VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Pretty much yes.
That is still a opinion.
You cant measure morals (or opinions) and there is no proof or indication that metaphysics exist.
Upvote
0
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.
So what are morals, then? Opinions?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.I'm trying to suss out how certain posters approach these issues.
In the way that you refuse to do the actual work - which, admittedly, is hard and complicated.In what way does that constitute whining?
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).
would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?
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.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?
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).
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.]
The implications would be logical conclusions, so presumably one person should be able to show the other that they’re being illogical or inconsistent.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?
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.
Disagreeing with certain ideas or conclusions does not mean I don't understand them.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.
Yeah, nothing says doing actual work like "it's all just, like, your opinion man."In the way that you refuse to do the actual work - which, admittedly, is hard and complicated.
Then what basis do you have to prevent someone from doing something other than that you don't like it?
It's functionally different from one individual's opinion versus another's.
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.Then what basis do you have to prevent someone from doing something other than that you don't like it?
Answer the question.What basis do you have?
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.
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.I would very much recommend an 101 in basic moral philosophy. Your questions is incredibly basic.
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.The implications would be logical conclusions, so presumably one person should be able to show the other that they’re being illogical or inconsistent.
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 starting point of agreement would have to be that stealing is wrong if I am to persuade you not to steal from person A.
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?Do you fear retribution?
But here's the key question: even if you can't convince me not to do it, am I still wrong in doing so?If you didn’t care about any of this, ultimately there’s nothing I could tell you that would persuade you not to steal.
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.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.
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).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.
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 you can’t do that, you can’t stop them.
Nor is there one to be had if ethical statements are simply emotive outbursts.If someone has no values, opinions, or goals, there is no conversation to be had.
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 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.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.
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.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?
You’re acting against the interest of all parties involved. Going by the definition I just provided, is there anything more wrong than that?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 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.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.
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.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.
Depends how clever, skilled, and strong you are. If you didn’t like your odds, would you still try to do it?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.
Then it’s a good thing I never, ever try to persuade people not to do things by telling them “because it’s wrong!”Nor is there one to be had if ethical statements are simply emotive outbursts.
Did something cut off here? Best serves the purpose of... what?That’s pretty close. Moral statements are pronouncements of what one believes best serves the purpose of
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.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.
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.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.
That's in part because you don't have any moral basis upon which to make those arguments.Notice that I don’t have to make any moral pronouncements whatsoever to make a good argument against your proposed act of theft.
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.What? Right/moral/good actions are those most conducive to human flourishing.
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?Wrong/immoral/evil actions are those most conducive to human suffering.
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.It has nothing to do with fear of retribution. Fear of retribution is a motivator of behavior, not a moral compass.
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 sufferingYou’re acting against the interest of all parties involved. Going by the definition I just provided, is there anything more wrong than that?
No, certainly not an anarchist. I'm asking for a moral justification for it from your perspective, though.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.
Of course.Any “ought” statement is necessarily contingent on a subject’s desired end state of affairs.
No disagreement.It’s inevitable that emotions will play a role in this moral calculus.
Uhh, no?Your dissatisfaction with this is, as you would say, nothing more than an emotional outburst.
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.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.
I'm unlikely to do so even if I thought I could get away with it.Depends how clever, skilled, and strong you are. If you didn’t like your odds, would you still try to do it?
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.Then it’s a good thing I never, ever try to persuade people not to do things by telling them “because it’s wrong!”
Answer the question.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?