Is Lying Unethical/Immoral?

[Augustus]

New In some cultures, lying in certain situations is considered respectful and civilized.

Common in many cultures where saving face is important.

People will accept obvious lies without question when it gives the person an out from error or misconduct.

See for example Honne and tatemae - Wikipedia

 

[joe1776]

Plenty of people have an urge to punish women who abort. .

It's extremely rare. Those few who do realize that its illogical to call it murder but not to punish.

Conscience says nothing about the point where a foetus becomes a child, only reason and cultural preference.

Why would it need to? That's a factor for people who are foolishly trying to reason their way to a moral judgment.

Conscience does tell you it's wrong to murder an innocent child (in most cases), but it doesn't tell you what constitutes an innocent child.

What? Conscience doesn't give you rules that you need to interpret. If a specific act is wrong, it will FEEL wrong. That's all you need to know.

I fear you mistake your personal preferences for universal truths.

It's your arguments that interest me. Your opinions, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Harmful or not, I still don't like gossip. That is how the 9th was explained to me. But I wanted to be on the safe side with a more literal interpretation. And slander has made it into the laws of many countries, so it would not only be a sin but also a crime.

That is a valid way to explain it as well, especially for those first learning it since gossip are rumors whose veracity one cannot confirm.

 

[Augustus]

It's extremely rare. Those few who do realize that its illogical to call it murder but not to punish.

You seem not to be aware that it is punished in a large part of the world, perhaps 1/4. Also that many wish it was punished even where it is allowed.

Why is this "extremely rare"?

What? Conscience doesn't give you rules that you need to interpret. If a specific act is wrong, it will FEEL wrong. That's all you need to know.

And abortion FEELS wrong to at least a billion humans.

Why do you think that is?

It's your arguments that interest me. Your opinions, not so much.

Your arguments are generally indistinguishable from your opinions.

You just say things like it is "rare" people oppose abortion despite the fact this is obviously untrue.

Look at the world's most populous countries and see which have restrictions against abortion or at least strong anti abortion minorities:

Indonesia, USA, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Poland, etc. Etc.

Why should any rational person accept your assertion it is "rare"?

 

[sun rise]

It is never OK to lie. But there's no reason that someone has to tell all. People can remain silent, they can distract the questioner and they can tell the truth in a way that allows people to draw the wrong conclusion.

If you're planning a surprise party for someone and they ask what is going on, you can change the subject.

The last point I've noted on RF a few times. Basically men were chasing a woman to rape her. She ran by an honest man who had her hide and then moves to a different spot and tells the rapists no one has passed him while he's been sitting in his (new) location. He told the truth but deceived the rapists.

Then there's a commandment for Christians about love for God and one's fellows being the highest truth. So anything not reflective of that higher love is inherently false.

 

[joe1776]

You seem not to be aware that it is punished in a large part of the world, perhaps 1/4. Also that many wish it was punished even where it is allowed.

No I'm not aware of those statistics and I don't believe you are either. I think you made them up.

And abortion FEELS wrong to at least a billion humans. Why do you think that is?

My guess is that most of the people who take that position are doing so because they accept the Catholic Church as their moral authority. But I've read that 55% of American Catholics disagree with their church on abortion. They follow their conscience rather than the Church on this issue.

 

[Augustus]

No I'm not aware of those statistics and I don't believe you are either. I think you made them up.

You are not aware that abortion is illegal or severely restricted in many countries or you think in the countries it is illegal these laws have no degree of support?

My guess is that most of the people who take that position are doing so because they accept the Catholic Church as their moral authority. But I've read that 55% of American Catholics disagree with their church on abortion. They follow their conscience rather than the Church on this issue.

My guess is you are simply ignoring evidence that contradicts your belief.

You think it is mostly catholics trying to overturn roe v wade or that oppose abortion in Pakistan?

It is very convenient that you simply know without evidence that everyone who disagrees with you is lying about their beliefs and secretly understands intuitively that abortion is fine and dandy.

At what number of weeks do you think we "intuitively" start to find abortion wrong? Or does "intuition" tell us abortion is fine up until moment of birth?

 

[wellwisher]

Lying is different for a rational person compared to an emotional or subjective person. The rational person needs facts to draw the best possible conclusions. To them, lying means misinformation and bad data, that can lead even sound procedural reasoning down the wrong path. This is never good, except for the used car salesman's commission.

The emotional person is less about hard truth. They are more egocentric and their goal is to optimize the emotional ambiance of their own ego. Sweet little lies, that makes you feel better about yourself or which reinforce you dreams, goes farther than proper and factual information. The latter might allow them to draw the best conclusions, such as you are not fully in touch with hard reality.

Say we had an emotional child, who is self deluding and decides they want to to be a professional baseball player. However, they have little in the way of natural athletic skills. They do not see this truth in their fantasy world of self inflating back patting.

His mother may wish to help him continue to feel good, so she might lie to him by telling him is doing very well for his age. He likes this and is happy in his fantasy.

The dad, who is more rational and cares more about the need for good information instead of feelings, may tell the child the truth, which is you stink at sports and you need to find another life goal. This may hurt the child's feelings; less short term gain, but this truth may help him win real self esteem based on reality, in the long term.

The short term thinking and emotionally centered person may prefer lies to keep the good feelings going minute to minute. But the rational person is looking at the longer term, in terms of truth about reality. They would prefer good data or truth, all the time, so they can build a better life long rational perception.

In classic tradition, men lie to women verbally. This is because women are more verbal and emotional in nature. While women lie to men, materially, for their eyes, since men are more visual and seeing is believing. Both are trying to manipulate feelings; love and desire. Once they get past that, and they become a couple, they can plan longer ter, then the truth becomes more important to both.

The breakup of the nuclear family, with the father and mother replaced by strangers dating the mother and father, respectively, seems to have stopped the progression from lie to truth at dating and emotions. This is mostly what the children see, who them become adults who think short term thinking is the end game.

 

[joe1776]

You are not aware that abortion is illegal or severely restricted in many countries or you think in the countries it is illegal these laws have no degree of support?

Of course, I'm aware of that, but that fact is not relevant to our topic in this discussion --- which is the fact that people who reason that abortion = murder don't logically feel that severe punishment is warranted. I thought you were making up on-topic statistics.

You think it is mostly catholics trying to overturn roe v wade or that oppose abortion in Pakistan?

It's mostly Catholics in the USA, Muslims elsewhere. Male religious leaders, ignoring their conscience, while reasoning from their holy scriptures, have always been a moral problem for the world. There is nothing in the Bible or the Quran condemning slavery, for example.

It is very convenient that you simply know without evidence that everyone who disagrees with you is lying about their beliefs and secretly understands intuitively that abortion is fine and dandy.

I don't believe that you're lying about your beliefs. Your posts indicate that you just don't understand that conscience is an intuitive function.

At what number of weeks do you think we "intuitively" start to find abortion wrong? Or does "intuition" tell us abortion is fine up until moment of birth?

That's another question indicating that you don't understand the topic. You're asking me to give you the morally intuitive rules on abortion. Rules apply to reasoning not intuition. We intuitively feel when an act is wrong case-by-case given the facts of a specific case.

 

[Truth in love]

We all lie and I guess we can all agree that it is ethical to lie to prevent people from harm (like the now proverbial "lie to the GeStaPo to save Jews").
But we don't like being lied to most of the times. Many religions have commandments against lying; it is illegal to lie in certain circumstances.
In other circumstances it is allowed to lie, by religious people if lying is done to convert people, by law enforcement to get a confession.
You are expected to not believe what advertiser says or a politician on a rally. And, as this has inspired this OP, a pregnancy crisis centre is not expected to inform pregnant people correctly.

Where is your threshold?
Who do you expect to tell you the truth?
What do you want from the government done to shield you from being lied to?

I thank that lying is always wrong. Baring the extremes it should not be done.

I would also say that we can speak the truth in love. We don’t have to be jerks about it.


Some degree of over or under stating is very common.

 

[Augustus]

Of course, I'm aware of that, but that fact is not relevant to our topic in this discussion --- which is the fact that people who reason that abortion = murder don't logically feel that severe punishment is warranted. I thought you were making up on-topic statistics.

It is a fact that many people do think women should be punished. I was offering evidence in support by noting countries with millions of people who support such punishment.

It's mostly Catholics in the USA, Muslims elsewhere. Male religious leaders, ignoring their conscience, while reasoning from their holy scriptures, have always been a moral problem for the world.

Again you simply assert they ignore their conscience rather than their conscience works the same yet starts from different premises and axioms.

That's another question indicating that you don't understand the topic. You're asking me to give you the morally intuitive rules on abortion. Rules apply to reasoning not intuition. We intuitively feel when an act is wrong case-by-case given the facts of a specific case.

No I'm pointing out that there is no universal answer to the question and that people would intuitively give very different answers based on individual and cultural contingencies.

Conscience may tell us that killing a child is wrong, but it doesn't tell us at what point a foetus becomes a child. All answers are culturally or individually contingent, not based on some universal "objective" conscience.

I can guarantee that you could alter at least some people's intuitive judgements on when a life starts via either emotive or rational argumentation (hence pro choice v Pro life PR is a multi million dollar industry)

There is simply no universally correct or intuitive answer to the question, hence conscience will give a wide range of answers.

The evidence of this is differing cultural attitudes to abortion throughout history locality and culture.

 

[joe1776]

It is a fact that many people do think women should be punished. I was offering evidence in support by noting countries with millions of people who support such punishment.

To be denied the right to an abortion is not the same as being punished for the crime of murder -- which is our topic.

Again you simply assert they ignore their conscience rather than their conscience works the same yet starts from different premises and axioms.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding. Premises and axioms are facets of reasoning not intuition. When a pope reads his Bible to determine what it advises on slavery, he's using the reasoning function of his brain.

If he wanted to consult his conscience on the matter, he would try to imagine how it would feel to be owned as someone's property. Empathy would have led him to conclude that slavery was wrong.

No I'm pointing out that there is no universal answer to the question and that people would intuitively give very different answers based on individual and cultural contingencies.

You're wrong. If a group of people, anywhere in the world, unbiased on the relevant case, were to judge the facts involved in a specific act of abortion, they would reach the same conclusion because we are all born with the same conscience.

Your mistake is in blaming conscience for mistakes in reasoning. When the Catholic Church labels abortion a sin, mercy killings a sin, homosexuality a sin, and using contraceptives a sin, they are teaching biases that will affect millions. Those teachings didn't arise from examining their consciences, they were created in the reasoning minds of popes and bishops.

Conscience will, in time, erase those errors just as it did for the error of Pope Pius IX who reasoned from his Bible that there was nothing in divine law opposed to the buying, selling and trading of slaves.

 

[Augustus]

To be denied the right to an abortion is not the same as being punished for the crime of murder -- which is our topic.

To think women who have abortions and the doctors that conduct them deserve long prison sentences is though.

Millions of people worldwide instinctively feel that such people should face years in jail.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding. Premises and axioms are facets of reasoning not intuition. When a pope reads his Bible to determine what it advises on slavery, he's using the reasoning function of his brain.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand cognition. We do not actually have to reason about that which has been internalised.

If you were brought up to despise the French and had this drummed into you from day 1, you will most likely hate the French and intuitively enjoy harm coming to them. Many people intuitively revel in harm coming to their enemies after all.

Internalised cultural and experiential axioms underpin our intuitive judgements as befits our evolved in/out group cognitive distinction that was advantageous for survival.

You're wrong. If a group of people, anywhere in the world, unbiased on the relevant case, were to judge the facts involved in a specific act of abortion, they would reach the same conclusion because we are all born with the same conscience.

Again you asserting everyone has an identical universal, perfect conscience contradicts all scientific, medical, historical and anecdotal evidence as well as logical and probabilistic reasoning (even the idea we have a distinct conscience that can be perfectly isolated from our wider cognitive functions for socialisation is dubious).

We know brains function differently, people have differing levels of empathy, differing emotional intelligence, differing levels of intelligence, differing levels of narcissism, etc. Neuro-divergent people may be significantly deficient in certain functions that influence conscience, and there is really a spectrum that flows from significantly neuro-divergent to "normal", it's not an either/or.

There is also no way to be "unbiased" because there is no "unbiased" way to judge what constitutes a life or when life starts. There are many different religious, philosophical, cultural and scientific views on this. What is the "unbiased" criteria necessary to underpin out "intuition"?

This is the fundamental problem with your whole thesis, and is why you always go back to things like murder and slavery rather than most moral decisions which have far more shades of grey and rely on numerous subjective concepts where there can be no unbiased judgement (think about how property rights differ through cultures and histories). Even your endlessly repeated slavery example is dubious as all societies condoned it in the past, and given we evolved to see some humans as a threat, the idea that it was obviously morally wrong to enslave those who do or may cause you harm is questionable. Conscience can't deal well with uncertainty. As a stranger's life is not equal to a loved one's, is it ok to enslave people if their enslavement may prevent your family being killed or becoming slaves? Some ancient slavery was, to some extent, a form of self-defence, but there is no objective way to judge at what point this was reasonable and at what point it was exploitative. Straws and camel's backs, etc

 

[joe1776]

To think women who have abortions and the doctors that conduct them deserve long prison sentences is though.

It would be if it actually happened anywhere except for countries ruled by Muslim men.

Millions of people worldwide instinctively feel that such people should face years in jail.

I don't believe that.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand cognition. We do not actually have to reason about that which has been internalised.

And you claim that somehow we "internalize" the judgments of moral situations which happen in an almost infinite number, and are as unique as snowflakes?

Again you asserting everyone has an identical universal, perfect conscience contradicts all scientific, medical, historical and anecdotal evidence as well as logical and probabilistic reasoning (even the idea we have a distinct conscience that can be perfectly isolated from our wider cognitive functions for socialisation is dubious).

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

There is also no way to be "unbiased" because there is no "unbiased" way to judge what constitutes a life or when life starts.

Conscience only needs the facts in a moral situation. It doesn't need to know when life starts. That would be information that someone foolishly trying to reason their way to a moral conclusion would need to know.

This is the fundamental problem with your whole thesis, and is why you always go back to things like murder and slavery rather than most moral decisions which have far more shades of grey and rely on numerous subjective concepts where there can be no unbiased judgement (think about how property rights differ through cultures and histories).

I use examples like murder and slavery because they ought to be the easiest to comprehend. You haven't shown that you understand them but you want me to move onto more complex examples?

Even your endlessly repeated slavery example is dubious as all societies condoned it in the past, and given we evolved to see some humans as a threat, the idea that it was obviously morally wrong to enslave those who do or may cause you harm is questionable. Conscience can't deal well with uncertainty. As a stranger's life is not equal to a loved one's, is it ok to enslave people if their enslavement may prevent your family being killed or becoming slaves? Some ancient slavery was, to some extent, a form of self-defence, but there is no objective way to judge at what point this was reasonable and at what point it was exploitative. Straws and camel's backs, etc

"Conscience can't deal well with uncertainty?" Conscience is all we have to deal with moral judgments that change from time to time. The combination of conscience and empathy moved humanity away from the notion that it was OK to own human beings as property. We humans certainly didn't reason our way to that opinion.

 

[Augustus]

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

It's already been pointed out to you by multiple people including me that Bloom and every other person you cite supports the idea that culture and socialisation impact morality.

But you just continue to cherry pick and quote mine to pretend they support you. Quoting someone who explicitly says you are wrong in support of your argument is not intellectually honest.

So the point stands you asserting everyone has an identical universal, perfect conscience contradicts all scientific, medical, historical and anecdotal evidence as well as logical and probabilistic reasoning (even the idea we have a distinct conscience that can be perfectly isolated from our wider cognitive functions for socialisation is dubious).

I use examples like murder and slavery because they ought to be the easiest to comprehend. You haven't shown that you understand them but you want me to move onto more complex examples?

You use them because your arguments are facile. You then pretend people don't understand them by strawmanning their posts so you can avoid defending them rationally.

Given the absolute fact that human brains differ significantly in many different aspects of cognition, why should conscience be magically perfectly replicated in all humans and exist in perfect isolation from all the other cognitive functions that could influence judgement and that we know do differ between individuals?

Why do you think no scientist has ever made this claim or found any evidence in support of it?

"Conscience can't deal well with uncertainty?"

Can some forms of historical slavery, in theory, potentially be justified as a form of self-defence?

Both my reason and intuition tell me yes. Better my enemy dead or enslaved than me and my family.

 

[joe1776]

It's already been pointed out to you by multiple people including me that Bloom and every other person you cite supports the idea that culture and socialisation impact morality.

Thus far, you are the only member in this forum who denies that this quote clearly affirms that social scientists like Bloom, Haidt, Greene and others have cast off the stupid old notion that we are born with a clean slate and have to be taught to discern right from wrong. Read the quote again. What else could it mean?

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

You use them because your arguments are facile. You then pretend people don't understand them by strawmanning their posts so you can avoid defending them rationally.

Why are you able to accuse me of logical fallacies in hindsight but unable to do it when it counts? I can't recall that you've ever argued for a strawman.

Given the absolute fact that human brains differ significantly in many different aspects of cognition, why should conscience be magically perfectly replicated in all humans and exist in perfect isolation from all the other cognitive functions that could influence judgement and that we know do differ between individuals?

I don't know. What I'm certain of is that conscience is our only moral authority, so we have no basis for questioning its judgments.

Why do you think no scientist has ever made this claim or found any evidence in support of it?

They have made the claim. Harvard's Moral Sense Test, online now for about 15 years, expects to find a universal moral sense. So far, it appears to be successful. I think the test is flawed, but it still seems to be a successful test.

Scientists haven't yet figured out that moral dilemmas are exceptional in that they involve both intuition and reason. Scientists love to test people with moral dilemmas like the trolley problem thinking that they are testing intuition on its own.

 

[Augustus]

Why are you able to accuse me of logical fallacies in hindsight but unable to do it when it counts? I can't recall that you've ever argued for a strawman.

I tend not to do it as I hate referring to generic fallacies. I generally just correct the error.

But if you need me to join the dots, let's have a look shall we...

Thus far, you are the only member in this forum who denies that this quote clearly affirms that social scientists like Bloom, Haidt, Greene and others have cast off the stupid old notion that we are born with a clean slate and have to be taught to discern right from wrong. Read the quote again. What else could it mean?

Here you just make up some nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said.

I said you have no evidence there is a universal, unbiased conscience that every adult shares.

Your shtick is that you can get unbiased humans who will always get the same result intuitively on any moral question.

Saying we have some moral intuitions that are common to the species in no way supports your argument.

I believe we have moral intuitions that can be influenced by culture, reason, experience, etc.

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

Let's see what else he says:

this moral sense is not enough. That accomplishments we see and we admire so much in our species are due to factors other than our evolutionary history. They are due to our culture, our intelligence and our imagination

A New Science of Morality, Part 5 | Edge.org

Read the article and state honestly, does he clearly argue against your position? (yes, he does)

I don't know. What I'm certain of is that conscience is our only moral authority, so we have no basis for questioning its judgments.

That's no reason to believe it is perfect and universal.

They have made the claim. Harvard's Moral Sense Test, online now for about 15 years, expects to find a universal moral sense. So far, it appears to be successful. I think the test is flawed, but it still seems to be a successful test.

Unpublished claims unsupported by public evidence are not meaningful.

Anyway, a universal moral sense does not necessarily mean what you claim.

Saying people share big picture commonalities does not mean they manifest identically cross culturally etc.

Scientists haven't yet figured out that moral dilemmas are exceptional in that they involve both intuition and reason. Scientists love to test people with moral dilemmas like the trolley problem thinking that they are testing intuition on its own.

Any moral test that has no real world consequences is irrelevant. Any semi intelligent person can give the "right" answer.

The point about morality is that talk is cheap, and it only counts when you have skin in the game.

You also dodged this question again:

Can some forms of historical slavery, in theory, potentially be justified as a form of self-defence?

Both my reason and intuition tell me yes. Better my enemy dead or enslaved than me and my family.

This is skin in the game morality.

 

[joe1776]

I tend not to do it as I hate referring to generic fallacies. I generally just correct the error.

You hate referring to generic fallacies, so you do it as a general charge when your opponents can't defend themselves?

But if you need me to join the dots, let's have a look shall we...

Yes, if you're going to accuse me of a creating strawmen, or of making any other logical fallacy, please do it in the context or our debate.

Here you just make up some nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said. I said you have no evidence there is a universal, unbiased conscience that every adult shares.

Wrong. This is what you said.

It's already been pointed out to you by multiple people including me that Bloom and every other person you cite supports the idea that culture and socialisation impact morality.
Your shtick is that you can get unbiased humans who will always get the same result intuitively on any moral question. Saying we have some moral intuitions that are common to the species in no way supports your argument. I believe we have moral intuitions that can be influenced by culture, reason, experience, etc.

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

Let's see what else he says:
This moral sense is not enough. That accomplishments we see and we admire so much in our species are due to factors other than our evolutionary history. They are due to our culture, our intelligence and our imagination.

I have no argument with that statement. Conscience is a moral guide only. Life is full of questions and problems that have nothing to do with morality.

A New Science of Morality, Part 5 | Edge.org
Read the article and state honestly, does he clearly argue against your position? (yes, he does)

No he does not argue clearly against my position. He argues basically what you wrote in the previous paragraph which doesn't conflict at all with my position.

That's no reason to believe it is perfect and universal.

If it's the only moral guide we have, on what basis would you question its authority? As for it being universal, you have previously tried to argue that its not. I've had no trouble countering your points. Keep trying if you like.

Unpublished claims unsupported by public evidence are not meaningful. Anyway, a universal moral sense does not necessarily mean what you claim.
Saying people share big picture commonalities does not mean they manifest identically cross culturally etc.

In a previous session with you on this topic, I posted a paper showing the preliminary results of the MST. You came back 20 minutes later trashing the work of these scientists. So, I suspect you really don't want to hear about evidence proving you're wrong.

Any moral test that has no real world consequences is irrelevant. Any semi intelligent person can give the "right" answer.

So, you asked earlier why scientists were not testing my claim that we have a universal conscience; I point out that they have been testing it for the last 15 years; now you're slamming the notion that they are testing.

You also dodged this question again: Can some forms of historical slavery, in theory, potentially be justified as a form of self-defence? Both my reason and intuition tell me yes. Better my enemy dead or enslaved than me and my family.

I didn't answer this question previously because it's off-topic but I'll indulge you.

Conscience answers questions about specific acts. You haven't described a specific act, so I can't answer your question with a yes or no. I will say that, according to conscience, there seems to be no act that is always wrong. Thus, under certain conditions owning a slave can probably be justified.

This is skin in the game morality.

What does that mean?

 

[Augustus]

You hate referring to generic fallacies, so you do it as a general charge when your opponents can't defend themselves?

No, I generally do it when someone does it so repeatedly that they are either acting in bad faith, have demonstrated they do not read posts carefully, or are too full of biases and presumptions to understand what they do read.

It's not possible to differentiate which is the actual reason.

Wrong. This is what you said.

See what I was saying above, I guess the 3rd option for you as you refuse to be corrected from your initial presumptions, but could be any of them. I have literally explained this point to you over 20 times in various threads and you keep resorting to ludicrous strawmen.

21st time lucky....

It's already been pointed out to you by multiple people including me that Bloom and every other person you cite supports the idea that culture and socialisation impact morality... I believe we have moral intuitions that can be influenced by culture, reason, experience, etc.

That is also the position of everyone you ever cite in support of your argument: Bloom Haidt, etc.

I said nothing about blank slates or having to be taught everything. I said I believe we have moral intuitions that can be influenced by culture, reason, experience.

Simple enough yet?

I have no argument with that statement. Conscience is a moral guide only. Life is full of questions and problems that have nothing to do with morality.

Obviously, he's talking about moral achievements not science or ballet.

He talks about moral progress and the role of culture, reason, etc.

No he does not argue clearly against my position. He argues basically what you wrote in the previous paragraph which doesn't conflict at all with my position.

So you agree that, in adults, judgements of conscience may indeed impacted by culture, socialisation, experience, environment, reason, etc.

We may have some hardwired intuitive functions that are common across cultures, but moral judgements will be significantly impacted by a variety of other factors meaning different people will, intuitively, come to very different conclusions on the same issue?

In a previous session with you on this topic, I posted a paper showing the preliminary results of the MST. You came back 20 minutes later trashing the work of these scientists. So, I suspect you really don't want to hear about evidence proving you're wrong.

Can you repost it then please, the MST still says this:

The MST is still at the data collection phase, but we hope to be analyzing and publishing our results soon. Since knowledge of our hypothesis and preliminary results could bias test-takers' answers we cannot release data from each phase of our research until that phase is completed and the data prepared for publication.

So, you asked earlier why scientists were not testing my claim that we have a universal conscience; I point out that they have been testing it for the last 15 years; now you're slamming the notion that they are testing.

Without any real-world consequences, you are, at best, testing what kind of person people think they are. We know most people are biased towards seeing themselves in a favourable lights (most people think they are smarter than average, etc).

A trolley test means nothing unless you actually have to pull the lever and kill someone.

Or more realistically for example, we might criticise corporations for avoiding taxes, and believe we would always pay our taxes in full. But we can't know this until we get the chance to avoid taxes and make ourselves a fortune.

If it's the only moral guide we have, on what basis would you question its authority? As for it being universal, you have previously tried to argue that its not. I've had no trouble countering your points. Keep trying if you like.

It's not just me arguing it's not universal, it's everyone you cite in support too.

Your response is simply to assert you are right because you say so, or as you put it "logical deduction" that no one else seems to find prescient.

Conscience answers questions about specific acts. You haven't described a specific act, so I can't answer your question with a yes or no. I will say that, according to conscience, there seems to be no act that is always wrong. Thus, under certain conditions owning a slave can probably be justified.

It was a general hypothetical, you can pick from any examples in human history if you need to.

Would you say a lot of historical slavery can be justified on self-defence grounds (i.e. all societies practice slavery, slavery helps them increase their power while weakening the enemy, increased power is the only way to reduce risk of the destruction of their society and their own death/enslavement), and that there is no real way to quantify the risk of your society being destroyed.

Environmental competition made slavery a justifiable act as it is moral to protect your own society from harm.

As to where the cutoff point is, that will vary massively from person to person.

Again, you can only really say it is not justified if you have personally felt the threat of being killed or enslaved. Talk is cheap.

 

[joe1776]

No, I generally do it when someone does it so repeatedly that they are either acting in bad faith, have demonstrated they do not read posts carefully, or are too full of biases and presumptions to understand what they do read.

1. In debate, a strawman argument is a distortion of the opponent's argument. What you are accusing me of is not a strawman.

2. You are accusing me of repeatedly ignoring the following:

It's already been pointed out to you by multiple people [not true] including me that Bloom and every other person you cite supports the idea that culture and socialisation impact morality... I believe we have moral intuitions that can be influenced by culture, reason, experience, etc.

Once again, you're making false claims. The problem is that you don't understand what these scientists are saying and that they don't all agree on much of anything except that our moral sense is intuitive. I'll explain briefly where three of the prominent scientists are as I understand them.

Haidt was probably the first to demonstrate that moral judgments are intuitive. He probably supports your position best. But he's been all over the map with his thinking from the very beginning. He doesn't impress me. I'd rather be debating him than you.

The Harvard group, Cushman, Hauser, et al, probably support me best. Their Moral Sense Test is intended to demonstrate a universal moral sense. I think they erred in using moral dilemmas in their test. They think they are testing only intuition, but I think moral dilemmas are exceptional cases because they test both intuition and reasoning. Still, the results seem to be holding up as they expected.

Bloom's work with babies and toddlers best supports my position that we are born with the basic framework of a conscience. Now, here's the part that seems to be confusing you the most. In order to use our conscience properly sometimes there is some learning involved that is cultural. For example: The ways we might insult others will vary widely from culture to culture. So, if we visit another culture and if we want to avoid insulting others accidentally, we have to learn their customs. But the basic conscience we're born with will guide us to avoid intentionally causing harm to innocent people. And since insults cause harm they are wrongful acts in every culture. The cultural learning informs us but the conscience does not need to be informed.