Morality Vote & Discussion

[Tycoon]

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

No, you have not shown that harm is subjective. Pain is harmful. Physical harm to a persons body is by definition harmful. There is nothing subjective about that. Emotional harm causes damage to a persons life. There is nothing subjective about that.

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.

No, they are not. They are motivated by entirely selfish reasons and ignoring the fact that they are ruining a child's life.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonNo, 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.

I don't see how it can be two separate actions when only one action is performed. You kill x to save y, one action , one result.

Most people would agree that valuing life is an important thing,

true no argument there

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.

Where is the connection here? To deny something that can not be proven then murder is selfish.
And what if it is what the victim wants as in the case of euthanasia.

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

So it's bad but good?

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?

Because you started with this statement.

I believe in objective morality because through the use of unbiased logic it can always and often easily be decided whether or not an act is immoral.

Logic itself is just a format neither biased or unbiased. However the truth of any premise that is not a fact is biased.
Logic can not make any decision on whether an act is immoral or moral. Only a reasoned argument can do that and logic is only a tool that shows an argument has followed a certain convention of rules that is leads to a reasoned argument.

No, you have not shown that harm is subjective. Pain is harmful.

The example is: someone who is dying a painful death, do you assist him with a painless death or let him linger in pain because it is immoral to kill?

No, they are not. They are motivated by entirely selfish reasons and ignoring the fact that they are ruining a child's life.

True and that is not the point. A pedophile is quite capable of giving a logical argument to support his position. The truth of his premises though are debatable and therefore so is his conclusion.

[Tycoon]

I don't see how it can be two separate actions when only one action is performed. You kill x to save y, one action , one result.

They're two different factors, one is good, one is bad.

Where is the connection here? To deny something that can not be proven then murder is selfish. And what if it is what the victim wants as in the case of euthanasia.

The taking of life is harm. You are destroying a body and mind, that is harm, plain and simple, by definition.

Euthanasia is an entirely different case, where the motives must be examined. If the person wants to commit suicide because they are depressed then the right thing to do is to get them help for their problems rather than help them take the easy way out. Otherwise you are simply saving a person from a painful death, and if they give consent understandind fully what choice they are making, then there is nothing wrong with it.

So it's bad but good? At the very least you cause them the pain that they will receive in dying.

Either way somebody will be in pain, so you must choose between the innocent person or the cruel and selfish person. Obviously if possible what would be the best would be to disable the would-be killer, thus saving both lives.

Because you started with this statement.

I mean why are we even discussing whether or not murder is harmful.

Logic itself is just a format neither biased or unbiased. However the truth of any premise that is not a fact is biased. Logic can not make any decision on whether an act is immoral or moral. Only a reasoned argument can do that and logic is only a tool that shows an argument has followed a certain convention of rules that is leads to a reasoned argument.

If logic itself is just a format then that means it cannot be biased, thus making it unbiased. Logic is the tool you use to decide whether an act is immoral or moral, and only with perfect logic do you come to the correct conclusion. If your "reasoned argument" contradicts logic then it is not truly a "reasoned argument".

[Tycoon]

The example is: someone who is dying a painful death, do you assist him with a painless death or let him linger in pain because it is immoral to kill?

If there is a chance to save them then you try to save them. If there is not then they will die anyways, and if they want to die without pain then that is the right decision to make.

True and that is not the point. A pedophile is quite capable of giving a logical argument to support his position. The truth of his premises though are debatable and therefore so is his conclusion.

Which makes it an illogical argument, not a logical argument.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon 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.

This is a case of false dichotomy. Also, their answers can't be incorrect because there is no correct. It's like art. Which piece of art is more beautiful? You can only use logic to determine if an art piece is beautiful once you've determined just what beautiful is. This is the key debate about morals. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just like what is good and bad, and therefore, what is right and wrong. Without personal, subjective interpretation and perception of events, they are nothing more than just events--interactions between matter/energy.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon If there is a chance to save them then you try to save them. If there is not then they will die anyways, and if they want to die without pain then that is the right decision to make.

Everyone dies anyways. Why don't we all just collective suicide in a painless way?

There is no official right decision here.

[Tycoon]

Also, their answers can't be incorrect because there is no correct.

No. You just took my statement and reversed it. Imagine I had proof that God is not real, and you said, no that proof has to be false because God is real. Same thing.

It's like art. Which piece of art is more beautiful? You can only use logic to determine if an art piece is beautiful once you've determined just what beautiful is.

Artists don't try to paint beautifully, they try to paint something that they want to paint. It just happens that what they want to paint is usually something beautiful. The judgement of a painting should not be of its beauty but rather of whether or not it is what the artist wanted it to be.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But again, homosexuality is not wrong simply because somebody says so. That statement can be proven wrong.

Without personal, subjective interpretation and perception of events, they are nothing more than just events--interactions between matter/energy.

That is just what they are - we come up with out own meanings but they really are nothing more than just events.

Everyone dies anyways. Why don't we all just collective suicide in a painless way?

Because then we don't get to experience life. There is no reason to commit suicide until you are dying painfully.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Tycoon Artists don't try to paint beautifully, they try to paint something that they want to paint. It just happens that what they want to paint is usually something beautiful. The judgement of a painting should not be of its beauty but rather of whether or not it is what the artist wanted it to be.

Well first of all, I suggest you refrain from such a generalization. I'm certain many, many artists want their work to be beautiful. Secondly, the truth is, people do judge artwork. Just like people make judgments about what they think is right and wrong.

Quote by: Tycoon But again, homosexuality is not wrong simply because somebody says so. That statement can be proven wrong.

Is it right just because somebody says so? Also, please disprove the statement "Homosexuality is wrong".

Quote by: Tycoon That is just what they are - we come up with out own meanings but they really are nothing more than just events.

So how, given the definition of objective, can these events be classified as right or wrong? You just said it yourself, "we come up with our own meanings" -- well actually you misspelled 'our' Our interpretations of the events implies that our judgments are not objective but only relative to our perceptions.

It's an objective fact that matter exists (i.e. it doesn't matter if we perceive it or not)

It's an objective fact that water is a liquid (i.e. it doesn't matter if we perceive it or not)

It's not an objective fact that X even is right or wrong.

Try to think outside the box on this. Think of how the times have changed compared to what used to be considered right and wrong. Think of all the different groups of people out there who belief X is right while other groups say it's wrong. Like you said, something isn't wrong just because someone says it is. But then again, something isn't right just because someone says it is either. There are no moral truths, but only what people perceive as good and bad.

Today murder may seem wrong to most of us--but that's only relative to our time and majority. In other times such acts were considered right and normal (think of say, the French Revolution when one hint about apprehension for the revolution would get your head chopped off).

Who are you to say what is right and wrong?

You keep claiming you can prove what is right and wrong--however you're begging the question by assuming your conclusion in your premise (i.e. I assume that X actions are wrong, now I'll logically prove that X actions are wrong given my definition of wrong).

You cannot prove an action to be wrong unless you have a factual and universal definition of what wrong is. It's not you who dictates what is wrong as a fact, despite your best efforts.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonThey're two different factors, one is good, one is bad.

So objectively which do you choose to do good or bad?

Th

e taking of life is harm. You are destroying a body and mind, that is harm, plain and simple, by definition.

Who is making all these definitions? who is deciding which harm is greater?

Otherwise you are simply saving a person from a painful death, and if they give consent understandind fully what choice they are making, then there is nothing wrong with it.

You are saving a person from a painful death by killing them. So there is nothing wrong with killing someone if the circumstances are right. Therefore murder can be moral.

Obviously if possible what would be the best would be to disable the would-be killer, thus saving both lives.

Obviously but that answer doesn't deal with the example just changes it.

Logic is the tool you use to decide whether an act is immoral or moral,

No, a reasoned argument is used to decide whether an act is moral or not. Logic is a tool to decide whether a reasoned argument has been presented.

If your "reasoned argument" contradicts logic then it is not truly a "reasoned argument".

there are four different possibilities for any deductive argument:
Invalid and unsound: at least one premise is false, and conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Invalid: premises may be true but conclusion does not follow from them.

Valid but unsound: conclusion follows from the premises but at least one of the premises is false

Sound: all premises are true and conclusion follows from the premises.

True and false here do not refer to what is actually true or false , but only that a premise can only be considered either true or false , there is no other choice.

Which makes it an illogical argument, not a logical argument

See above, all 4 are logical arguments but only one is a sound argument.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Tycoon But again, homosexuality is not wrong simply because somebody says so. That statement can be proven wrong.

How can an opinion be proven "wrong?"

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Hmm How can an opinion be proven "wrong?"

Hypothetical: your four year old believes he does not like sashimi despite never having tasted it in his life.

Hypothetical: after your friend consumes large quantities of magical mushrooms her opinion is now that she is a small blue cube of some sort.

Everyone has two things; an opinion and a butt hole, and I think I read about some people who had to have the latter surgically removed for some reason. The majority of opinions somehow reference facts that can be approached objectively, such as the shape and coloration of a friend and whether or not homosexuality will destroy the world. Thus, it is not only possible but quite common to have an opinion that is wrong.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Thanatos Hypothetical: your four year old believes he does not like sashimi despite never having tasted it in his life. Hypothetical: after your friend consumes large quantities of magical mushrooms her opinion is now that she is a small blue cube of some sort.

Opinions are arrived at based on personal judgement.

If your friend judges that she is indeed a small, blue cube, and you judge that she is not, how can you prove that her perception is incorrect?

[Dulab]

Morality is an illusion.
Worse yet, it is a relative illusion. People are ultimately selfish, They will in any scenario act out of completely selfish reasons.
One can say that a man killing twenty people because he is mad and believes it is right and justified is no worse than a man saving twenty people because he wants to save them.
In the latter example, the man will either save the twenty people because he has loved ones or "parts of his tribe" among them whom he cares for and does not wish to lose (witch is selfish). Or because he "knows" it is the right thing to do and would feel bad about himself if he didn't do it (witch is obviously selfish). No exeptions.
One can also argue that a man saving or killing twenty people unknowingly should feel no guilt or pride, but at the end of the day two of these scenarios got twenty people killed while the other two didn't. That's objective morality for you!

The brilliance in human nature lies in fitting morality into our selfishness, so that even though we ultimately act out of selfish reasons we might end up saving members of our own species and thus have some barrier from exterminating ourselves, as we surely would have done by now had the little twist called morality been nonexistent.

Just my two cents.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Hmm Opinions are arrived at based on personal judgement. If your friend judges that she is indeed a small, blue cube, and you judge that she is not, how can you prove that her perception is incorrect?

Try to shove her through a small square hole? Wait for her to do something that's anatomically impossible for a cube like eating? Objective reality clearly exists. Its our job to try to find it.

Perhaps I'm just the one on a trip of a lifetime and none of what I see or feel is real, but going on this premise has worked out pretty well so far for me.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Thanatos Hypothetical: your four year old believes he does not like sashimi despite never having tasted it in his life. Hypothetical: after your friend consumes large quantities of magical mushrooms her opinion is now that she is a small blue cube of some sort. Everyone has two things; an opinion and a butt hole, and I think I read about some people who had to have the latter surgically removed for some reason. The majority of opinions somehow reference facts that can be approached objectively, such as the shape and coloration of a friend and whether or not homosexuality will destroy the world. Thus, it is not only possible but quite common to have an opinion that is wrong.

Exactly. Opinions are only wrong when they contradict objective facts. This is not the case when it comes to an opinion about homosexuality's moral merit.

[SoylentGreen]

Perhaps I'm just the one on a trip of a lifetime and none of what I see or feel is real, but going on this premise has worked out pretty well so far for me.

Me to until I forget about moving objects.:)

Dulab They will in any scenario act out of completely selfish reasons. The brilliance in human nature lies in fitting morality into our selfishness,

Then selfishness must be instinctual, it happens to everyone, all the time.
Morals are not instinctual, they are a learned behaviour. You're comparing apples and pears: one is an instinct and the other is learnt.
It's not morals that are competing with selfishness, it's empathy and the balance between the two creates a foundation of rules from which we form morals. In essence the balance between empathy and selfishness is different for every individual creating a personal moral and similar enough to others to create a public moral.

[Dulab]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Then selfishness must be instinctual, it happens to everyone, all the time. Morals are not instinctual, they are a learned behaviour. You're comparing apples and pears: one is an instinct and the other is learnt. It's not morals that are competing with selfishness, it's empathy and the balance between the two creates a foundation of rules from which we form morals. In essence the balance between empathy and selfishness is different for every individual creating a personal moral and similar enough to others to create a public moral.

You misunderstand me, I was referring to the motivation that drives people to act out of moral motivations. The good feeling that is triggered by the knowledge that you have done what is right. What exactly triggers these feelings however, is relative and varies with each persons definition of morals and what is right.

[Athena]

The labels do not cover my position on morality. Is polluting the air moral? According to science we may have set off a process that will make this planet uninhabitable and that clearly is immoral. On the other hand having safe sex with someone without the sanction of marriage is not necesarily immoral. On the other hand having causal and unsafe sex is immoral, because of the diseases that can be spread, and risk of having a child before both parents are ready to support and care for the child.

What determines if something is moral or not, is the results. If the results are good, it is moral. If the results are bad, it is immoral. This is using the ancient Greek concept of moral, to know good manners and the law (universal law).

[Yasa]

Quote by: Athena If the results are good, it is moral. If the results are bad, it is immoral.

And there is no objective standard to what is good and what is bad. Many people can reach similar conclusions given their innate capacities for perception, but it's never a fact that something is good or bad.

If you agree that good and bad is relative to the individual, you could perhaps consider yourself a moral nihilist. (subjectivism is just another argument to support moral nihilism even though it's branched to it's own catagories).

[Dr_Acula]

I'm both an obective and a personal moralist:

On one side, I believe that there is an absolute reality regardless of our perception, and likewise, there is an absolute criteria of what is right or wrong. However, I don't believe in any kind of god, so there is no one able to see or know these criteria, rendering them irrelevant.

Then, I also believe that while there is only one absolute reality, there are milions of subjective views and paradigms about it. We can't really see reality, we only see what our mind percebes, so that's what we base everything in. And since it's subective, there is a different one for everybody. As long as someone honestly believes what he does is right, that person would be "morally correct"... but again, we can't be reading other people's minds, so this one is irrelevant when it comes to judging others. It's only valid for people to judge themeselves.

On the other hand, while we can't know the truth about what's right or wrong, we try to at least get close to it. Philosophers, students of law, etc. By the use of rational thinking we approach what might be the real criteria. We read laws, and probably agree with them, at least a big amount of people. So then we "all" share a similar personal morality.
Even if someone believes in what he is doing, it might not fit the general personal sense of morality. We use reason to prove that our criteria is more correct than his, and show them that they are wrong. In the end, no one can be sure who was right, but t least we decided it from a rational stance.

Conclusion: obective morality judges actions, but it hasn't got a good or bad status, it just states if an action would be considered correct by an allknowing being. Actions can't be good or bad. People who did them, on the other side, can. If they honestly believed they were doing good, then they are good people.
Of course, only those people themeselvs can know if they believed it or not, and since we can't read their minds, we are forced to judge them by the most rationally accepted morailty. Again, it could be the wrong one, since we can't know the "true" one either, but it's the only one we have left.