incorrect for another.
Britain sent many men to prison for stealing a loaf of bread because their children were starving. Which is correct?

It obviously depends on the situation.

Something that is objective does not have to rely on such situations.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon No. Take a situation, and imagine that it happened twice, and each time a different person judged the morality of the actions taken in that situation. There is only one correct and logical answer, so even though the exact same situation is being percieved two different ways only one can be correct.

Or, none are correct because there is no 'correct' answer.

Quote by: Tycoon It doesn't have to be agreed upon by everybody, when I talk about objective morality I mean morality that is not subject to the biased perspectives of us humans but rather the closest we can get to unbiased reasoning.

Fair enough, except that the reasoning will always be biased by everyone.

In order for us to use logic to determine if something is right or wrong we must first know what right and wrong is (hence the problem of morality). Logic itself cannot answer this question in a abstract or general form.

Quote by: Tycoon There is a correct answer to every question, and as long as use logic correctly it is sufficient.

That's a bold claim. Which type of soda is the best?

Quote by: Tycoon It obviously depends on the situation. The person's motives must be considered, if they are doing it for the wrong motives then the right thing t do would not be to assist them in their suicide but rather to help them deal with their problem. If they have an uncurable disease that causes them great pain, and want to end it, then it is the right thing to do.

So you're claiming to know the objective truth about the morality of euthanasia--a debate that has raged for many years with many supporters on both sides?

Also, what if their 'problem' is causing harm? After all, according to you, harm is wrong. On the more important note, who are you to be the judge of what are the "right" and "wrong" motives? As you can see you are using your own assumptions of what right and wrong are to logically prove whether something is right or wrong.

Quote by: Tycoon Take the example of pedophilia, when a pedophile molests a child they are doing it for selfish reasons with complete disregard to the harm they are doing to the child. It is necessary to stop that even if it causes the pedophile emotional harm.

So, situations that cause harm can be the right thing to do?

[Tycoon]

Or, none are correct because there is no 'correct' answer.

Are you saying that morality defies logic and reason? Look at it this way, as simple as I can put it.

There are, no doubt, many people who would say that homosexuality is immoral. If asked to prove it is immoral most of them would not have an answer. The rest of them might have answers but most likely answers that have faults in them.

And if there are faulty answers that must mean there is a correct one.

[Tycoon]

Fair enough, except that the reasoning will always be biased by everyone. In order for us to use logic to determine if something is right or wrong we must first know what right and wrong is (hence the problem of morality). Logic itself cannot answer this question in a abstract or general form.

There is no such thing as right and wrong, technically. When you look at a situation you should not judge it so simply as right and wrong.

For example you know that children cannot give consent to pedophiles, you know that they will be disturbed and confused, so given those two factors you know pedophilia is immoral.

That's a bold claim. Which type of soda is the best?

The purpose of soda is to sell itself, so obviously whichever soda sells the most will be best fulfilling that purpose.

[Tycoon]

So you're claiming to know the objective truth about the morality of euthanasia--a debate that has raged for many years with many supporters on both sides?

Again, it is simply my belief that there is a correct answer to every question, whether we can find it or not. It is my opinion that the people debating euthanasia are not looking at the various different situations but rather euthanasia as a whole - which is a mistake.

Also, what if their 'problem' is causing harm? After all, according to you, harm is wrong. On the more important note, who are you to be the judge of what are the "right" and "wrong" motives? As you can see you are using your own assumptions of what right and wrong are to logically prove whether something is right or wrong.

What problem could that be? Again, I'm not trying to judge over all things, but specific examples.

But when I say the wrong motives, I mean something like depression. The person may simply be tired of life, and as such want to end it. They are not solving anything by ending their life, when they could be so much happier by continuing life with a new optimistic approach. You need to give that to them rather than assist their suicide.

So, situations that cause harm can be the right thing to do?

At this point it comes down to trying to judge how much harm either side is causing, not an exact science, but still one that we should strive to do our best at. For example, you would not kill two people to save one. But say those two people were trying to kill that one person, perhaps then it becomes justified to save the innocent person rather than the murderers.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonAnd if there are faulty answers that must mean there is a correct one.

You give the same faulty logic that a theist gives in proclaiming that there religion is right and the others wrong.

Are you saying that morality defies logic and reason?

No, it is more a case that you have not given reason , just your assurance that the premise "it is obviously harm to another" is true in all cases.
It is easy enough to construct an argument in a logically correct format. The difficulty is proving that any given premise within that format is true.

[Tycoon]

You give the same faulty logic that a theist gives in proclaiming that there religion is right and the others wrong.

No, it's not faulty logic, when the theists use it it is because they make the assumption that their answer is the correct answer. I don't assume that, I prove it.

[Tycoon]

No, it is more a case that you have not given reason , just your assurance that the premise "it is obviously harm to another" is true in all cases. It is easy enough to construct an argument in a logically correct format. The difficulty is proving that any given premise within that format is true.

Every time I have given an example, such as murder or such as pedophilia, you have ignored it. If you don't want to recognize all of my points but rather ignore the ones that you can't debate against then don't debate at all.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tycoon No, it's not faulty logic, when the theists use it it is because they make the assumption that their answer is the correct answer. I don't assume that, I prove it.

Yet you have not proved anything. You claim that your premise "it is obviously harm to another" is true in all cases." But it has been shown not to be. The truth of the premise is in doubt then so is the conclusion.

[Thanatos]

Logic cannot give us a goal, but goals are easy to come by.

Murder constitutes harm. There's this whole issue of taking a unique, (potentially) happy productive person and killing them in some horrible fashion...are we really having this discussion?

There are circumstances where murder is the lesser of available evils, but as a general rule its bad.

Assuming empathy is not a factor just running around killing people is still not a good idea. Why? You're instantly unpopular. You'd probably also rather other people obeyed the social contract and didn't decide to kill you.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Tycoon For the last time, taking life is wrong because it is obviously harm to another person, harm you would not want to come upon yourself!

What if a murderer has no regard for his own life? If he/she kills and wants to be killed, wouldn't he/she then be justified according to your logic?

[Tycoon]

What if a murderer has no regard for his own life? If he/she kills and wants to be killed, wouldn't he/she then be justified according to your logic?

That's one specific example, and you're ignoring the fact that murder is still causing obvious harm to another person.

...are we really having this discussion?

THANK YOU.

Yet you have not proved anything. You claim that your premise "it is obviously harm to another" is true in all cases." But it has been shown not to be. The truth of the premise is in doubt then so is the conclusion.

Yes, I have! In every issue as long as you look at it without bias you can find truthfully whether or not harm is being done. As I have proved in the pedophilia example. As is obvious with murder yet you continue to waste everybody's time with word games.

You ignore all my examples, and unless you're going to stop doing that then I am going to stop wasting my time with you.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonThat's one specific example, and you're ignoring the fact that murder is still causing obvious harm to another person.

No, I dealt with that by showing that harm is subjective, so there is no objective stance here.

Yes, I have! In every issue as long as you look at it without bias you can find truthfully whether or not harm is being done.

But of course yopu are giving bias by refusing to see that a pedophile is capable of giving an argument that falls within the format of logic.

As is obvious with murder yet you continue to waste everybody's time with word games.

I am the one playing word games?

you say

To kill a murderer is immoral but saving the person they're trying to murder is necessary.

So it is immoral to save someones life.

Murder is wrong because it denies other people their natural right to live,

Yet fail to show that there is such a thing as a natural right to life.

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

So it is both justified but unjustified.

You ignore all my examples

I have replied to every one of your examples. But as seen above you have replied with nothing more than your assurance that you are correct.

[Tycoon]

So it is immoral to save someones life.

No, you are combining to actions. Think of them separately - the act of murdering the would-be killer and the act of saving somebody. Two separate acts, one immoral, one necessary.

Yet fail to show that there is such a thing as a natural right to life.

Most people would agree that valuing life is an important thing, but if you deny there is a natural right to life (which no, I cannot prove) then murder is still done only for selfish reasons without regard to what the victim wants. At the very least you cause them the pain that they will receive in dying.

And like Thanatos said, why are we even talking about this?

So it is both justified but unjustified.

No, it is bad, but necessary, and justified.