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 means (IMO) that actions are done for reasons and intents, which are part of the context -- and the reasons and intents of an action are a big part of what determine morality.
Brad: How do you determine if a thing is immoral?
What is your point?
Perhaps, definitions of terms needs revisiting.
If by "act" you mean a "human act"...
If by "context" you mean "circumstances"...
Is it advisable to separate an act from its context for the purposes of determining morality?
I cut a human being open....
...on the operating table? I'm a doctor.
...on the dinner table? I'm a cannibal.
Would you say actions and their reasons and intents are objective? Meaning they exist in objective reality for anyone to judge(objective morality)? Or do you have a different understanding of that?
Intentions can be objectively moral or immoral, I suppose -- but when those intentions are translated into actions, things get more complicated... especially if an action has the opposite effect as intended.
Euthanasia is one of those morally debatable acts, so if I pull the plug on my 96-year-old grandmother because she has stage 4 cancer and doesn't want to be in pain anymore, we can argue whether or not that's a moral act... merciful, even.
OTOH, if I pull the plug because I can't wait to get my hands on my inheritance, and am convinced that the old bat's going to outlive Methuselah... not so much.
Now.... what if it's both? Or what if I don't know about her wishes to end her pain? Can I commit a merciful act for immoral reasons? How then do we judge the act?
Orel: No thing has the property of being "moral" or "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing is immoral?
You gotta be kidding me...Are you able to answer that question?
Are you actually saying that there are no acts that can be described as moral or immoral? That the concept of morality doesn't actually exist?You gotta be kidding me...
Fair enough. Sometimes I am unaware of the pervasiveness of the word "should" and it's ambiguity. So for clarity, let's hammer out exactly what "should" and "ought" mean.Hmm, ok, but let it be noted that I’m skeptical of this response.
Yeah, you'll need to tell me exactly what you mean by a "justifiable want".Ok, here goes:
P1 Nancy feels wronged when her justifiable wants aren’t respected
P2 I shouldn't cause unjust wrongs
C I shouldn't do anything Nancy, justifiably, doesn't want me to do.
Do we need to go over what a justifiable want is?
Within that there is an aspect of this that a couple of people don't appear to grasp. The facts regarding any act are objective. Facts are objective by definition. Even intent. It's like 'vanilla is better than chocolate' is not an objective fact, but if you prefer vanilla, then that's an objective fact.
If you intend evil (kill the old girl for the money), even though it's a personal 'preference' that you want her dead so you get the inheritance, the fact that you intend it is objective. If you intend good (put her out of her misery) then that is an objective fact as well.
Was it a moral act? It's relative to the facts surrounding the act. Which will all be objective. And that obviously (but apparently not obvious to all) makes it relative.
Anyone can describe anything in any way they want. I can describe the number 3 as purple. That doesn't mean that any color is a property of any number. You might as well be asking me how I determine whether the number 3 is purple or yellow.Are you actually saying that there are no acts that can be described as moral or immoral?
Concepts exist even if they are inaccurate. There a thousands of different concepts of God, and all of those concepts exist even though at least most (but maybe all) of them are wrong.That the concept of morality doesn't actually exist?
I suppose the question then becomes whether the morality exists in the intent, the act, or the results?
Anyone can describe anything in any way they want. I can describe the number 3 as purple. That doesn't mean that any color is a property of any number. You might as well be asking me how I determine whether the number 3 is purple or yellow.
You prefer that harm be minimized. If what you mean to ask is "Do you also have the same preference?", then your choice of phrasing does not reflect that. I won't assume you mean something other than exactly what you say.
Concepts exist even if they are inaccurate. There a thousands of different concepts of God, and all of those concepts exist even though at least most (but maybe all) of them are wrong.
I have told you more than once exactly what people mean when they use the terms. You clearly can't be bothered to pay attention, so adios.I'm perplexed that such a simple question cannot be answered. I presume that you have used the terms moral and immoral. If you read that someone has acted immorally then you'd have a good idea of what that means. If someone is described as being a moral person, you'd know what that implies. You've been involved in a thread that has gone on for over 1700 posts discussing nothing but morality.
That you cannot (or will not) give an approximation of what those terms mean to you is bizarre.
I have told you more than once exactly what people mean when they use the terms. You clearly can't be bothered to pay attention, so adios.
I explained that they're nonsense to me. They can't be used to make a grammatically correct sentence. You don't listen.I'm not interested in what 'people mean'. I'm interested in what you mean. Or rather I was. Seems it's a closely guarded matter.
So these sentences make no sense to you:I explained that they're nonsense to me. They can't be used to make a grammatically correct sentence. You don't listen.
I think I have a pretty good what others mean to say when they use the term, but that's not what you want me to do.So these sentences make no sense to you:
1. The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
2. Ethics deals with moral conduct.
3. He is Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford.
4. Media reports generated moral outrage.
5. Human beings are moral individuals.
6. He turns every subject into a moral discussion.
7. We differ about moral standards.
8. Caring for elderly relatives requires considerable moral courage.
9. We have a moral obligation to protect the environment.
10. The writer criticized the moral vacuum in society.
You just want to argue without bothering to take a position, don't you? Here's a reminder of my initial post and it's point:
Agree or disagree. Take a position and chill with all the imply-then-deny, or we can be done. You're barely comprehending my posts at this point anyways, so I don't have the patience for antics.
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?