Morality? Right or wrong?

[IndigoChild5559]

You get a dodgeball achievement.

Let's stay completely silent about the elephant in the room then, I guess.

They were a minority, they were not important, let's not talk about it.

Talk about dodgeball,let's just pretend I didnt make the statement about them that I made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure...it is not objective in the broadest sense, only objective in reference to the agreed upon standards. Perhaps you are thinking of Absolute morality.

What do you mean by objective?

 

[Brian2]

Care to give an example of two opposing viewpoints that can both rationally be defended through reason and evidence?

Reasoning can relate to our view of what is the common good. We can argue our pov and be logically correct but start with the wrong assumptions.

Now, would you say that the islamist suicide bomber, who is absolutely convinced that what he is doing is for the better of mankind and which in the long run will thus benefit human well-being, can present an equally reasonable argument for his behaviour as the one who thinks such behaviour is immoral?

As I say, reasoning can start with wrong assumptions and also wrong beliefs. What is reasonable to you may not be so to me and may not be so to a suicide bomber.
A problem with basing our morals on a God is that it is subjective as to which God is telling the truth if indeed any of them are.

 

[Brian2]

You didn't actually address my post.

TagliatelliMonster said: I'm going to throw you a bone and not insult your intelligence by going ahead and assuming that yes: you most definitely are able to formulate a decent, reasoned argument to explain exactly that WITHOUT having a need to invoke a celestial dictator who "says so".

And you'ld be able to do it coming at it from multiple different angles even.

And the reason is simple: because morality is determined by actual reasoning based on evidence and demonstrable premises. Not because a perceived authority says so.

Those who require a perceived authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, are called psychopaths.

Brian 2 says: Yes I could formulate an argument so show why murder is wrong and that is probably a moral issue that is agreed upon by most people anyway and may be hard to argue against, but that does not mean it cannot be argued against if people start with different assumptions or from different angles.
There are also other moral questions which can be argued more easily from more than one position and the answers that people come up with depend on their subjective beliefs, world views, presumption etc.
People do not need a perceived authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, but if they have that perceived authority then their views on what is right or wrong can be different to others and they may see their particular authority as having been arrived at logically.
A psychpath in our opinion has probably a lack of understanding of what is right or wrong but that is just our opinion. The psychopath's opinion may be that his/her views about it are just as valid as anyone else's and that might or being outnumbered does not make him/her wrong, just different.
But we may agree that in the basics humanity all over the world probably agrees about morals on an individual level.

 

[Brian2]

That is not what I said at all, so you don't get to say "you are right" and follow that up with a "summary" that doesn't at all say what I said. Not even close.

I said that bees and other such insects lack the cognitive ability for moral evaluation - or for even having the incentive or temptation to engage in immoral behaviour. Morality for them is a non-issue. Right and wrong are foreign concepts to them. They simply don't apply to their social dynamics.

Possibly the same applies for all animals. Right or wrong probably does not come into it. They just do what they have evolved to do even if their brains are large and their social interaction looks to us to be moral based at times.

That is again not what I said at all. Do you even read the quotes you reply to?
The quote isn't at all about what does or does not "get in the way" of moral behaviour or what type of temptations exist or can trigger immoral behaviour. At all.

Instead, it is about that a lot of other social species have moral systems and moral incentives as well, including social consequences when in breach of those social contracts.

And in many ways, we share a common primitive base of such. Like stealing food from eachother; egoism.

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking,,,,,,if at all.
We may share a common primitive base with animals and morals may have developed in a social network and for the good of that network. I would say that these things are put in place by a God for the good of whatever society it is, but that is not a view shared by all. I doubt that with any animal it is actually morals involved. If us humans are no more than the animals except for higher brain function then we have a basis for our moral feelings and their subsequently being encoded one way or another. If you want to say that the good of society is the absolute you use then that is good but as I say we come at the good of society from different points of view as to what is good.

It's not some trivial arbitrary label.
Society, and by extension the invidivual, WILL be worse off if people are allowed to run around and murder whoever they want. This is not arbitrary. This is not subjective. This is not just some "opinion".

Society will factually be worse off. You wouldn't even be able to go buy a loaf of bread, because what if the baker poisoned it? In a social cooperative society, you can't have that without the entire social structure crumbling down.

That sounds right to me and to me it also looks as if the authority I have been using is correct on that one. Do you think that all the moral propositions of my God should be able to stand up to the societal good reasoning test and do you think that some of those propositions do not?

You keep saying that. I keep disagreeing.
Please tell us all what the "subjective" ingredients are in the evaluation of murder being immoral.

The subjective ingredient is that the good of society is the ultimate good. Some people see their own betterment or their own feelings as being the ultimate good.

The reference point is well-being. That's what I'm saying.
Obviously I'm also talking about a morality wich is free of the poison of religions and other such dictatorial systems where a "morality" is super-imposed and commanded, instead of reasoned.

That is a good reference point but as I say well being can be seen in different ways.
And yes you are talking about a morality which is free from the poison of religions etc and your reference point is a good one with that in mind but as I said it may not necessarily come up with the same answers all the time. For the sake of the well being of many nations even murder of certain people has been seen as appropriate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you did know! You lied to me! Shame on you!

Just kidding (except about the part that you lied to me). What silly games are often played here.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Pehaps you are confusing me with another poster?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't. You run into Agrippa's Trilemma, Protagoras: "Man is the measurement ..." and the Is-Ought problem.

here we go again

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please show that with evidence and/or objective reasoning without bias.

Show what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But well being is not with evidence

Off course it is.
Physical and mental health / well-being are a thing.
Societal health is a thing.

These are things subject to entire scientific fields..; medical science, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc.
And those are evidence based fields of research.

, because evidence is objective as per observation and well-being is not based on observation. It is subjective.

Go find a person suffering from depression and tell him or his doctor that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wasn't asking a loaded question, just thought you might have known of an earlier origin than me. Reading through the other responses here has directed me to the Code of Hammurabi. But I still assume this was independently codified in a range of cultures.

It indeed was. Plenty, if not most or even all, isolated societies around the world stumbled upon this idea or some variation thereof.

Which isn't surprising, since it is pretty much an inevitable idea to come up with for any humans who has this trait called "empathy". Empathy is literally the ability to see things from the perspective of a third person.

To ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. And not just humans, but also animals.
When a dog is hit by a car, we can imagine the pain it must be going through.

From there, it really isn't much of a stretch to conclude "i wouldn't like it if that were done to me..." when observing something being done to that third party...............

This seems so obvious to me that I'ld even dare say that people who actually need to be taught this idea, who can't figure it out on their own, are likely psychopathic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Talk about dodgeball,let's just pretend I didnt make the statement about them that I made.

You made a statement about people, sure.
Unfortunatly, those people weren't the slaves that were actually being talked about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reasoning can relate to our view of what is the common good. We can argue our pov and be logically correct but start with the wrong assumptions.

Uhu.
Then there's a problem with the argument, right?
A problem of evidence, in fact. Because premises are to be established with evidence.
Obviously for an argument to be working well, the premises need to be substantiated/evidenced in some way.

As I say, reasoning can start with wrong assumptions and also wrong beliefs. What is reasonable to you may not be so to me and may not be so to a suicide bomber.
A problem with basing our morals on a God is that it is subjective as to which God is telling the truth if indeed any of them are.

Right. This is why you should support your premises with rational, independently verifiable evidence.

So, exactly as I said: reason and evidence.

 

[McBell]

Talk about dodgeball,let's just pretend I didnt make the statement about them that I made.

No need to pretend.
You went to great lengths to avoid talking about the people who were required to pierce their ears

Which ironically are the very people being talked about in the post you "replied" to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TagliatelliMonster said: I'm going to throw you a bone and not insult your intelligence by going ahead and assuming that yes: you most definitely are able to formulate a decent, reasoned argument to explain exactly that WITHOUT having a need to invoke a celestial dictator who "says so".

And you'ld be able to do it coming at it from multiple different angles even.

And the reason is simple: because morality is determined by actual reasoning based on evidence and demonstrable premises. Not because a perceived authority says so.

Those who require a perceived authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, are called psychopaths.

Brian 2 says: Yes I could formulate an argument so show why murder is wrong and that is probably a moral issue that is agreed upon by most people anyway and may be hard to argue against, but that does not mean it cannot be argued against if people start with different assumptions or from different angles.
There are also other moral questions which can be argued more easily from more than one position and the answers that people come up with depend on their subjective beliefs, world views, presumption etc.
People do not need a perceived authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, but if they have that perceived authority then their views on what is right or wrong can be different to others and they may see their particular authority as having been arrived at logically.
A psychpath in our opinion has probably a lack of understanding of what is right or wrong but that is just our opinion. The psychopath's opinion may be that his/her views about it are just as valid as anyone else's and that might or being outnumbered does not make him/her wrong, just different.
But we may agree that in the basics humanity all over the world probably agrees about morals on an individual level.

In both this post as well as in the previous one, you focus on starting with "different" assumptions / premises.
I can only repeat what I said in the previous post: this is why evidence is important. To support those premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We may share a common primitive base with animals and morals may have developed in a social network and for the good of that network. I would say that these things are put in place by a God for the good of whatever society it is, but that is not a view shared by all. I doubt that with any animal it is actually morals involved. If us humans are no more than the animals except for higher brain function then we have a basis for our moral feelings and their subsequently being encoded one way or another. If you want to say that the good of society is the absolute you use then that is good but as I say we come at the good of society from different points of view as to what is good.

It seems that the difference in that, is that I come at it from a starting position based on evidence, while theists come at it with a starting position in mere faith based beliefs.

I can honestly say that I consider my starting point to be superior, while the faith based starting point is inherently flawed.

Do you think that all the moral propositions of my God should be able to stand up to the societal good reasoning test

Hmm. Well... I'ld say that if the "societal good reasoning test" is the standard against the "god propositions" must be measured, then why even bother with the "god propositions"... instead, we can (and should) just go with the reasoning test instead.

and do you think that some of those propositions do not?

Obviously. And they aren't even hard to find. Homophobia and slavery comes to mind (in relation to "biblical morality").

The subjective ingredient is that the good of society is the ultimate good. Some people see their own betterment or their own feelings as being the ultimate good.

This fails at the reasoning test imo.
Morality is about how you treat or deal with other people.

Selfish behaviour by definition is counter to that, as you will be sacrificing good treatment of others in favor of personal gain.

That is a good reference point but as I say well being can be seen in different ways.

I disagree.

It's not like there are 100 definitions of what well-being is about.
It deals with health in all its forms: physical health, mental health, societal health,..

I don't think these things are a matter of "opinion".

And yes you are talking about a morality which is free from the poison of religions etc and your reference point is a good one with that in mind but as I said it may not necessarily come up with the same answers all the time. For the sake of the well being of many nations even murder of certain people has been seen as appropriate.

I never said that a reasoned morality will always come up with the same perfect answers.
At best, I'ld say that it would come up with far better answers, in general, as opposed to a superimposed and unquestionable morality dictated by a perceived authority.

 

[rrobs]

Nope.
You said everyone knows where it came from. He pointed out that nobody knows. You claimed it can from Luke. He pointed out that is wrong.

Sorry, no he didn't lie. And I don't think you did either. You were just wrong and didn't realize it.
Tom

From post 240:

"You said 'we all know where it comes from'. I dont."
​

Later, he tells me where it came from. I guess with subjective morality that would not be a lie. So you're right, nobody lied. What a weird concept!

 

[McBell]

From post 240:

"You said 'we all know where it comes from'. I dont."
​

Later, he tells me where it came from. I guess with subjective morality that would not be a lie. So you're right, nobody lied. What a weird concept!

That there are numerous independent sources for the concept indicates that the ultimate source, if one even exists, is unknown.

That you would try using this to self martyr is on you.

 

[rrobs]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Pehaps you are confusing me with another poster?

Highly likely!

 

[rrobs]

That there are numerous independent sources for the concept indicates that the ultimate source, if one even exists, is unknown.

That you would try using this to self martyr is on you.

Self martyr? That's a pretty lame thing to say.

 

[McBell]

Self martyr? That's a pretty lame thing to say.

go with whatever helps you sleep at night.
Just don't expect others to fall for it.