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.
To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":How in the world do you make that jump?
Exactly. I agree that knowledge of the motive is irrelevant.The only objective fact here is that the perpetrator has some reason which they consider sufficient justification for committing the action.
If a man beats his wife because she overcooked his toast, then there is a motive for the beating, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively moral to beat someone for overcooking your toast.
How in the world do you make that jump?
The fact that a person does something for a reason which they consider valid does not mean that there is objective morality.
The only objective fact here is that the perpetrator has some reason which they consider sufficient justification for committing the action.
If a man beats his wife because she overcooked his toast, then there is a motive for the beating, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively moral to beat someone for overcooking your toast.
To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":
"and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality"
Exactly. I agree that knowledge of the motive is irrelevant.
To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":
"and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality"
I don't think he was really making the jump that his statement, phrased as it was, is true.
Wow, just ...wow.
Colloquially and logically, the way I stated it is correct and usual. For example:
"If I am going the speed limit, and I accelerate, then I will be speeding."The form is: ((X ^ Y ) -> Z)
It would be altogether strange to read it this way: ((X -> Z) ^ Y)
...for the statement obviously does not mean, "If I am going the speed limit, then I will be speeding. Also, I accelerate."
Regarding what I said earlier:
"If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists."...the statement obviously does not mean, "If the perpetrator knows their own motive, then objective morality exists. Also, knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality." The only reason Kylie failed to understand the meaning of that statement is because she tried very, very hard to misunderstand it. Note, too, that her interpretation was none of the above. She did not even manage the logically mistaken form.
Some people might add a second 'if' as you did, but I myself would want to avoid it since the logical meaning has only one 'if', and its antecedent is a conjunction.
Kylie was there wielding the strawman which says that if a motive is known, then the act is morally good.
Her recent approach has been desperate to show that motives cannot be known, despite the fact that she admits that they are known by the perpetrator. She doesn't seem to understand the point made in #603 at all.
I don’t think it’s too uncommon a definition, odd as it may be. There’s a whole Friends episode that (briefly and lightly) displays the paradox.Okay, that is helpful. We do seem to have different definitions of "altruism."
It seems to me that your definition must be somewhat odd, though. I don't think anyone who actually believes in selflessness would define it in such a strict way, so that even the (self-affirming) belief that one performed a correct action precludes it from being selfless.
I think you're mixing up "logical" and "true" which are definitely related, but they aren't the same thing. It is true that I don't enjoy experiencing brussel sprouts, and that causes me to hate them. But I didn't choose to hate them based on rational deliberation. So yeah, it is true that I don't enjoy knowing about folk that burn down buildings, and that causes me to hate them.
Just a more descriptive claim. Try filling in this blank:
Burning down a children's hospital and causing extreme suffering for personal gratification is objectively immoral because ______________
This has nothing to do with sound senses or empathy. We both have the same emotions in response to it. This has to do with sound reasoning. What do your personal feelings inform us about the rest of the world? Nothing.
So let's say that fella that burnt down the children's hospital gets caught and thrown in prison. He hates the police that arrested him and the judge that sentenced him; he hates the witnesses that testified against him; he hates being testified against, he hates being arrested, and he hates being sentenced. Therefore it was wrong to do these things against him? No, of course not. Your personal emotional reaction to something is irrelevant to whether that thing is "right" or "wrong".
It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a true motive that explains the objective effects of acting the motive out. That’s the whole point.
You guys always focus on the "it's not wrong" aspect. You know it isn't "right" either, right?I still think if we have access to true motive and the effects of acting out the motive, we can determine objective morality of said action, assuming we have sound sensibilities, which involves the ability to acknowledge the obvious, like how it’s wrong to burn down occupied children's hospitals. Sorry, but I’m beginning to question your sensibilities on this. I mean, based on what you’ve said before, doing that isn’t even “wrong”.
The same way I have a strong desire to keep brussel sprouts out of my mouth.If we take your view that it’s not even “wrong”, then how do we explain the strong desire that we with sound senses have to never see that happen?
It's in my personal category of "I hate this". What else do we need?How should we categorize that action if saying it’s “wrong” is off the table?
I think his point was that unknown motives don't prove morality is not objective because motives are not unknown to everyone. He wasn't attempting to prove objective morality entirely; he was simply shooting down one objection.The problem is, however, that the highlighted part assumes that there is an objective morality in order to show that there is an objective morality. It becomes circular logic, and thus fallacious.
I think his point was that unknown motives don't prove morality is not objective because motives are not unknown to everyone. He wasn't attempting to prove objective morality entirely; he was simply shooting down one objection.
You guys always focus on the "it's not wrong" aspect. You know it isn't "right" either, right?
You keep saying that it's obvious, but what you're telling me is that you hold a belief for absolutely no reason. You simply think of some act, and just magically know that it is either "right" or "wrong". That seems like the more bizarre position to me.
The same way I have a strong desire to keep brussel sprouts out of my mouth.
How do you know you have a sound moral sensibility?
It's in my personal category of "I hate this". What else do we need?
But how could we tell?
Even the person who did it may not fully understand their motive.
I read what you said as:
If knowing the motive is sufficient to show that morality is objective, then a perpetrator knowing their own motive shows that objective morality exists.
I was disagreeing with the first part of that.
I don’t think it’s too uncommon a definition, odd as it may be. There’s a whole Friends episode that (briefly and lightly) displays the paradox.
Why is it wrong to subject people to things they hate?Ok, so in my view, if I want to help you and you say you hate something, like really hate it, then it would be objectively wrong of me to subject you to it BECAUSE of the fact that you hate it.
As long as you don’t think it’s always impossible to tell, then you might agree with me, at least to some degree.
But if you think it’s always impossible to determine motive then I simply disagree.
Ok, so in my view, if I want to help you and you say you hate something, like really hate it, then it would be objectively wrong of me to subject you to it BECAUSE of the fact that you hate it. I would try to find a better way to help you that doesn’t involve subjecting you to something you hate.
I don’t see what’s illogical about that.
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?