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.
Good and bad is real to us because our brains, and everything we know about reality tells us this is good/bad. I would caution against assume subjective morals as somehow less than if it were objective. Objective simply means it can be demonstrated as good/bad; that it is regardless of how we feel about the situationCan you describe how good/right/true and bad/wrong/false is real to anyone? Or even just goodness and badness?
Okay, but I would say there is no good and bad apart from beings capable of experiencing it. You can observe beings experiencing good and bad regardless of how you feel.Good and bad is real to us because our brains, and everything we know about reality tells us this is good/bad. I would caution against assume subjective morals as somehow less than if it were objective. Objective simply means it can be demonstrated as good/bad; that it is regardless of how we feel about the situation
Yeah. Daniel Kahneman wrote about it.Is that a product of evolution IYO?
I have no idea what 'the good' is. I hope you're not going to argue that being robbed is a not bad thing? That is, not good.What is "the Good," Bradskii?
I'll repeat what I said for you. I don't care what people think, unless their position affects me and mine. And then I will demand reasons for their position. What's the alternative? 'Oh, your God says it's wrong? Well OK then...'Man. That's a very weak position. Between not caring about any of this, but claiming your have demands...
I hope you're not going to argue that being robbed is a not bad thing?
Being robbed is only good for one party involved. If it’s good for one, but bad for the other then it can’t really be good. It’s only really good if all involved think it’s good. Logic wins!But it seems to me that if someone were to take that position, you have absolutely no means by which to refute them, other than to proffer a standard of your own making.
Now you're perfectly free to do that, just as the other person is to reject it.
Which leaves you with a standard of morality that carries no authority beyond that which a person chooses to accede to it.
Quite right. It's my position that it's up to each of us to determine what is right or wrong for us. Not some amorphous 'authority'. If someone said that being robbed wasn't a bad thing for them, then I'd have a great deal of trouble understanding that. But I couldn't possibly say 'You are wrong.' My only response would be bemused incomprehension.But it seems to me that if someone were to take that position, you have absolutely no means by which to refute them, other than to proffer a standard of your own making.
Now you're perfectly free to do that, just as the other person is to reject it.
Which leaves you with a standard of morality that carries no authority beyond that which a person chooses to accede to it.
I have no idea what 'the good' is. I hope you're not going to argue that being robbed is a not bad thing? That is, not good.
Exactly! And in order to be subjective, it must be regardless of our experiences. There is a tree on my front lawn regardless of whether I or anybody else can experience it. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not people exist on planet Earth. These things are objective because they don’t require human interpretation/views. Killing, rape, or torture, are only bad if there are people around to judge them as bad.Okay, but I would say there is no good and bad apart from beings capable of experiencing it.
Before I answer that question; is it your opinion that everything good is moral, and everything bad is immoral?You can observe beings experiencing good and bad regardless of how you feel.
How else would you prefer goodness and badness be demonstrated to you?
Isn't that exactly what it means? People vote based on their conscience whether they are Christian or not. Christians can support Christian laws but if they are out voted by secularists they lose.You are conflating democracy-in-general with the current state of the United States of America. Just because the United States of America does not have a dominant societal religion does not mean that democracy itself is inherently secular.
It still remains a secular democracy with laws based on majority rule. If the majority rule happens to be a Christian one but it is secular laws that allowed them to have the majority vote. We simply don't base our government on any religious dogma, You are welcome to vote with your Christian conscience but we do not base our laws on any Christian dogma. You are talking about a fantasy government. Should it be Catholic or Baptist?Your implicit argument is, "Since America doesn't have a dominant religion, therefore no democracy can have a dominant religion." But again, democracy and the United States of America are two different things. The U.S. is a democracy, but it is not the only democracy
Did you misspeak here? You meant objective?Exactly! And in order to be subjective, it must be regardless of our experiences.
Actually, you can’t prove the tree is there unless there’s someone around to experience the proof, otherwise it’s an assumption. But I agree, we assume it’s there when we’re not looking, QT be dammed!There is a tree on my front lawn regardless of whether I or anybody else can experience it.
Actually, again, we assume math exists when we’re not comprehending it.1+1=2 regardless of whether or not people exist on planet Earth.
To prove they exist, they do require interpretation.These things are objective because they don’t require human interpretation/views.
And/or people around to experience them, which there are…Killing, rape, or torture, are only bad if there are people around to judge them as bad.
I think I’d like you to address my question and the points I’ve brought up so we can hopefully come to an agreed understanding here soon.Before I answer that question; is it your opinion that everything good is moral, and everything bad is immoral?
Being robbed is only good for one party involved. If it’s good for one, but bad for the other then it can’t really be good. It’s only really good if all involved think it’s good. Logic wins!
What happens if the Christians out-vote the "secularists" and we end up with Christian laws? Is that still a secular state? Or does it magically become a non-democracy?!Isn't that exactly what it means? People vote based on their conscience whether they are Christian or not. Christians can support Christian laws but if they are out voted by secularists they lose.
Majority rule is not inherently secular. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.It still remains a secular democracy with laws based on majority rule.
Yes I did mean objective. Good catch; my bad.Did you misspeak here? You meant objective?
Yes. But I think it is a bit more than just an assumption; it’s existence can be demonstrated.Actually, you can’t prove the tree is there unless there’s someone around to experience the proof, otherwise it’s an assumption. But I agree, we assume it’s there when we’re not looking, QT be dammed!
A little more than an assumption; math DOES work even though there are those who don’t understand it. Math does not require your understanding to work.Actually, again, we assume math exists when we’re not comprehending it.
True! But even if there is nobody’s around, it’s still just as much of a reality.To prove they exist, they do require interpretation.
If a lion goes to a female lioness den, kills her cubs and forces a sex act on her getting her pregnant, is that rape and murder? People only judge those actions immoral when people do it to each other.And/or people around to experience them, which there are…
Fair enough; IMO goodness and badness can only be demonstrated at the subjective level, because what we call good or bad is opinion based, and sometimes the same act can be either one depending on who you ask.I think I’d like you to address my question and the points I’ve brought up so we can hopefully come to an agreed understanding here soon.
Right, but so can the existence of good and bad in the experiences of people.Yes I did mean objective. Good catch; my bad.
Yes. But I think it is a bit more than just an assumption; it’s existence can be demonstrated.
This recent demonstration about QM may make you question that assumption. Interesting stuff Science | AAASA little more than an assumption; math DOES work even though there are those who don’t understand it. Math does not require your understanding to work.
Maybe, maybe not given the QM info. Sorry, it really has me thinking…True! But even if there is nobody’s around, it’s still just as much of a reality.
Right, and for good reasonIf a lion goes to a female lioness den, kills her cubs and forces a sex act on her getting her pregnant, is that rape and murder? People only judge those actions immoral when people do it to each other.
yea, determining everything that’s actually good and bad isn’t easy, but the subjective view can be objectively analyzed by an outside source.Fair enough; IMO goodness and badness can only be demonstrated at the subjective level, because what we call good or bad is opinion based, and sometimes the same act can be either one depending on who you ask.
If you'd have asked if I knew what Plato's 'the good' was then you'd have received the same answer. He was hardly up for defining it himself. From the Republic:What is "the Good," you ask? It's just one of those ideas of Plato that no one really believes in these days...
Let's avoid terms like evil. There are too many connotations there that will cloud the water. And as I said upstream, we can crank up the examples until we reach a point where your wife being beaten to death is a tad more than an inconvenience. The terms good and bad are simple enough to be used to describe actions that we term moral or immoral. Leaving my wallet at home is an inconvenience. Having it stolen is bad.Here's the sum rub of it all: If being robbed isn't an aspect of real evil, then to be consistent with our intuitions about both nature AND reality, we should just chalk it up to an "inconvenience" and let it go rather than getting all pouty about it, right?
No. Which is precisely my point. But if you don't mind having it stolen then as far as you are concerned there has been no immorality. That's your call. That's what makes the morality of the action relative.It'll just be, "You got your wallet stolen? Well, better luck next time, buddy. Maybe don't be so stupid while sitting at the bar..."
Of course, that's not how we feel about it, is it?
The logical standard that I stated. If all involved agree it’s good based on the facts then it’s actually good. If there’s someone in the mix who thinks it’s bad, let them try to provide the info to back that up. In the end, facts and sound logic/reasoning should convince those of sound mind.But by what standard are you defining it as good?
Though the experiences can be objectively verified, the label of good/bad, moral/immoral will often vary from one person to another. Example; One person might say purposely giving false information concerning a specific event (lying) is bad, while the other person will say it is good. That’s because the good/bad label is subjectively determined by the person judging the eventRight, but so can the existence of good and bad in the experiences of people.
My point is; some things are objective, some things are subjective. IMO Morality carries the subjective label.This recent demonstration about QM may make you question that assumption. Interesting stuff Science | AAAS
Maybe, maybe not given the QM info. Sorry, it really has me thinking…
Yes; because human morality only applies to humans. When something is objective, it applies to everything; humans and animals alike. If I jump off a cliff, the impact upon landing will cause injury; this is the case for animals as well.Right, and for good reason
Getting 2 outside sources will probably result in them disagreeing with each other.yea, determining everything that’s actually good and bad isn’t easy, but the subjective view can be objectively analyzed by an outside source.
Good and bad things that happen you you? Obviously you make the decision. And if someone tells us that they had their wallet stolen, I don't feel it necessary to ask him if he thought it was a bad thing. I can assume that because it's a virtual certainty that he would. But...he is the person that will decide. If, for whatever bizarre reason, he thought it was acceptable then that's his call..
Bradskii takes the next step and defines bad as those things that I wouldn't want to have happen to myself. But what all of the sudden made me the arbiter of good and bad?
No, it's bad because you think so. What the rest of us think is irrelevant. Hence relative morality.Is stealing my wallet bad simply because we all agree that it's bad?
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?