Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

What's the point in swapping preferences? Maybe we feel the same about things, maybe we don't. Is one of us "right" to feel a certain way and one of us "wrong" to feel a certain way? No.

I want to know if harm is not the determinent that you use to decide if an act is immoral then what is. If you think that it's incorrect to use harm, then tell me what you think we should use. Tell me what you use. Please don't play games. I'm not interested.

 

[Moral Orel]

I want to know if harm is not the determinent that you use to decide if an act is immoral then what is. If you think that it's incorrect to use harm, then tell me what you think we should use. Tell me what you use. Please don't play games. I'm not interested.

You're clearly not paying any attention.

"Is one of us 'right' to feel a certain way and one of us 'wrong' to feel a certain way? No."

 

[Bradskii]

You're clearly not paying any attention.

"Is one of us 'right' to feel a certain way and one of us 'wrong' to feel a certain way? No."

Who said that wasn't the case? So again - and for the last time, if you don't use harm as a determinant then what do you use?

 

[Moral Orel]

Who said that wasn't the case?

I know what you want is to compare and contrast our preferences as if one could be "better" and the other be "worse". Or you're hoping that I'll say I share a preference with you, and then you can say we "agree that using harm is correct" or some such nonsense. I cannot answer questions that I have just explained are nonsense. That you're asking them shows you are not paying any attention.

Orel: One isn't correct to hold a preference.
Brad: If you don't think using harm is correct, then what is the correct preference to use?
Orel: There is no preference that anyone "should" hold.
Brad: Well which preference should we use then?
Orel: No thing has the property of being "moral" or "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing is immoral?

That's our conversation in a nutshell. Does that Brad character sound like the sort of bloke who's listening at all?

Ask me questions that aren't nonsense.

 

[Chriliman]

What he said is mostly true. You can't get an "ought" from an "is". You need to understand what that means, though. Take a look at this sample argument:

P1 A is B
P2 B is C
C A is C

This is a valid argument. A and C are both contained in the premises, so it's possible to derive a conclusion about their relation. Now consider this argument:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
C C is X

This is an invalid argument. There is no C in the premises, so the conclusion does not derive from the premises because you essentially introduced it out of thin air.

Back to your claim that we know what is wrong looking merely at the facts of the circumstances, you are making an invalid argument like the second form I presented. That the act is "wrong" is your claim, your conclusion. Nowhere is there a premise that connects "wrongness" to your conclusion.

Nowhere in this demonstration have I either explicitly or implicitly stated that you "ought" to believe this. That is where your argument falters. These things are true with no regard to what you believe.

Wait, hows this for a valid argument?

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P2 Therefore, she thinks its wrong and that I shouldn't
C I shouldn't steal her car because it would go against what she wants and wrong her

How would you improve it?

 

[Chriliman]

If you're trying to suggest that the statement 'vanilla is better than chocolate' is an objective one, then we are done. Thanks for your input.

I'm suggesting it's objectively correct for that particular person, based on their objective biological makeup. I know this may go against everything you believe, but sometimes that happens, remember, your beliefs have no bearing on what's true.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wait, hows this for a valid argument?

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P2 Therefore, she thinks its wrong and that I shouldn't
C I shouldn't steal her car because it would go against what she wants and wrong her

How would you improve it?

First, just a little cleanup. We can agree that the phrases, "X is wrong" and "One shouldn't X" are just saying the exact same thing, agreed? So we can simplify and say that "Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car". And we can say that "I shouldn't steal her car" for the conclusion. So:

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P2 Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

One of two things needs to be true to make that valid. Either we add "I shouldn't do any thing that Nancy doesn't want me to do" and then we don't need P2. Or we add "Whatever Nancy believes is true" and then we don't need P1. These two formulations would be valid:

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P3 I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

P2 Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car
P3 Whatever Nancy believes is true
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

Those are both valid. Which means the conclusion is only true IF all of the premises are true. But you also need to prove that they are sound. Which means proving that the premises are actually true. I think we can agree that the second formulation is a dead end. Nancy isn't infallible, like all humans, so we know that she can be wrong. So you can try to prove "I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do". But that requires a new argument.

And this next part is important. In order for this new argument to be valid, it absolutely must take the following form:

P1 ...
P2 I shouldn't...
C I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do.

And you can fill in the '...' with whatever you please, and you can add more premises than those two if needed. If you don't get why it must take that form, refer back to my post where I showed the example A, B, C arguments.

 

[Kylie]

I'll answer yours in the hopes that you'll return the favor and answer mine.

If we're still talking about taking the car to prevent me murdering, then no.
If we're talking about just for fun, then yes.

Woah, hold on.

My reasons for taking it are irrelevant. You said that in order for it to be stealing, then I would need to take it with no intention of returning it ever, as you said in post 1657.

Or perhaps you'll say, "Hmmm, I need to get to work this morning, but I was planning on using my car to run down some cyclists this afternoon, so I guess I shouldn't report my car as stolen after all. I'm sure my car will be returned once I'm promised to to be violent."

If you are taking the car for your own personal use, even if that use is merely to place it in your garage to annoy me, then you are "keeping it for yourself" even if it's just temporary.

And the same logic would allow you to say that if I took something you planned on using as a murder weapon, I would be guilty of theft.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Now to mine. Would you say that I "stole" from the drunk man? Or is there more to "stealing" than "taking without permission"?

I think the drunk man would say you stole from him. You are taking his keys to keep them for yourself and to deprive him of them, even if it is only temporary. Or do you think that the drunk man would see things from your point of view and be perfectly happy with what you did.

And if you DO think the drunk man would be happy, why don't you tell the would-be murderer you've stolen his murder weapon, and see if he thanks you for doing it. Chances are, if he's violent enough to plan to commit murder, he's violent enough to inflict injury on you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Woah, hold on.

My reasons for taking it are irrelevant. You said that in order for it to be stealing, then I would need to take it with no intention of returning it ever, as you said in post 1657.

Wrong. I also said in the same post:

I think the distinction you're looking for is that the person taking the would-be-murder-weapon isn't keeping it for themselves, which would make it stealing.

Keeping it for yourself would be stealing. Keeping me from it to prevent "evil deeds" done with it is why people confiscate things.

And the same logic would allow you to say that if I took something you planned on using as a murder weapon, I would be guilty of theft.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you took it because annoying me amuses you (even if I happen to plan some "evil deed" with it), then you stole it. You're keeping it for yourself; for your own uses.

If you took it to keep me from using it for some "evil deed", and didn't use it for yourself, then "confiscate" is an apt word.

It's you folk that define all "taking without permission" as "stealing".

All taxes are theft.

When little Billy get's his comics taken away by the teacher because he was reading them during lessons, that teacher robbed him!

When the waiter cleared my plate while I was away in the restroom, he stole my scraps from me!

I think the drunk man would say...

That's not what I asked.

 

[Kylie]

Wrong. I also said in the same post:

Keeping it for yourself would be stealing. Keeping me from it to prevent "evil deeds" done with it is why people confiscate things.

And if I am NOT going to keep it for myself, but have every intention of returning it, yet I have no knowledge that you are going to do some evil deed, what then?

If you took it because annoying me amuses you (even if I happen to plan some "evil deed" with it), then you stole it. You're keeping it for yourself; for your own uses.

So if I see someone steal your car, how do I know if they are doing it because they have knowledge that you are going to use it for some evil deed, or if they are just borrowing it for a little while, or are going to keep it forever?

If you took it to keep me from using it for some "evil deed", and didn't use it for yourself, then "confiscate" is an apt word.

But there's two conditions there.

If you park your car on my lawn and I close the gate leaving you unable to get your car back, have I not confiscated your car? After all, I have not used it for myself, I haven't even touched it.

It's you folk that define all "taking without permission" as "stealing".

Did I ever make that claim?

All taxes are theft.

Did I ever make that claim?

When little Billy get's his comics taken away by the teacher because he was reading them during lessons, that teacher robbed him!

Since it is highly unlikely that Billy was planning on murdering one of his classmates with said comics, I think that by your own reasoning that would count as theft.

When the waiter cleared my plate while I was away in the restroom, he stole my scraps from me!

Maybe you could speak to the manager and demand your meal be comped.

That's not what I asked.

So why are you asking me? I'm not involved in any way at all. You seem to be ignoring the person who is being denied his car, although I can't see any reason why. I would think HIS view is more important than mine, especially considering that he's the one liable to report you as a thief.

 

[Moral Orel]

So why are you asking me?

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:

To "take without permission" is an insufficient definition of "stealing".

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.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course. You are the only person who can determine if you think something is moral or not. You look at all aspects of the matter and, in your opinion, you consider it to be immoral or not. Who else is going to decide for you?

You can be told that something is immoral. You can be persuaded that something is immoral. You can agree that something is immoral. But there's only one person who is responsible for making the decision.

What is your point? Are you claiming that the "responsible" rapist commits a moral act? Of course, the rational actor who freely acts is responsible for the effects of his acts. Being responsible does not impute automatic morality to the act. If the act is objectively immoral that "responsibility" converts immediately to culpability.

 

[o_mlly]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

Perhaps, definitions of terms needs revisiting.

If by "act" you mean a "human act", i.e., the act of a rational being, then that act has an end-in-view. The end-in-view or ends-in-view are the proximate effects that that act naturally tends to and is independent of any actor or intent.

If by "context" you mean "circumstances", i.e., things that stand (circa) around the act, then one cannot call a fact that changes the very species of that human act to be merely a circumstance.

If by "act" you mean merely the physicality of an act then animals become moral agents which is, of course, nonsense.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Actually, behaviours can be genetically programmed in much the same way that physical traits are. Beavers build dams instinctively, for example, even if they've never been exposed to damn building before.



This supports the idea of morality being subjective. Different society with different rules and different values, and you'll get different morality. That's why some cultures think it's okay to chop your hand off if you are guilty of theft, but we would think that's wrong.



Again, this speaks to subjective morality. Different behaviour patterns and group dynamics would lead to different moral views.



Again, subjective.

Sex with children in the group causes harm to individuals within the group, thus causing harm to the group. Since the rapist relies on the group to survive, harming the group harms the rapist, and thus the rapist is likely to die and the meme (I use the word here in the original sense, as an idea which can spread, analogous to a gene carrying physical information) that encourages child rape will die out. However, groups with the "don't rape children" meme will avoid the harm caused by child rape, and are so more likely to survive and spread the "don't rape children" meme.

But this only applies to cases where the act is going to cause some amount of harm to the person who carries it out. If the act is NOT going to harm the individual carrying it out, then there's nothing stopping it from spreading. For example, sea otters are known to rape baby seals, and even pet dogs. SOURCE. However, since such actions do not directly harm the otters, there is nothing driving such behaviour to become rarer. Similarly, a lioness will mate with a male lion after he has killed her cubs. I couldn't image going to bed with someone who had killed my child, but in a lion pride, that kind of action would only cause harm, since it would mean that there were no offspring at all, and the pride would die out (taking with it the "don't reproduce with the ones who killed your cubs" meme).



And emotions are subjective, not objective.



Not sure what you're saying here. Sex is fun, and people like sex. Generally speaking, at least. You don't need sex for love, and you don't need love for sex.

In these discussions there is a basic problem. We reference emotional experience based on our own feelings and awareness of it. Because this is a subjective experience, without having had different traumatic issues it is hard to gauge the impact or meaning of our behaviour verses how we cope. Two things I would point to is grief and mental illness.

Grief is like waking up one morning without an arm. Of course you are still alive but something you assumed being there has now gone, forever. It changes you and you have to become someone different. If you have a relative who you love who is mentally ill, you can get sucked into the emotional rabbit hole from which there is no obvious way out. It seems to make emotional sense, but just gets more and more traumatic without proper reference points.

People with a secure sense of themselves can indulge their desires with superficial contacts but with massive sexual content. In youth it appears no harm is done, and one can shrug off love for the chemistry high one has. As life gets older, and love more important, and being significant with other people, being consistent and trusted is of more value than these highs. It is why monogomous relationships rule our society, because consistency matters, and knowing another in a deep way is the foundation of our lives.

The best argument I have heard from people is that is just weakness, dependency, trust which just leads to pain and disappointment. "Who needs a heart is a heart can be broken"

The value of love is the risk and the choice to love despite that risk, which is embodied in Jesus.
The power of Jesus is this reality lies in all of us, and we know. My family and how it has grown is testimony to me of this reality from ideas into emotional reality that truly matters.

As far as I can define objective reality, this is lifes objective reality. Many live broken lives with broken relationships, which was summarised to me by a comment on a social gathering as "cockroaches meeting together to take chunks out of each other."

I see people as who they are, and desire where I can to encourage them more and show love as Jesus did. God bless you

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

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.

 

[Chriliman]

First, just a little cleanup. We can agree that the phrases, "X is wrong" and "One shouldn't X" are just saying the exact same thing, agreed? So we can simplify and say that "Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car". And we can say that "I shouldn't steal her car" for the conclusion. So:

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P2 Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

One of two things needs to be true to make that valid. Either we add "I shouldn't do any thing that Nancy doesn't want me to do" and then we don't need P2. Or we add "Whatever Nancy believes is true" and then we don't need P1. These two formulations would be valid:

P1 Nancy doesn't want me to steal her car
P3 I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

P2 Nancy believes I shouldn't steal her car
P3 Whatever Nancy believes is true
C I shouldn't steal Nancy's car

Those are both valid. Which means the conclusion is only true IF all of the premises are true. But you also need to prove that they are sound. Which means proving that the premises are actually true. I think we can agree that the second formulation is a dead end. Nancy isn't infallible, like all humans, so we know that she can be wrong. So you can try to prove "I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do". But that requires a new argument.

And this next part is important. In order for this new argument to be valid, it absolutely must take the following form:

P1 ...
P2 I shouldn't...
C I shouldn't do anything Nancy doesn't want me to do.

And you can fill in the '...' with whatever you please, and you can add more premises than those two if needed. If you don't get why it must take that form, refer back to my post where I showed the example A, B, C arguments.

Couple questions before I attempt this:
If I(we) make this argument valid does that mean I've(we've) proven morality is objective?

Did you mean to tell me what I must do in order to make this argument valid? I thought you were all about stating facts and not telling people what they should do? Though, I don't mind that you're telling me what to do to make a valid argument that proves morality is objective(if thats what we're doing here), just want to make sure you’re aware of what's happening.

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?

 

[Chriliman]

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.

No, its not advisable, good point, so what does that mean?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, its not advisable, good point, so what does that mean?

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

Did you mean to tell me what I must do in order to make this argument valid?

Real quick before I get into the rest of it. "Must" isn't the same thing as "should" either. For instance, we can say that, "Bob must remain unmarried to be considered a bachelor" doesn't imply "Bob 'should' remain unmarried".

So your argument must take a certain form to fit the definition of valid, but that doesn't imply you "should" make valid arguments. Lots of people make nonsense arguments for fun and that's fine too.

And secondly, you must prove your argument is both valid and sound. Look back to my previous post for a reminder on "soundness".

 

[Chriliman]

Real quick before I get into the rest of it. "Must" isn't the same thing as "should" either. For instance, we can say that, "Bob must remain unmarried to be considered a bachelor" doesn't imply "Bob 'should' remain unmarried".

So your argument must take a certain form to fit the definition of valid, but that doesn't imply you "should" make valid arguments. Lots of people make nonsense arguments for fun and that's fine too.

And secondly, you must prove your argument is both valid and sound. Look back to my previous post for a reminder on "soundness".

Hmm, ok, but let it be noted that I’m skeptical of this response.