Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It answers a question. Which is: 'Do we decide as to whether certain acts are good or bad?'
If you are going to ask trite questions about common English terms that we use to describe an evolutionary process that everyone understands quite cleary then it gives the appearance that you're not interested in what is being said. Rather how it is being said.
The mystery is and its hard to agree on what is classed as harm. You seem to think that your current view of harm is the ultimate measure. We only have to go back in time even recently to see that people thought what is regarded as harm now was seen as perfectly ok. That included issues that causes harm in the sense it made some people suffer,
Well, lucky we're not going back in time to ask people back then what they thought. We're in the here and now. So we can decide in the here and now. And by the way, you are still confusing harm with the justification of harm.
The point was that if we can go back in time to find that people believed they were not doing harm when they were then the same can apply now under relative morality. People once thought they were truely doing the right thing and it was widely accepted just like you may believe something today as being the right thing to do. There is no independent measure to really know.
Harm is harm, sometimes its said to be justifiied. But even the justification of harm is relative under relative morality.
We know that ECT was unjustified in the past. At one point it was seen as the cure for all sorts of ailments including curing being gay. It was also barbaric in that often no anesthetics was used and it convulsed and distorted patients in pain.
No, everyone who has caused harm intentionally knows they are causing harm. Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point.
Yes, harm is harm. Good. Stick with that. And now ask yourself who decides if it is justified or not. Let me know what your answer is.
And it was unjustified because...it was causing harm for very little benefit? Is that what you're saying?
I disagree. The simple fact that we don't know everything means we are potentially doing harm and we don't know it. There are many examples of how we thought something was good for us and it turned out it wasn't with new discoveries. There was no apparent observable harm at the time until later.
Hum who decides. That would depend on who is in that position according to relative morality. Or who protests the most. If you mean its left up to individuals or a group of individuals opinion or belief then this is not a moral truth independent of people or cultures. There needs to be more to safely say we are closer to the truth.
No I am saying that if we look back we can see that people believed certain things that were later shown to be barbaric as being good. Partly due to lack of knowledge. Though I would say that intuitively we knew it was not good to see people twisted in pain. That is why I think intuition is important. Though back then intuition was seen as unreal and unscientific which was and is part of the problem to moral truth.
If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.
Yes. but once we agree that it has been caused we can debate the justification. Again, I am going to ask you that if harm has not been caused, is it a moral matter? I'm still waiting on an answer.
Who else but us?
So we leave it to non-humans? I guess you mean it's decided by some sort of divine fiat. Then 'who decides' what that is?
Of course we do. It means we have to be doubly sure about whether we are causing harm. Its a red flag for us to be vigelant and to check things, our motives, biases, knowledge ect. To find that knowledge by investigating things and not take it for granted that what we think is harm or not is likely to be wrong.
I answered this question in the other thread where you mentioned me. If all parties can agree that no harm has been caused then maybe there is a case that no wrong has been done.
Well no not really. Not left to us as in just us, just our feelings and preferences which stop with us. That is not a good way to determine something that needs a truth determination. As I just showed many people disagree on what is harm and therefore what is moral. Often because of their self percieved beliefs and feelings rather than anything independent of themselves.
Good idea. Check to see if harm has been done. I wish I'd suggested that earlier. Oh, I did...
So I guess you mean that we need to determine harm to see if 'there is a case that no wrong has been done.' Good idea. Again, I wish I'd suggested that. Hey, didn't I do that?
That can be the case. Generally not. But I wish I'd pointed that out earlier. Oh, hang on. I did.
If you think harm has been done then you present your case. It will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. Which someone suggested earlier. Yeah...It was me.
Yet again, you present you case and it will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. See above for the rider.
So you present your case, etc etc etc.
Go ask Him then. And tell me what His arguments are. They will be judged etc etc etc.
That goes without saying. But that wasn't my point. You said "If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss". I am saying we should not assume that no harm is being done and that when we think no harm is being done there usually is harm being done by our past track record. So we do have much to discuss when we think there is no harm such as discussing our biases, hidden agendas, beliefs that cause us to think no harm is being done when there is.
I disagree apart from obvious examples like rape or child abuse there is much people disagree on. Just look at social media and how everyone is disagreeing about everything from wrong words to holding certain beliefs like they are hatred to what is a man and women as far as rights are concerned. UNder identity politics there are as many disagreements about what is good or bad as there are identities.
For every harm that some claim to be wrong others will as a matter of logic believe there is no harm. So unless the current beliefs that there is no harm caused by current policy and norms are all 100% correct then its likely that society as a whole believs in ideas that cause harm but deny that harm because of belief rather than facts.
dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com
But if we can show that some of the current ideas promoted in society that claim no harm and in fact are good for people that it logically follows that those who supported those ideas believed that no harm was being done. In other words we would not only show that harm is actually being done with these so called 'harmless ideas' being promted by also show that people can often believe in ideas that cause harm thinking they don't cause harm.
The case that people can be influenced by their beliefs and over rider the facts, truth and reality is not up for debate. Its a fact proven throughout our history. Look at how religious belief caused harm ISIS for example, the burning of witches and a modern day example of refusal of blood transfusions.
Its not a case of asking God but of the beliefs we humans have used an d applied in practical situations. Beliefs like the traditional family, being made in Gods image, being made male and female, sex being sacred, individuals arther than identity being the most important. The idea of religious belief itself being an important marker as to a better life. These are all evidenced by how we have lived over the centuries.
OK. Then we'll forget any consideration of whether harm has been done. But hang on...you said that if no harm has been done (or if we are unaware of any harm being done) then there's nothing to discuss re morality.
Ok so we have two different discussions. One is when harm is clearly identified and whether its justified harm.
It's a waste of time arguing about examples unless one can agree on what basis there can even be a discussion. And I think that you have agreed that we need to determine if harm has been done. Even, as we have seen, if particular people are unaware of it. That's what I call progress.
The problem is our discussion started with what is harm. You said "if we want to talk about moral acts then it must be on the basis of harm being caused. Because if there is no harm, there's no connection with morality".
That's right. That's all I wanted you to agree to. Specific examples illustrating how that should be done, or the difficulty in getting agreement on it I will leave to threads that deal with those specific examples. But simply by suggesting that it's difficult in determining it already accepts the premise that we should be trying to determine it in the first place. Because, as we have agreed, if no-one thinks harm has been done, there's nothing to discuss.
Fair enough. But that makes the thread pretty short and doesn't really address morality because it will only apply to those who agree on what is harm and whether its justified and that may not apply to many situations therefore leaving out a large part of determining morality.
Exactly that. You’ll note that these ‘morality’ threads are typically started by people demanding an objective moral framework without which people are psychopaths.
