How do you justify moral actions?

[Jonaitis]

What is being argued here is that under moral relativity what is good is determined by the desires of an individual, therefore a rapist would see rape as a good outcome. The idea that dysfunction = a specific thing is also matter of interpretation. The Romans who created the longest lasting empire for example waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as good. If that's the case it's impossible to disagree with them because the basis for what you determine to be good, is that which has a good outcome. Which given the aforementioned example, under your worldview it would have you calling slavery a good thing. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard (something not relative).

If morality was solely objective, then it would not benefit at all times. If it was solely subjective, then it wouldn't matter to anyone. It must be both rationally structured and relative to the circumstances involved. A practical morality based on reason and compassion are rudimentary for any society.

We see this kind of practical morality throughout the biblical writings. When Jesus' disciples was scolded by the religious crowd for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, the Lord taught that necessity and mercy is greater than the requirements of the Sabbath. When David and his men were hungry, as the Lord recounts, they ate the holy bread that was set apart for the priest only. And the priesthood itself negates the requirement to rest on the Sabbath. We must utilize rational and relatives means to accomplish morally correct judgements.

 

[Tuur]

It's not perfect but I think it's better than just believing something is moral because a religious authority told you so. It's a place to start, to focus ethics on humanistic concerns rather than what offends a deity.

But who defines those? What is seen as a humanistic concern in one place and time might be seen as nonsense or even evil in another.

 

[FireDragon76]

But who defines those? What is seen as a humanistic concern in one place and time might be seen as nonsense or even evil in another.

Of course, morality evolves and adapts to local circumstances. I don't have a problem with that. What I am speaking of is morality in the abstract, abstract moral principles.

 

[Larniavc]

If everything is temporary and therefore in time will be forgotten, why does it matter if I do what is "good" according to the current culture?

Because it matters ‘now’.

If I hurt my leg, in ten years it won’t matter. But right now? It’s the only thing that matters.

We have rules and laws because we have learnt that the effort it takes to have them is worth it.

Do you see now?

 

[FireDragon76]

If I eat some food one day and then lose all of my memory I'm going to have to go to the bathroom the next day regardless of if I remember what occurred. So no I'm not a head trauma away from losing it. Consequences flow forth from present actions, you believe this otherwise you wouldn't view a sense of transformation like you documented above. Transformation can't happen without a cause.

Yeah that's what I'm arguing, permanent things matter. See "That which is transient has no inherent value, the only way transient things find value is if they produce or impact something that continues to exist"

Well, people aren't permanent, either. We come into being and we pass out of being. If one takes David Hume or Buddhism seriously, we don't even have an enduring self.

Just consider this: being isn't a thing, it's a process. That's why I have trouble seeing God as necessary.

 

[Tuur]

Of course, morality evolves and adapts to local circumstances. I don't have a problem with that. What I am speaking of is morality in the abstract, abstract moral principles.

Yes, but I think that varies, too. Consider Beargardens, once considered entertainment but would bring scorn and condemnation now. That's not even the most extreme juxtaposition.

 

[Tuur]

Just consider this: being isn't a thing, it's a process. That's why I have trouble seeing God as necessary.

This gets into all sorts of theological things, but is the ocean necessary? We may or may not think that the ocean is necessary, but it doesn't change that the ocean is.

 

[FireDragon76]

This gets into all sorts of theological things, but is the ocean necessary? We may or may not think that the ocean is necessary, but it doesn't change that the ocean is.

The ocean is something I can perceive and nobody that has experienced it can doubt it exists. That is not the case with God. The Christian concept of God rests on faith.

Yes, but I think that varies, too. Consider Beargardens, once considered entertainment but would bring scorn and condemnation now. That's not even the most extreme juxtaposition.

I don't see how that's a problem. Societies change and their moral standards change as well.

 

[Tuur]

The ocean is something I can perceive and nobody that has experienced it can doubt it exists. That is not the case with God. The Christian concept of God rests on faith.

Christians can say the same about God as you say about the ocean.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And in general I agree with that. Culture and Morals change over time based on the situation in and around the culture. For examaple: in one culture slaverly is a moral good, and for another it is a moral evil. The difference is usally based on time and industral capasity, but for someone like me slavery is evil since it harms individuals and takes away their freedoms.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but all we're left with then is the idea that you think slavery is evil, not that slavery is indeed evil.

Agreed, but you never know until you act on them in the future. Which is why one should be looking at results of actions based on moral judgements and changing ones personal morals. And if enough people change their morals in the same way, the culture will change.

Insisting that anyone "should be" doing anything requires more substance than merely the relative outcome of results. Morality, for it to be of universal significance and social potency, really needs a metaphysical substantiation to avoid being more than just a cultural, or even just a pedestrian, form of pragmatics. As for people changing their morals in order to change culture: that idea in and of itself only qualifies as social activism rather than a full-fledged morality working itself out from some identifiable Ethical System of thought.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hume believed morality was about cultivating sociable sentiments?

I was thinking more about the Is/Ought distinction, really.

But even so, I get what you're saying. On its own merits, there is the practicality of social cultivation to consider, and I'd agree that many more useful, interesting, even beautiful things can come out of the cultivation of sociable sentiments.

It's not perfect but I think it's better than just believing something is moral because a religious authority told you so. It's a place to start, to focus ethics on humanistic concerns rather than what offends a deity.

Yes, I agree. But I take into account, too, that IF there may be a Deity, that might have additional weight on my otherwise humanistic level ethical deliberations.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If morality was solely objective, then it would not benefit at all times. If it was solely subjective, then it wouldn't matter to anyone. It must be both rationally structured and relative to the circumstances involved. A practical morality based on reason and compassion are rudimentary for any society.

We see this kind of practical morality throughout the biblical writings. When Jesus' disciples was scolded by the religious crowd for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, the Lord taught that necessity and mercy is greater than the requirements of the Sabbath. When David and his men were hungry, as the Lord recounts, they ate the holy bread that was set apart for the priest only. And the priesthood itself negates the requirement to rest on the Sabbath. We must utilize rational and relatives means to accomplish morally correct judgements.

Morality is a type of knowledge and as such it is contextual. Objective moral principles do not exist in reality apart from the mind and they do not exist in the mind apart from reality. They exist in the relationship between the mind and reality, hence their basis in the primacy of existence principle. They are some aspects of reality in relation to man's life as discovered and understood conceptually by the mind.

 

[Jonaitis]

Morality is a type of knowledge and as such it is contextual. Objective moral principles do not exist in reality apart from the mind and they do not exist in the mind apart from reality. They exist in the relationship between the mind and reality, hence their basis in the primacy of existence principle. They are some aspect of reality as discovered and understood conceptually by the mind.

Well, technically, nothing actually exists apart from the mind. We must still formulate a morality to interact with this illusory reality.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, technically, nothing actually exists apart from the mind. We must still formulate a morality to interact with this illusory reality.

Uh......No. consciousness is consciousness of something. Are you a solipsist?

 

[Jonaitis]

Uh......No. consciousness is consciousness of something. Are you a solipsist?

No, but I am a non-dualist Christian. All content of experience can only appear in consciousness.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No, but I am a non-dualist Christian. All content of experience can only appear in consciousness.

I see. Well, that may be true for you but it's not true for me.

 

[Jonaitis]

I see. Well, that may be true for you but it's not true for me.

Well, it doesn't really matter if it is true for you or not, you're having an experience in consciousness. Everything you know as reality appears only in consciousness, and we all share it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, it doesn't really matter if it is true for you or not, you're having an experience in consciousness. Everything you know as reality appears in consciousness, and we all share it.

We don't share it. I live in a different universe than you do, apparently and we have no basis for a discussion. Enjoy your illusory world but I will not interact with you further.

 

[Jonaitis]

I will not interact with you further.

you can't prove that what you see is real without it. Well, I guess we'll end the discussion here. It does make most people feel uncomfortable thinking about it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was thinking more about the Is/Ought distinction, really.

But even so, I get what you're saying. On its own merits, there is the practicality of social cultivation to consider, and I'd agree that many more useful, interesting, even beautiful things can come out of the cultivation of sociable sentiments.


Yes, I agree. But I take into account, too, that IF there may be a Deity, that might have additional weight on my otherwise humanistic level ethical deliberations.

I don't think whether God exists or not would be relevant to what is ethical. I don't accept divine command ethics as relevant when it involves questions of duties to ones fellow human beings.