Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

It means (IMO) that actions are done for reasons and intents, which are part of the context -- and the reasons and intents of an action are a big part of what determine morality.

Would you say actions and their reasons and intents are objective? Meaning they exist in objective reality for anyone to judge(objective morality)? Or do you have a different understanding of that?

 

[Bradskii]

Brad: How do you determine if a thing is immoral?

Are you able to answer that question?

 

[Bradskii]

What is your point?

I honestly couldn't have made it clearer.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps, definitions of terms needs revisiting.

If by "act" you mean a "human act"...

If by "context" you mean "circumstances"...

We are talking morality, so yes. A human act. And yes, context means the circumstances surrounding the act. Hasn't that been clear for the last 1700 posts?

 

[Bradskii]

Is it advisable to separate an act from its context for the purposes of determining morality?

I cut a human being open....

...on the operating table? I'm a doctor.
...on the dinner table? I'm a cannibal.

You cannot separate any act from the circumstances. The morality of an act depends on the circumstances. I burn the woodland. Am I clearing it or am I an arsonist. I stick a needle into a child. Sadist or doctor?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you say actions and their reasons and intents are objective? Meaning they exist in objective reality for anyone to judge(objective morality)? Or do you have a different understanding of that?

Intentions can be objectively moral or immoral, I suppose -- but when those intentions are translated into actions, things get more complicated... especially if an action has the opposite effect as intended.

Euthanasia is one of those morally debatable acts, so if I pull the plug on my 96-year-old grandmother because she has stage 4 cancer and doesn't want to be in pain anymore, we can argue whether or not that's a moral act... merciful, even.

OTOH, if I pull the plug because I can't wait to get my hands on my inheritance, and am convinced that the old bat's going to outlive Methuselah... not so much.

Now.... what if it's both? Or what if I don't know about her wishes to end her pain? Can I commit a merciful act for immoral reasons? How then do we judge the act?

 

[Bradskii]

Intentions can be objectively moral or immoral, I suppose -- but when those intentions are translated into actions, things get more complicated... especially if an action has the opposite effect as intended.

Euthanasia is one of those morally debatable acts, so if I pull the plug on my 96-year-old grandmother because she has stage 4 cancer and doesn't want to be in pain anymore, we can argue whether or not that's a moral act... merciful, even.

OTOH, if I pull the plug because I can't wait to get my hands on my inheritance, and am convinced that the old bat's going to outlive Methuselah... not so much.

Now.... what if it's both? Or what if I don't know about her wishes to end her pain? Can I commit a merciful act for immoral reasons? How then do we judge the act?

Within that there is an aspect of this that a couple of people don't appear to grasp. The facts regarding any act are objective. Facts are objective by definition. Even intent. It's like 'vanilla is better than chocolate' is not an objective fact, but if you prefer vanilla, then that's an objective fact.

If you intend evil (kill the old girl for the money), even though it's a personal 'preference' that you want her dead so you get the inheritance, the fact that you intend it is objective. If you intend good (put her out of her misery) then that is an objective fact as well.

Was it a moral act? It's relative to the facts surrounding the act. Which will all be objective. And that obviously (but apparently not obvious to all) makes it relative.

 

[Moral Orel]

Orel: No thing has the property of being "moral" or "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing is immoral?

Are you able to answer that question?

You gotta be kidding me...

 

[Bradskii]

You gotta be kidding me...

Are you actually saying that there are no acts that can be described as moral or immoral? That the concept of morality doesn't actually exist?

 

[Moral Orel]

Hmm, ok, but let it be noted that I’m skeptical of this response.

Fair enough. Sometimes I am unaware of the pervasiveness of the word "should" and it's ambiguity. So for clarity, let's hammer out exactly what "should" and "ought" mean.

They're used to denote obligation, duty or correctness. So if we say that "One ought not murder", this means that if one chooses to murder, then they have made an incorrect choice. The same way that if we ask, "What is two plus two? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4" the correct choice is 'd'. Just like how if we say "Murder is wrong", it is meant literally, as in choosing to murder is the wrong choice, just like choosing 'a' is the wrong choice.

Ok, here goes:
P1 Nancy feels wronged when her justifiable wants aren’t respected
P2 I shouldn't cause unjust wrongs
C I shouldn't do anything Nancy, justifiably, doesn't want me to do.

Do we need to go over what a justifiable want is?

Yeah, you'll need to tell me exactly what you mean by a "justifiable want".

Is there such a thing as a "just wrong" as opposed to an "unjust wrong"? Aren't all "wrongs" unjust? If so, then your wording is redundant. And if that's the case, then P2 is what's known as a "tautology". Which is where you define something with itself. Remember that we agreed the phrases "X is wrong" and "One shouldn't X" are equivalent. So P2 sounds to me like "We shouldn't do things that we shouldn't do".

Remember that a conclusion follows from the premises if whatever is in the conclusion appears in the premises. It works the other way around too. If you only mention something once in the premises and not in the conclusion, it's probably unnecessary. I can't see "Nancy feels wronged" as being required at all.

And the conclusion would be more aptly applied to the premises worded like this: "I shouldn't disrespect Nancy's justifiable wants".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Within that there is an aspect of this that a couple of people don't appear to grasp. The facts regarding any act are objective. Facts are objective by definition. Even intent. It's like 'vanilla is better than chocolate' is not an objective fact, but if you prefer vanilla, then that's an objective fact.

If you intend evil (kill the old girl for the money), even though it's a personal 'preference' that you want her dead so you get the inheritance, the fact that you intend it is objective. If you intend good (put her out of her misery) then that is an objective fact as well.

Was it a moral act? It's relative to the facts surrounding the act. Which will all be objective. And that obviously (but apparently not obvious to all) makes it relative.

I suppose the question then becomes whether the morality exists in the intent, the act, or the results?

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you actually saying that there are no acts that can be described as moral or immoral?

Anyone can describe anything in any way they want. I can describe the number 3 as purple. That doesn't mean that any color is a property of any number. You might as well be asking me how I determine whether the number 3 is purple or yellow.

You prefer that harm be minimized. If what you mean to ask is "Do you also have the same preference?", then your choice of phrasing does not reflect that. I won't assume you mean something other than exactly what you say.

That the concept of morality doesn't actually exist?

Concepts exist even if they are inaccurate. There a thousands of different concepts of God, and all of those concepts exist even though at least most (but maybe all) of them are wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I suppose the question then becomes whether the morality exists in the intent, the act, or the results?

If I have the intention to harm you but don't act on it...then there's nothing to be decided. Can my intention in itself be immoral? I'd say no.

If I intend to harm you and swing a punch but miss? Harm was intended. The the act was immoral.

If you get hit upside the head but I didn't intend to cause harm...well, there's the concept of criminal negligence which might be applicable. But if you leave a loaded gun where a child could access it, are we talking about morality in that case? Doing something stupid doesn't necessarily mean doing something immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

Anyone can describe anything in any way they want. I can describe the number 3 as purple. That doesn't mean that any color is a property of any number. You might as well be asking me how I determine whether the number 3 is purple or yellow.

You prefer that harm be minimized. If what you mean to ask is "Do you also have the same preference?", then your choice of phrasing does not reflect that. I won't assume you mean something other than exactly what you say.

Concepts exist even if they are inaccurate. There a thousands of different concepts of God, and all of those concepts exist even though at least most (but maybe all) of them are wrong.

I'm perplexed that such a simple question cannot be answered. I presume that you have used the terms moral and immoral. If you read that someone has acted immorally then you'd have a good idea of what that means. If someone is described as being a moral person, you'd know what that implies. You've been involved in a thread that has gone on for over 1700 posts discussing nothing but morality.

That you cannot (or will not) give an approximation of what those terms mean to you is bizarre.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm perplexed that such a simple question cannot be answered. I presume that you have used the terms moral and immoral. If you read that someone has acted immorally then you'd have a good idea of what that means. If someone is described as being a moral person, you'd know what that implies. You've been involved in a thread that has gone on for over 1700 posts discussing nothing but morality.

That you cannot (or will not) give an approximation of what those terms mean to you is bizarre.

I have told you more than once exactly what people mean when they use the terms. You clearly can't be bothered to pay attention, so adios.

 

[Bradskii]

I have told you more than once exactly what people mean when they use the terms. You clearly can't be bothered to pay attention, so adios.

I'm not interested in what 'people mean'. I'm interested in what you mean. Or rather I was. Seems it's a closely guarded matter.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not interested in what 'people mean'. I'm interested in what you mean. Or rather I was. Seems it's a closely guarded matter.

I explained that they're nonsense to me. They can't be used to make a grammatically correct sentence. You don't listen.

 

[Bradskii]

I explained that they're nonsense to me. They can't be used to make a grammatically correct sentence. You don't listen.

So these sentences make no sense to you:

1. The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
2. Ethics deals with moral conduct.
3. He is Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford.
4. Media reports generated moral outrage.
5. Human beings are moral individuals.
6. He turns every subject into a moral discussion.
7. We differ about moral standards.
8. Caring for elderly relatives requires considerable moral courage.
9. We have a moral obligation to protect the environment.
10. The writer criticized the moral vacuum in society.

 

[Moral Orel]

So these sentences make no sense to you:

1. The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
2. Ethics deals with moral conduct.
3. He is Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford.
4. Media reports generated moral outrage.
5. Human beings are moral individuals.
6. He turns every subject into a moral discussion.
7. We differ about moral standards.
8. Caring for elderly relatives requires considerable moral courage.
9. We have a moral obligation to protect the environment.
10. The writer criticized the moral vacuum in society.

I think I have a pretty good what others mean to say when they use the term, but that's not what you want me to do.

Orel: No thing has the property of being "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing has the property of being "immoral"?

That's how the conversation reads, and you're flustered that I won't give an answer to that nonsense. That is exactly equivalent, grammatically, to the question you're asking me. If you mean something else, then state exactly what you mean.

 

[Kylie]

You just want to argue without bothering to take a position, don't you? Here's a reminder of my initial post and it's point:


Agree or disagree. Take a position and chill with all the imply-then-deny, or we can be done. You're barely comprehending my posts at this point anyways, so I don't have the patience for antics.

I would say that by and large, "Take without permission" seems to work well as a definition of stealing.

If you take something of mine when I either have not said you may take it, or if I have specifically said you may NOT take it, then I would say you have stolen it.