“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[VirOptimus]

So what are morals, then? Opinions?

Pretty much yes.

It could. It could also presuppose, say, a cultural moral standard that isn't necessarily a reflection of pure material features of the universe, but against which one could compare the statement "X is moral" and determine whether it was true or false.

That is still a opinion.

We can only observe the physical universe around us through our senses, too, but it does not automatically follow that these things do not or could not exist independent of our observation of them.

You cant measure morals (or opinions) and there is no proof or indication that metaphysics exist.

 

[quatona]

Except to do this in any meaningful sense requires people to largely behave as if there is some moral standard external to their own opinions. If people actually behaved according to the way some seem to think morality works -- that it's all just one person's opinion versus another's, and neither one is really more valid than the other -- then we wouldn't get very far.

No, we don´t need that idea of an external moral standard, and no, validity isn´t the issue at all. We just need to acknowledge the obvious: that we are in sore need of agreements.

I'm trying to suss out how certain posters approach these issues.

Actually, you are not. You keep superimposing your own paradigms on what they say. This doesn´t help you understanding - it prevents you from understanding.

In what way does that constitute whining?

In the way that you refuse to do the actual work - which, admittedly, is hard and complicated.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If that is the motivation, is it general or specific? As in, is there no positive moral value
in treating someone well if we know from past experience and their stated intentions that they will treat us poorly in return? (I am not asking if there is a right then to treat them badly, but rather is there value in treating them well despite that). Is the motivation that we hope in general our treatment of others will cause a general reciprocal good or does that motivation apply to the specifics? (I hope I am making myself clear).

I'ld say that those who treat others poorly, will be paying a social price.
People won't like you and will indeed by less inclined to help you out when you need help with whatever. They'll be less inclined to keep you company. They'll be less inclined to trust you with anything.

And that's assuming your "bad behaviour" stays withing legal boundaries. Beyond that, you'll get punishments like fines or even jail time.

This is the way moral behaviour is motivated / imposed by society. Either through actual law or otherwise through "social contracts".

It's some kind of "reap what you sow" thing imo. The way you treat people will reflect back on how people treat you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?

Identical twins, aren't that identical.

And good job on ignoring the actual point being made.

Do you acknowledge what I said? That seperate H and O atoms don't behave like H2O does?

Yes or no.

 

[quatona]

We can agree on the implications all we want; if we don't agree on whether those implications are right or wrong, where do we go from there?

For example, we might both agree that if I take something from Person A, Person A would lose something and I would gain. If I think that's okay, on what basis could you or anyone else argue that I'm wrong, or that I shouldn't do so? If it's just your opinion that I shouldn't do that, why should I care?

Because hopefully you do; because, hopefully, you have understood that this is in your own best interest. There is no point in having the necessary discourse with a psychopath - and the discourse can not be had with someone who just plays psychpath´s advocate, either.

And, again (to show you how your own approach wouldn´t help with answering the kind of questions you ask: Why should you (the psychopath-pretender) care about an objective, external standard (assuming for a moment, there existed such)?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I read a post, IIRC, about game theory and utilitarianism. "Everyone happy" is a good first move in a moral game, but if people defect and act antisocially, and continually defect, then its not a good move. The better option, IMO, is to split into groups. That's why we have shunning, that's why we have jails, that's why we have friends and enemies, that's why we have social groups - in groups and out groups etc. Utilitarianism, if that's the way you're going (I never read the full post), for those reasons, is bonkers (no personal smear intended).

In my utopian world, several groups coëxist with all groups being tolerant of one another.
And yes, people will defect and act antisocially. And sure, as a society, one should respond to that one way or another.

 

[cvanwey]

Admirable.

But why should we care about how others feel or damage caused to them (unless we benefit ourselves indirectly)?

[Edit: I am interested in an atheist or humanist perspective on this, but I fear my questions sound like an amateur attempt at baiting you to admit there is no foundation for morality without a righteous God Who makes the rules. That is not my intention, nor my desire. But I think that my ineptitude will lead me down the path of trying to guide this discussion in that direction unintentionally. Please forgive me.]

If I may interject:

If murder is only opinion, because morals are subjective or opinion, what gives the authority for one individual to lock up another individual for murder? If morals are all opinion, no one opinion is really better than the next, as all human opinion is equal. If the murderer thinks they were justified, and the attempting prosecutor thinks otherwise, no objective standard exists, as both sides are only opinion. Pretty compelling... The theist has just laid out a pretty convincing argument. It's pretty hard to argue with this logic, right? Because again, if human morality is all opinion, there is no 'objective' standard. Therefore, no objective basis exists for punishment. Therefore, you are a hypocrite to lock up another fellow human because you assume your opinion is better than the individual you locked up, as all opinions are considered equal, because all humans are considered equal. Wow, I'm almost convinced now!


Two positions may be argued in defense of claimed 'objective morals' (A or B):

A) Murder is wrong because these moral's are built into humans from God - (we already know right from wrong, because we were built in God's image). This proposition does not claim humans will not murder, but that humans inherently know it's 'wrong' to murder.

(or)


B) Murder is wrong because god says so, as ordered from the Bible.

Position A)


If murder is wrong because most agree, then there is no need for a God to instruct as such; because the knowledge is already built within us to distinguish an absolute 'right/wrong' position. But then the theist will respond stating that God still does need to instruct such a command in the Bible, to present an absolute standard, or 'objective morality'. Humans that don't agree, are then instructed that murder actually is objectively wrong.

But...

If slavery is wrong because most agree, then there is no need for a God to instruct as such; because the knowledge is already built within us to distinguish an absolute 'right/wrong' position. But then the theist will respond stating that God still does need to instruct such a command in the Bible, to present an absolute standard or 'objective morality'. Humans that don't agree, are then instructed that slavery actually is objectively wrong.

But wait...

This logic is flawed. God instructs that murder is wrong, via the sixth commandment. However, no such instruction exists for slavery. A matter of fact, many verses condone slavery, instruct how to use slavery, and also instruct how one may or may not beat human property. But nowhere does the Bible state not to own another human as property and not to beat human property.

By using the above logic...

Murder is immoral because most agree, and the Bible re-affirms the same position, making murder objectively immoral. Even though God commanded killing, which is another topic I will not discuss; as it is not necessary.

Slavery is immoral because most agree, and yet the Bible does not re-affirm the same position? (making slavery objectively moral or immoral)? If opinions mostly agree slavery is immoral, because we were built in God's image and possess god's knowledge to absolute moral values, but the Bible condones slavery and never rebukes it, this is not rational. Is slavery moral or immoral?

In conclusion, to use position A) as a basis for objective morals is illogical.

So what about position B)?:

If claimed 'objective morals' are 'absolute', because god says so, then the word 'morality' is now irrelevant. When arguing this position, it does not matter what the human thinks or feels, and simply uses the Bible to instruct 'right/wrong'. The claimed human compass carries no weight, as the human is merely following commands.

God commands not to murder. God commands how to enslave and how to beat slaves.


In conclusion, using position B), murder is wrong, because god says so, and slavery is acceptable, because God says so. Our personal justifications, positions, and arguments don't matter. Therefore, pure divine command would be the only answer and our personal thoughts or opinions have no use. If this is the case, if we don't have the Bible memorized, and we are presented with a moral dilemma, and we only have our brains to distinguish a conclusion, how might one proceed?


Either position is flawed in logic and reason.

 

[gaara4158]

We can agree on the implications all we want; if we don't agree on whether those implications are right or wrong, where do we go from there?

For example, we might both agree that if I take something from Person A, Person A would lose something and I would gain. If I think that's okay, on what basis could you or anyone else argue that I'm wrong, or that I shouldn't do so? If it's just your opinion that I shouldn't do that, why should I care?

The implications would be logical conclusions, so presumably one person should be able to show the other that they’re being illogical or inconsistent.

The starting point of agreement would have to be that stealing is wrong if I am to persuade you not to steal from person A. If we couldn’t agree on that, I’d probe just how far our disagreement goes. Do you believe in personal property? Do you fear retribution? Do you prefer safety over chaos? If you didn’t care about any of this, ultimately there’s nothing I could tell you that would persuade you not to steal. I’d stay away from you from then on and I might even turn you in to the police, but presumably none of that matters to you.

 

[Redac]

Pretty much yes.

Then what basis do you have to prevent someone from doing something other than that you don't like it?

That is still a opinion.

It's functionally different from one individual's opinion versus another's.

 

[Redac]

No, we don´t need that idea of an external moral standard, and no, validity isn´t the issue at all. We just need to acknowledge the obvious: that we are in sore need of agreements.

Agreements on what, exactly?

Actually, you are not. You keep superimposing your own paradigms on what they say. This doesn´t help you understanding - it prevents you from understanding.

Disagreeing with certain ideas or conclusions does not mean I don't understand them.

In the way that you refuse to do the actual work - which, admittedly, is hard and complicated.

Yeah, nothing says doing actual work like "it's all just, like, your opinion man."

 

[VirOptimus]

Then what basis do you have to prevent someone from doing something other than that you don't like it?

What basis do you have?

It's functionally different from one individual's opinion versus another's.

No, its not.

I would very much recommend an 101 in basic moral philosophy. Your questions is incredibly basic.

 

[gaara4158]

Then what basis do you have to prevent someone from doing something other than that you don't like it?

Shared values, opinions, or goals. All you need to do to prevent someone from doing anything, ever, is to convince them that something they won’t like will happen as a consequence. If you can’t do that, you can’t stop them. If someone has no values, opinions, or goals, there is no conversation to be had.

 

[Redac]

What basis do you have?

Answer the question.

No, its not.

In that case, it's similar to grammar. It's a sort of non-absolute collective construct, but it has rules and standards external to what one individual likes or don't like.

I would very much recommend an 101 in basic moral philosophy. Your questions is incredibly basic.

They're not intended to be particularly complicated. They're partially intended to see if what people are suggesting here is emotivism, and that seems to be what I'm getting.

 

[Redac]

The implications would be logical conclusions, so presumably one person should be able to show the other that they’re being illogical or inconsistent.

Except that your position appears to be that ethical statements are just abstracted emotional expressions. So "X is right" is not a statement that is true or false; all it really amounts to is "I prefer X." If there's no reason greater for you to prefer X than that you just like X more than not-X, then there's no logical argument to be had. It would make about as much sense as trying to argue how "I prefer strawberry ice cream" is an illogical or incorrect thing to think.

If this is not your position, then please tell me what is.

The starting point of agreement would have to be that stealing is wrong if I am to persuade you not to steal from person A.

Again, if the statement "stealing is wrong" is really just a rephrasing of "I don't like stealing" then how do you plan to make a persuasive argument? All you're really doing there is telling me what you do and don't like. That in itself places no obligation on anyone else to act in any specific way.

Do you fear retribution?

Do you think the rightness or wrongness of an act is dependent upon whether or not someone can commit that act without fear of retribution?

If you didn’t care about any of this, ultimately there’s nothing I could tell you that would persuade you not to steal.

But here's the key question: even if you can't convince me not to do it, am I still wrong in doing so?

I’d stay away from you from then on and I might even turn you in to the police, but presumably none of that matters to you.

What justification would anyone have for arresting me, though? They'd be legally allowed to do so, and they'd certainly have the ability to do so, but that's not equivalent to having a moral justification for it.

 

[Redac]

Shared values, opinions, or goals. All you need to do to prevent someone from doing anything, ever, is to convince them that something they won’t like will happen as a consequence.

This is easier to do with more serious things like murder or theft; much more difficult with things that aren't illegal, or that won't necessarily have negative consequences that outweigh the positives in that person's mind (e.g. cheating on your girlfriend).

It also kind of skips over what I'm trying to get at, perhaps due to how I phrased the question. I mean on what grounds could you forcibly prevent someone from doing something "wrong" if to be "wrong" means just to do something you don't personally like. You might be capable of stopping something, but do you have any moral justification for doing so?

What I'm getting at is that the position I'm addressing essentially precludes you from really engaging in any discussion on what people ought to do (i.e. any discussion of morality), particularly with regard to real world issues of a debatable moral character like, say, abortion. There's nothing underlying any such emotivist moral judgment one way or another except for emotion -- it's nothing more than an emotional outburst. There is no cognitive criteria by which we can affirm one such statement over another, so debate becomes pointless.

If you can’t do that, you can’t stop them.

Sure you can. You might not be able to talk hypothetical sociopath me out of breaking in and stealing your stuff, but you could certainly stop me from doing so.

If someone has no values, opinions, or goals, there is no conversation to be had.

Nor is there one to be had if ethical statements are simply emotive outbursts.

 

[gaara4158]

Except that your position appears to be that ethical statements are just abstracted emotional expressions. So "X is right" is not a statement that is true or false; all it really amounts to is "I prefer X." If there's no reason greater for you to prefer X than that you just like X more than not-X, then there's no logical argument to be had. It would make about as much sense as trying to argue how "I prefer strawberry ice cream" is an illogical or incorrect thing to think.

If this is not your position, then please tell me what is.

That’s pretty close. Moral statements are pronouncements of what one believes best serves the purpose of human flourishing. This will inevitably vary from person to person.

Again, if the statement "stealing is wrong" is really just a rephrasing of "I don't like stealing" then how do you plan to make a persuasive argument? All you're really doing there is telling me what you do and don't like. That in itself places no obligation on anyone else to act in any specific way.

The obligation comes from your own self-interest. If I can convince you that it is against your self-interest to steal, you will either refrain from stealing or you will act against your own self-interest. You can choose the reckless path if you wish, but don’t be surprised when those of us invested in our own collective self-interest dedicate a significant amount of time and resources to stopping you. Notice that I don’t have to make any moral pronouncements whatsoever to make a good argument against your proposed act of theft.

Do you think the rightness or wrongness of an act is dependent upon whether or not someone can commit that act without fear of retribution?

What? Right/moral/good actions are those most conducive to human flourishing. Wrong/immoral/evil actions are those most conducive to human suffering. It has nothing to do with fear of retribution. Fear of retribution is a motivator of behavior, not a moral compass.

But here's the key question: even if you can't convince me not to do it, am I still wrong in doing so?

You’re acting against the interest of all parties involved. Going by the definition I just provided, is there anything more wrong than that?

What justification would anyone have for arresting me, though? They'd be legally allowed to do so, and they'd certainly have the ability to do so, but that's not equivalent to having a moral justification for it.

You answered your own question. It’s legal action taken legally. Unless you’re an actual anarchist I think you know exactly why personal property rights are worth enforcing.

 

[gaara4158]

What I'm getting at is that the position I'm addressing essentially precludes you from really engaging in any discussion on what people ought to do (i.e. any discussion of morality), particularly with regard to real world issues of a debatable moral character like, say, abortion. There's nothing underlying any such emotivist moral judgment one way or another except for emotion -- it's nothing more than an emotional outburst. There is no cognitive criteria by which we can affirm one such statement over another, so debate becomes pointless.

Any “ought” statement is necessarily contingent on a subject’s desired end state of affairs. It’s inevitable that emotions will play a role in this moral calculus. Your dissatisfaction with this is, as you would say, nothing more than an emotional outburst. You can succumb to the despair of not having a clear-cut answer to every moral dilemma in life, or you can try to use reason to arrive at an agreeable compromise. The choice is yours.

Sure you can. You might not be able to talk hypothetical sociopath me out of breaking in and stealing your stuff, but you could certainly stop me from doing so.

Depends how clever, skilled, and strong you are. If you didn’t like your odds, would you still try to do it?

Nor is there one to be had if ethical statements are simply emotive outbursts.

Then it’s a good thing I never, ever try to persuade people not to do things by telling them “because it’s wrong!”

 

[Redac]

That’s pretty close. Moral statements are pronouncements of what one believes best serves the purpose of

Did something cut off here? Best serves the purpose of... what?

The obligation comes from your own self-interest. If I can convince you that it is against your self-interest to steal, you will either refrain from stealing or you will act against your own self-interest.

All right, so you've stated here that moral obligation, the "ought" as it were, is based upon what best serves my own self-interest. But you've also stated here that my self-interest is separate from my own opinions on what that self-interest is. This makes sense in a way -- after all, if "my self-interest" is entirely dependent upon my own opinion of what that self-interest is, then I can literally never be wrong, and questions of morality become moot.

Of course, this conflicts with the quasi-emotivism you and others have been espousing, which states that declarations of right and wrong ultimately boil down to individual emotional responses to specific actions, which is purely subjective and pre-rational. One says that an act is "wrong" because it goes against one's own self-interest; the other says that "wrong" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't like this."

Appealing to self-interest also presents a number of odd moral questions. For example, self-sacrifice would be morally ambiguous at best and despicably immoral at worst.

You can choose the reckless path if you wish, but don’t be surprised when those of us invested in our own collective self-interest dedicate a significant amount of time and resources to stopping you.

This suggests that an act like theft (or something far worse) is only immoral insofar as it violates my own self-interest, and it only violates that self-interest insofar as I may face punitive action from those around me. The act itself would be utterly without moral character.

Notice that I don’t have to make any moral pronouncements whatsoever to make a good argument against your proposed act of theft.

That's in part because you don't have any moral basis upon which to make those arguments.

What? Right/moral/good actions are those most conducive to human flourishing.

This is not consistent with what you've been saying. Above you stated that obligation to act or not act came from what best served my own self-interest. Here it's about what's most conducive to human flourishing.

Wrong/immoral/evil actions are those most conducive to human suffering.

So "wrong" isn't what's against my own self-interest? Now it's what's conducive to human suffering? Why is suffering in itself an immoral thing?

There's a leap you're making here that my personal self-interest, and indeed the self-interest of every individual, is synonymous with "what's most conducive to human flourishing" but also varies from person to person so widely that "human flourishing" becomes essentially meaningless. This has not been established or justified at all.

It has nothing to do with fear of retribution. Fear of retribution is a motivator of behavior, not a moral compass.

True, but it's the motivator you're appealing to the most here. Even the self-interest bit above seems to suggest that some action would only be against my self-interest because it would bring about retribution from other people acting in their self-interest.

You’re acting against the interest of all parties involved. Going by the definition I just provided, is there anything more wrong than that?

Perhaps not, but again, this is stating that something is wrong because it will bring about punitive action from other people. It doesn't really gel with wrongness being about how conducive to human suffering

You answered your own question. It’s legal action taken legally. Unless you’re an actual anarchist I think you know exactly why personal property rights are worth enforcing.

No, certainly not an anarchist. I'm asking for a moral justification for it from your perspective, though.

 

[Redac]

Any “ought” statement is necessarily contingent on a subject’s desired end state of affairs.

Of course.

It’s inevitable that emotions will play a role in this moral calculus.

No disagreement.

Your dissatisfaction with this is, as you would say, nothing more than an emotional outburst.

Uhh, no?

You can succumb to the despair of not having a clear-cut answer to every moral dilemma in life, or you can try to use reason to arrive at an agreeable compromise. The choice is yours.

Not quite. My qualm with emotivism is, as I stated, that it reduces all moral statements to pure emotion. It doesn't simply claim that emotion is involved; it claims that moral proclamations can be reduced to "yay" or "boo", and everything else after that is after-the-fact rationalization of what amounts to an emotional response. In other words, the moral claim "murder is wrong" = "I don't like murder" = "boo murder!" "Murder is wrong" isn't true or false, it's just the emotional reaction of the person making that statement.

One of the interesting consequences of this line of thinking is that acts in themselves would not have any kind of moral value. Killing someone is only "wrong" because most people personally don't care for it; the act itself if amoral would have to be seen as amoral.

Depends how clever, skilled, and strong you are. If you didn’t like your odds, would you still try to do it?

I'm unlikely to do so even if I thought I could get away with it.

Then it’s a good thing I never, ever try to persuade people not to do things by telling them “because it’s wrong!”

No, but when all moral utterances reduce to emotional reactions, you may as well be yelling "boo!" when you express disapproval of something. It's the same thing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Answer the question.

I already have. Furthermore, you have the same basis for your morals.

In that case, it's similar to grammar. It's a sort of non-absolute collective construct, but it has rules and standards external to what one individual likes or don't like.

No, its not like grammar.

They're not intended to be particularly complicated. They're partially intended to see if what people are suggesting here is emotivism, and that seems to be what I'm getting.

Well, you are wrong which you would understand if you knew more about the subject. People far smarter then you or I have written about moral philosophy for a very long time.