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?'You do see that the above merely begs the question?
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.So evolution has a mind that can determine things?
If it's a matter of opinion. ...
Value is relative to the person who is doing the valuing. ...
If harm is caused then it's generally wrong (with obvious exceptions). ...
It's not compulsory to do so. ...
Generally speaking, what's good is what works. ...
So, you claim that establishing a secular morality is impossible. Thanks for your non-input.And if you have nothing to add, then thanks for your input.
It's quite difficult without considering human nature.So, you claim that establishing a secular morality is impossible. Thanks for your non-input.
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,I've done that. We can agree that something is wrong if it causes harm. Where's the mystery in that?
Do you want to try approaching this from the other direction? Can you agree that something cannot possibly be wrong if it causes no harm at all? Something tells me that you'll quibble about that but let's hear it anyway.
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 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.
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.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.
Harm is harm, sometimes its said to be justifiied. But even the justification of harm is relative under relative morality.And by the way, you are still confusing harm with the justification of harm.
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.And you should investigate the details of ECT as well. Then ask if it causes harm. And then ask yourself if it's justified. Forget the other examples...just do that one. We can use it as a test for what I've proposed.
No, everyone who has caused harm intentionally knows they are causing harm. Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point.The point was that if we can go back in time to find that people believed they were not doing harm...
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.Harm is harm, sometimes its said to be justifiied. But even the justification of harm is relative under relative morality.
And it was unjustified because...it was causing harm for very little benefit? Is that what you're saying?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.
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.No, everyone who has caused harm intentionally knows they are causing harm. Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point.
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.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.
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.And it was unjustified because...it was causing harm for very little benefit? Is that what you're saying?
If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.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.
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.But even the way we justify harm is subjective.
Who else but us?Hum who decides.
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?The point is when left to humans, and society we often get it wrong because we are supceptible to ignorance, self deception, self interest and other influences some we don't even realise.
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.If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.
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.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.
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.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?
Good idea. Check to see if harm has been done. I wish I'd suggested that earlier. Oh, I did...Of course we do. It means we have to be doubly sure about whether we are causing harm.
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?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.
That can be the case. Generally not. But I wish I'd pointed that out earlier. Oh, hang on. I did.The issue I see is that there is little agreement about whether harm is caused or not.
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.Secular society says a man can become a women in the name of doing no harm and others disagree and say this does cause harm to people especially kids. Secular society says easy divorce is good as it upholds womens rights. Others say its caused harm is undermining the family. SEcular society says freedom of sex is a right but others say it causes harm to relationships and objectifying women.
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.I could go on. There are plenty of examples where secular society and moral subjectivists will claim certain behaviours are perfectly fine but we can show that they are not and cause harm. So it seems to me that the definition of harm is what is the problem. If we can't agree on what is harm or not then how can we work out what ios moral.
So you present your case, etc etc etc.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.
Go ask Him then. And tell me what His arguments are. They will be judged etc etc etc.We need to check our feelings and beliefs against something more objective like the science, rationality, or our experiences or our intuition of the situation. That includes our religious beliefs which have served as a hallmark of what is moral or not. When it comes to Western nations that has been the Christian God.
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.Good idea. Check to see if harm has been done. I wish I'd suggested that earlier. Oh, I did...
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.That can be the case. Generally not. But I wish I'd pointed that out earlier. Oh, hang on. I did.
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.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.
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.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.
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.So you present your case, etc etc etc.
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.Go ask Him then. And tell me what His arguments are. They will be judged etc etc etc.
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.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.
Ok so we have two different discussions. One is when harm is clearly identified and whether its justified harm.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.
Now read that last sentence again, please. To make sure that you do, I'll repeat it. 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.
Now this isn't any sleight of hand, but 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. Even if there is no universal agreement on there being harm.
No harm, or no knowledge of it? Nothing to discuss.
If we do have something to discuss then somebody is claiming 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.Ok so we have two different discussions. One is when harm is clearly identified and whether its justified harm.
The other is to determine whether any harm is happening in the first place even if people claim no knowledge of it. So we can still have something to discuss when someone claims no harm is being done or no knowldge of it to determine if thats the case because they could be mistaken, deluded or be trying to fool us.
But I notice you pick and choose what to reply to while avoiding replying to the more difficult questions which are examples of what I am talking about.
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".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.
And in any case, this thread is not about any one particular moral problem or another. It's how to establish a secular morality. Not 'is there a problem with pronouns' or 'should children have heterosexual parents'. So don't expect me to get too far into a debate about individual matters. Take your questions to another thread if you want to discuss them. I don't mind using examples to investigate how the concept works. But other than that...
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.If you want to use harm as the basis then it logically follows that we need to establish whether harm is being caused in each situation.
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.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.
Exactly that. You’ll note that these ‘morality’ threads are typically started by people demanding an objective moral framework without which people are psychopaths.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. Even if people agree on harm that doesn't necessarily mean that its moral.
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?