How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[2PhiloVoid]

The word disingenuous I find is applicable.

And what precisely am I disingenuous about?

 

[Bradskii]

And what precisely am I disingenuous about?

There's an American term. Something about hats and cattle. It'll come to me at some point. And another about playing the ball and not the man. Which I would love to do. But you don't involve yourself. You stand on the touchlines and criticise the plays of others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's an American term. Something about hats and cattle. It'll come to me at some point. And another about playing the ball and not the man. Which I would love to do. But you don't involve yourself. You stand on the touchlines and criticise the plays of others.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing ... and to think I recently offered you a hug. It's still available if you want it.

I'm not sure how your wife will feel about it, but a hug would be what Jesus would want me to offer you, I'm pretty sure ...

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do you think you have a sincere "Moral code" guiding your behavior?

Or is it more likely that you rarely consider the morality of your actions....you simply have the reasons why you do them....and moral consideration of your actions is really only made when you are considering violating the moral norms of whatever social group you inhabit?

I would say that I do have a moral code that I would sincerely want to guide my behavior. Most of the actions I take are morally neutral. They do not violate my moral code, but they do not reinforce it either. When I got out of bed, ate breakfast, washed, got dressed, and shaved today it had no moral implications whatsoever in my mind. I expect that this trend will continue for the majority of actions I take today. I can say positively that the moral norms of the numerous social groups I inhabit do not enter into my calculations since they are often contradictory to each other. I will also say that when faced with a situation in which my moral code will come into play, I cannot count on myself to consistently and without exception behave according to that code. IMO that means that in any particular instance, I will either act according to the code and be morally upright that time or will act in a morally bankrupt way and have reason to feel guilty. The fact I am imperfect does not mean that I should jettison the idea that there are better and worse ways to behave and that I ought to consider which is which prior to engaging in the behavior rather than engaging in behavior first and justifying it as being moral just because it was me that did it or rationalize that the behavior was justified because of whatever thing I wanted to use as an excuse.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say that I do have a moral code that I would sincerely want to guide my behavior. Most of the actions I take are morally neutral. They do not violate my moral code, but they do not reinforce it either. When I got out of bed, ate breakfast, washed, got dressed, and shaved today it had no moral implications whatsoever in my mind. I expect that this trend will continue for the majority of actions I take today.

Ok....I would agree with one statement you made here....you see most of your actions as morally neutral. This is what I mean when I say you don't act on a moral code....because most of your actions aren't morally neutral.


If you doubt this....skip the showers for 2 weeks and see if anyone seems worried or concerned for you. The stench coming off you will tell them something is wrong....and cause them some degree of stress.

The toothpaste, the cell phone, the battery in everything and the plastic it comes in....the water itself...comes at the expense of a long causal chain the begins or ends somewhere with someone suffering. You can't take a drink from a stream without denying it to someone further downstream. You're very far up stream.

You may imagine that because of the distance, because of the number of people involved, or the relatively small role you play....you aren't responsible. This denies the fact that the entire chain exists for the very purpose of serving you...not those who it harms or oppressed.

But you are correct....the distance, the comfort and ignorance of the ways allows you to ignore the reality of the ends. If the people who suffer for the things you purchase did so right outside your home....you'd probably feel differently.


The moral code is a fantasy....it's what allows you to ignore the nature of the reality. You brushed your teeth, with a brush and toothpaste because you don't want them to fall out ostensibly. You had a reason....so you did it. There's no moral consideration....no code....nothing more to consider.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Ok....I would agree with one statement you made here....you see most of your actions as morally neutral. This is what I mean when I say you don't act on a moral code....because most of your actions aren't morally neutral.


If you doubt this....skip the showers for 2 weeks and see if anyone seems worried or concerned for you. The stench coming off you will tell them something is wrong....and cause them some degree of stress.

The toothpaste, the cell phone, the battery in everything and the plastic it comes in....the water itself...comes at the expense of a long causal chain the begins or ends somewhere with someone suffering. You can't take a drink from a stream without denying it to someone further downstream. You're very far up stream.

You may imagine that because of the distance, because of the number of people involved, or the relatively small role you play....you aren't responsible. This denies the fact that the entire chain exists for the very purpose of serving you...not those who it harms or oppressed.

But you are correct....the distance, the comfort and ignorance of the ways allows you to ignore the reality of the ends. If the people who suffer for the things you purchase did so right outside your home....you'd probably feel differently.


The moral code is a fantasy....it's what allows you to ignore the nature of the reality. You brushed your teeth, with a brush and toothpaste because you don't want them to fall out ostensibly. You had a reason....so you did it. There's no moral consideration....no code....nothing more to consider.

I challenge the premise that there is chain that exists for the sole purpose of serving me. I also challenge the premise that people are suffering just to serve my needs. As far as I can tell no one is suffering or oppressed because there is toothpaste or toothbrushes. Of course, i don't see not having as much as someone else as the same as suffering. Perhaps you could give me the evidence of this suffering that you claim is happening because i brush my teeth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I challenge the premise that there is chain that exists for the sole purpose of serving me.

Well not just you...but that is the reason for the toothpaste.

I also challenge the premise that people are suffering just to serve my needs.

Not just because of that....but certainly you play your part.

As far as I can tell no one is suffering or oppressed because there is toothpaste or toothbrushes.

It's an example....but if you prefer we can talk about the cobalt mines that supply batteries.

Of course, i don't see not having as much as someone else as the same as suffering.

So if the stream is drank dry there's no people dying of thirst past the place where it used to run?

Perhaps you could give me the evidence of this suffering that you claim is happening because i brush my teeth.

Again, just pulled as an example. It's made of plastic, so somewhere is a factory belching pollution into someone's air or water.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Ok....I would agree with one statement you made here....you see most of your actions as morally neutral. This is what I mean when I say you don't act on a moral code....because most of your actions aren't morally neutral.


If you doubt this....skip the showers for 2 weeks and see if anyone seems worried or concerned for you. The stench coming off you will tell them something is wrong....and cause them some degree of stress.

The toothpaste, the cell phone, the battery in everything and the plastic it comes in....the water itself...comes at the expense of a long causal chain the begins or ends somewhere with someone suffering. You can't take a drink from a stream without denying it to someone further downstream. You're very far up stream.

You may imagine that because of the distance, because of the number of people involved, or the relatively small role you play....you aren't responsible. This denies the fact that the entire chain exists for the very purpose of serving you...not those who it harms or oppressed.

But you are correct....the distance, the comfort and ignorance of the ways allows you to ignore the reality of the ends. If the people who suffer for the things you purchase did so right outside your home....you'd probably feel differently.


The moral code is a fantasy....it's what allows you to ignore the nature of the reality. You brushed your teeth, with a brush and toothpaste because you don't want them to fall out ostensibly. You had a reason....so you did it. There's no moral consideration....no code....nothing more to consider.

I do believe that you've defined immorality so broadly as to pretty much make life itself immoral, which is of course your prerogative, but also leaves open the alternative point of view that pretty much nothing is immoral, because in the grand scheme of things harm is simply a matter of degrees. Everything that we do does some harm, somewhere, to someone, or something. You just can't escape that whole butterfly effect thing.

So rather than draw some arbitrary line somewhere about what degree of harm constitutes immorality perhaps we should just abandon the whole idea entirely.

Or was that your point to begin with?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do believe that you've defined immorality so broadly as to pretty much make life itself immoral,

I suppose that depends upon your moral standard.

which is of course your prerogative, but also leaves open the alternative point of view that pretty much nothing is immoral,

Or a non-real concept.

because in the grand scheme of things harm is simply a matter of degrees. Everything that we do does some harm, somewhere, to someone, or something. You just can't escape that whole butterfly effect thing.

Let's not be naive. If you're typing from a cellular phone the battery was made from materials mined by children who are whipped and beaten. It was assembled in a place so horrible that workers throw themselves from the roof.

For what? Convenience? So some harlot can try and post pictures of herself? Certainly nothing as noble as need.

So rather than draw some arbitrary line somewhere about what degree of harm constitutes immorality perhaps we should just abandon the whole idea entirely.

You don't have to shy away from it. It's bizarre to imagine a morality born of the idea of not doing harm....it's the nature of the reality we live in.

If a lion, hungry from lack of food, were to refuse to eat a lamb....you wouldn't praise it's innately moral nature and unwillingness to do harm. You'd think something must be wrong with it. You can substitute people for those animals in any power dynamics you like.

Or was that your point to begin with?

I don't think people have moral codes. Imagine supporting the horrors involved in creating this device before me....and then supporting those horrors to do what? Talk to you?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well not just you...but that is the reason for the toothpaste.




Not just because of that....but certainly you play your part.





It's an example....but if you prefer we can talk about the cobalt mines that supply batteries.




So if the stream is drank dry there's no people dying of thirst past the place where it used to run?





Again, just pulled as an example. It's made of plastic, so somewhere is a factory belching pollution into someone's air or water.

Your choice of the word belching is interesting. As far as I know, factories do not belch. You also ascribe ownership of air and water to a particular individual or group. It seems unreasonable to me to expect human beings to feel guilty for engaging in one of the basic human behaviors of trading goods and services among themselves because someone somewhere might be, in some way. negatively affected. That seems to be the conclusion if one is to take what seems to be your logical train of thought to its end. Using the logic of net benefit, If I engage in an activity that is a net positive for the world, would it not be immoral to leave off doing it because someone somewhere has been negatively affected? The production of toothpaste and toothbrushes has been positive for many more people than it has been negative for. The producers of the products i.e. the entrepreneurs, the managers and the employees, as well as the consumers of those products, have all benefitted from their production and consumption. Overall production and consumption of goods under the current economic model have lifted many millions out of total destitution. Should we, in order to feel morally superior, return them to destitution?

I suggest that morality is not about adding up the advantages or disadvantages that someone might gain somewhere and guessing which is the greater, but it is about deciding if one's actions are innately malevolent or benevolent. As this is based upon subjective criterion, one may want to say that someone is acting morally upright or morally bankrupt by doing X but that remains one's subjective assessment, not a provable fact. What one can say is that one is not being consistent in calling X morally bankrupt for others but not for oneself or calling X morally upright one day and morally bankrupt the next based upon convenience or whim. There is also the matter of intent. If A driver stops short because they wish to allow B driver to gain access to the roadway, but it ends up causing C driver behind to crash into A driver's car was A morally bankrupt because an accident occurred that was A's fault? Or was A just unwise?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your choice of the word belching is interesting. As far as I know, factories do not belch. You also ascribe ownership of air and water to a particular individual or group.

I didn't ascribe ownership to water or air. I pointed out the obvious effects of consumption that harm people.

It seems unreasonable to me to expect human beings to feel guilty for engaging in one of the basic human behaviors of trading goods and services among themselves because someone somewhere might be, in some way. negatively affected.

Ok. I would agree. In fact, if I recall correctly, I pointed out that you don't seem to care or feel responsible or guilty despite this supposed moral code guiding your actions. I mean, one of those basic trading goods was slaves and I sincerely doubt most people felt any different.

That seems to be the conclusion if one is to take what seems to be your logical train of thought to its end.

I'm rejecting this notion of a moral code guiding your actions. It doesn't. You may imagine it does....but I don't think it even really exists.

Using the logic of net benefit, If I engage in an activity that is a net positive for the world, would it not be immoral to leave off doing it because someone somewhere has been negatively affected?

I don't know how one could accurately assess net positive vs net negatives in all situations at all times. Seems to be an impossibility.

The production of toothpaste and toothbrushes has been positive for many more people than it has been negative for. The producers of the products i.e. the entrepreneurs, the managers and the employees, as well as the consumers of those products, have all benefitted from their production and consumption. Overall production and consumption of goods under the current economic model have lifted many millions out of total destitution. Should we, in order to feel morally superior, return them to destitution?

According to whom? You're aware we've dug up entire skulls from hundreds or thousands of years ago and they had all their teeth, right?

That's not to say gum disease isn't a thing but people brush their teeth because of an excessive consumption of sugar. Some of the first mentions of severe tooth decay exist in royal record because they had excessively sugary diets. There's an English queen whose teeth were black, and the women started imitating the look with charcoal....because their teeth were still white from a low sugar diet.

I suggest that morality is not about adding up the advantages or disadvantages that someone might gain somewhere and guessing which is the greater, but it is about deciding if one's actions are innately malevolent or benevolent.

So intention is the basis for morality?

As this is based upon subjective criterion, one may want to say that someone is acting morally upright or morally bankrupt by doing X but that remains one's subjective assessment, not a provable fact.

I think intentions are a factor but if I were to stop there....morality is unrecognizable.

.

What one can say is that one is not being consistent in calling X morally bankrupt for others but not for oneself or calling X morally upright one day and morally bankrupt the next based upon convenience or whim. There is also the matter of intent.

Intentions change subjectively though so I don't see why two people couldn't engage in the same behavior with different intentions.

If A driver stops short because they wish to allow B driver to gain access to the roadway, but it ends up causing C driver behind to crash into A driver's car was A morally bankrupt because an accident occurred that was A's fault? Or was A just unwise?

I don't think you gave me enough context. I can't tell you if A should have stopped short or not but I can tell you that the law will find C liable in most cases.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I didn't ascribe ownership to water or air. I pointed out the obvious effects of consumption that harm people.

I don't think there is an obvious harmful effect to [people of other people breathing air or ingesting water.

Ok. I would agree. In fact, if I recall correctly, I pointed out that you don't seem to care or feel responsible or guilty despite this supposed moral code guiding your actions. I mean, one of those basic trading goods was slaves and I sincerely doubt most people felt any different.

Why would I feel responsible or guilty for something that I have done that is not contrary to my moral code or for something that may be contrary to my moral code that I have no control over? The slave trade for instance is against my moral code but I not only do not participate in it but I have no control over it. Those things that I do which are contrary to my moral code, I definitely feel guilty about.

I'm rejecting this notion of a moral code guiding your actions. It doesn't. You may imagine it does....but I don't think it even really exists.I think intentions are a factor but if I were to stop there....morality is unrecognizable.

I reject the notion that you know anything at all about what guides my actions. What do you believe know of my life? We are not well acquainted enough for either of us to say what motivates the other or what guides an e the other actions. Don't you think it is rather presumptuous and a bit arrogant of you to tell me you know more about me than I know about myself? If anyone is imagining things, I would say it is someone that imagines they can read the mind and understand the motivations of someone they have never actually met in person.

According to whom? You're aware we've dug up entire skulls from hundreds or thousands of years ago and they had all their teeth, right?

That's not to say gum disease isn't a thing but people brush their teeth because of an excessive consumption of sugar. Some of the first mentions of severe tooth decay exist in royal record because they had excessively sugary diets. There's an English queen whose teeth were black, and the women started imitating the look with charcoal....because their teeth were still white from a low sugar diet.

This trivia is very interesting but the point I was making had nothing to do with dental hygiene and everything to do with how the modern economic system that rewards the trading of products and services, like toothpaste and toothbrushes, has benefitted more people than it has harmed by immensely decreasing global destitution. It is quite morally upright according to my moral compass to support something that has led to a decrease in destitution around the world. Why would one argue that it would be better to have more people in desperation due to circumstances in which they are unable to survive so that we could refrain from buying toothpaste and toothbrushes? Should we support the idea that it is morally upright to increase destitution in order to increase equity? IMO no.

I don't know how one could accurately assess net positive vs net negatives in all situations at all times. Seems to be an impossibility.

I would say you are correct that it is impossible to assess it at all times. I would add that I think it is impossible to assess most of the time as there are too many variables and too many individuals being affected in too many ways to know whether any one activity is a net positive or a net negative in almost all situations. That is why I would not use such a method to determine what is and is not morally upright.

So intention is the basis for morality?

I think intentions are a factor but if I were to stop there....morality is unrecognizable.

intentions change subjectively though so I don't see why two people couldn't engage in the same behavior with different intentions.

No. From my perspective, the basis for morality is a code of behavior that one subjectively arrives at before one acts. IMO any subjective code of behavior that one arrives at afterward will not be an honest assessment of what one truly considers right and wrong, but a biased rationalization meant to justify whatever one has done. One ought, to be honest about determining what behavior one subjectively finds morally bankrupt and morally upright. One should probably always try to have good intentions but the intention itself is not what makes an action morally upright. It could be used as an excuse to justify actions that are morally bankrupt. I would agree with the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I disagree completely with intention-based morality as people will often justify what I do, and they under other circumstances, would consider morally reprehensible behavior by insisting that the ends justify the means. One might have the intention of producing the end of a more equitable society by using the most horrific means to achieve it. Meanwhile, one actually achieves more destitution perhaps more o or perhaps less equally distributed.

I don't think you gave me enough context. I can't tell you if A should have stopped short or not but I can tell you that the law will find C liable in most cases.

Law is an enforced moral code. It is subjectively arrived at and put in place before any actions that are to be judged by it have been taken. Very similar to the biblical morality that I subscribe to, it is not individually arrived at by those that subscribe to it and it is treated as if it were objective. It is given to us by an authority figure that lays claim to legitimacy by virtue of its very nature. The authority figure is sometimes a monarch, sometimes an oligarchy, sometimes a legislative body, and sometimes a bureaucracy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think there is an obvious harmful effect to [people of other people breathing air or ingesting water.

You don't believe air or water pollution affect health?

Why would I feel responsible or guilty

I'm actually agreeing with you that you don't feel responsible or guilty....though you are, even in part, or indirectly.

I reject the notion that you know anything at all about what guides my actions.

I'm sure you do.

What do you believe know of my life? We are not well acquainted enough for either of us to say what motivates the other or what guides an e the other actions. Don't you think it is rather presumptuous and a bit arrogant of you to tell me you know more about me than I know about myself?

Well maybe I understand conventional morality better than you.

This trivia is very interesting but the point I was making had nothing to do with dental hygiene and everything to do with how the modern economic system that rewards the trading of products and services, like toothpaste and toothbrushes, has benefitted more people than it has harmed by immensely decreasing global destitution. It is quite morally upright according to my moral compass to support something that has led to a decrease in destitution around the world. Why would one argue that it would be better to have more people in desperation due to circumstances in which they are unable to survive so that we could refrain from buying toothpaste and toothbrushes? Should we support the idea that it is morally upright to increase destitution in order to increase equity? IMO no.


I would say you are correct that it is impossible to assess it at all times. I would add that I think it is impossible to assess most of the time as there are too many variables and too many individuals being affected in too many ways to know whether any one activity is a net positive or a net negative in almost all situations. That is why I would not use such a method to determine what is and is not morally upright.

Right I think you mentioned intentions as a central aspect of your idea of morality.

No. From my perspective, the basis for morality is a code of behavior that one subjectively arrives at before one acts. IMO any subjective code of behavior that one arrives at afterward will not be an honest assessment of what one truly considers right and wrong, but a biased rationalization meant to justify whatever one has done. One ought, to be honest about determining what behavior one subjectively finds morally bankrupt and morally upright. One should probably always try to have good intentions but the intention itself is not what makes an action morally upright. It could be used as an excuse to justify actions that are morally bankrupt. I would agree with the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I disagree completely with intention-based morality as people will often justify what I do, and they under other circumstances, would consider morally reprehensible behavior by insisting that the ends justify the means. One might have the intention of producing the end of a more equitable society by using the most horrific means to achieve it. Meanwhile, one actually achieves more destitution perhaps more o or perhaps less equally distributed.

If you don't mind indulging me for a moment....

Would I be correct in assuming that you have a peer group or social circle of people, many or few, that you have a general sense of what their morals are (not down to a specific list of moral norms but just a general idea of their norms are) and you feel rather confident on where they stand on multiple moral behaviors?

Law is an enforced moral code. It is subjectively arrived at and put in place before any actions that are to be judged by it have been taken. Very similar to the biblical morality that I subscribe to, it is not individually arrived at by those that subscribe to it and it is treated as if it were objective. It is given to us by an authority figure that lays claim to legitimacy by virtue of its very nature. The authority figure is sometimes a monarch, sometimes an oligarchy, sometimes a legislative body, and sometimes a bureaucracy.

No, I don't see it as an enforced moral code....it's possible there's some overlap or a lot of overlap but it's also possible there's no overlap.

 

[Cis.jd]

Both the right and left end up become the same when taken to it's serious form.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You don't believe air or water pollution affect health?

I do believe that health is affected by numerous environmental factors not solely air and water pollution. I believe that any individual's action of drinking water and breathing air does not have anywhere near the negative consequence to the rest of the world as not doing so would have on that individual. Do you propose that I am morally bankrupt because I remain committed to staying alive despite the fact that I will produce waste matter and gases?

I'm actually agreeing with you that you don't feel responsible or guilty....though you are, even in part, or indirectly.

You don't seem to have told me what it is that you seem to imagine that I am responsible for and also guilty of either doing or not doing. Perhaps you could name the evil thing you believe I have done and tell me on what basis you feel you have the authority to call anything that anyone else does immoral?

Well maybe I understand conventional morality better than you.

Anything is possible but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case.

Right I think you mentioned intentions as a central aspect of your idea of morality.

I don't believe I made such a statement. Intentional action is required for one to assume some sort of responsibility. If an asteroid hit the earth and people die the asteroid was not morally bankrupt. One must have some idea that one's actions have consequences, on must take the action, not simply have the action happen outside of one's control and one must be aware of consequences in order for one to consider that there is such a thing as morality. That is a prerequisite understanding, a given, not an aspect. One must be alive and sentient as well, but being alive and being sentient are not central aspects of my idea of morality. They are things one must have in order to consider the idea of morality. An aspect is a particular part or feature of something not a requirement for something to exist.

If by intentions, you are referencing an individual's desire to do what that individual sees as morally good and not morally bad. That is a reason to cling to some sort of moral code it is not an excuse for claiming the harmful consequences of one's actions are unimportant.

If you don't mind indulging me for a moment....

Would I be correct in assuming that you have a peer group or social circle of people, many or few, that you have a general sense of what their morals are (not down to a specific list of moral norms but just a general idea of their norms are) and you feel rather confident on where they stand on multiple moral behaviors?

I would not be coincident that I could accurately assess what those I am acquainted with might find morally bankrupt or morally upright. There are a diverse number of opinions in the several groups and social circles I am attached to. I am often surprised by what people find is morally justifiable as well as what they find to be moral anathema. Even within my own family, there is no firm agreement upon many things that have moral implications. I would add that discussion of moral issues is often not a topic of conversation within social circles and peer groups, especially when people suspect that there are diverse opinions and opinions, they might find disagreeable, that what others may or may not consider morally upright or morally bankrupt is often a mystery.

No, I don't see it as an enforced moral code....it's possible there's some overlap or a lot of overlap but it's also possible there's no overlap.

I can't see how it can be described in any other way than as being an enforced morality. The law is a moral code. It tells those within the particular jurisdiction what is and is not acceptable behavior i.e. what is good and what is bad. If one does something the law has pronounced morally bad one is punished. One is not punished for doing what those that enforce the law pronounce as either morally upright or morally neutral.

 

[Stephen3141]

I am not being cute, I honestly don't get it.
I get attacked for saying I think murder is wrong but I don't think murder is objectively wrong.
I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.
After attacking me the same person will make complaints about the people that "Hate America" and it is clear that someone that
thinks "Atheists cannot really believe murder is wrong because they cannot believe anything" do actually think "Atheists believe America is wrong"

You have probably run into Christian groups that think that there is no morality, apart from the morality that God declares. their view is that all morality comes from God.

You may have also run into anti-intellectual christian groups, that associate the word "objectively" with knowledge from God. They do not recognize that orthodox Christianity recognizes that the intellect can apprehend concepts objectively, apart from those perception/conclusions being direct revelations from God.

Also, some Christian groups do not recognize that philosophers, in the discipline of Moral Theory, talk of morality as anything that different people think is "right" or "wrong". That is, everyone has some moral-ethical (ME) system, although most of these ME systems are not biblical.

I think that the big impediment, is getting over the initial language, used by some Christian groups.