Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

You're off base with this, it's not that the terms are loaded. It's that the only way to get from premises about a state of affairs to a moral evaluation is to include the moral evaluation into the premises themselves.

The fact we have used as a premise is that you are physically hurt and angry. Tell me where the moral evaluation is in that and whether it is good or bad.

 

[Fervent]

The fact we have used as a premise is that you are physically hurt and angry. Tell me where the moral evaluation is in that and whether it is good or bad.

It's neither good or bad, without adding a moral proposition. It just is a state of affairs.

 

[Fervent]

This is logic at quite a basic level. IF x THEN y. The premises lead to the conclusion. If the conclusion is already present in the premises it's a fallacy.

Surely you know this..? From AI:

Petitio principii, also known as "begging the question" or circular reasoning, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed within the premises. Instead of providing independent evidence, the argument uses the very point it is trying to prove as a justification for that same point. This creates a circular loop where the premise and conclusion essentially say the same thing in different words, making the argument logically invalid because it fails to prove anything new.

I am well aware, but what is the "x" that's supposed to lead to the y? In order to be valid, there must be a relationship between x and y such that the statement that if x, then y holds water. Otherwise it's a non-sequitor. So what is the relationship?

 

[o_mlly]

Nope, empathy is a feeling. It's a feeling of being connected with someone else's emotions, or feeling what they feel.

Of course, empathy is an emotion.

Those who allow their emotions to rule their lives often try to pretend that their delusional disposition is rational so as to not appear foolish. The determination of whether empathy or any other passion is good or bad depends on the act that the feeling moves us to take. If that act is bad then the feeling is bad and vice versa.

 

[partinobodycular]

Those who allow their emotions to rule their lives often try to pretend that their delusional disposition is rational so as to not appear foolish. The determination of whether empathy or any other passion is good or bad depends on the act that the feeling moves us to take. If that act is bad then the feeling is bad and vice versa.

Pardon my French, but what a bunch of hooey, amounting to nothing more than 'certain things are bad because I/we say they're bad'. People have the innate right to do whatever they want to do, and any characterization as 'good' or 'bad' is purely man made. The only way around this is to invoke a 'higher' authority that conveniently validates your version of good and bad over anyone else's.

Or to put it in terms that @Fervent should recognize: you have no way to bridge the gap from is to ought.

We're still waiting to see how @Bradskii is going to achieve this feat, but I can guarantee you that it'll be some version of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

 

[o_mlly]

Pardon my French, but what a bunch of hooey, amounting to nothing more than 'certain things are bad because I/we say they're bad'. People have the innate right to do whatever they want to do, and any characterization as 'good' or 'bad' is purely man made. The only way around this is to invoke a 'higher' authority that conveniently validates your version of good and bad over anyone else's.

French? Yet another one who thinks le viol est une bonne chose.

 

[partinobodycular]

French? Yet another one who thinks le viol est une bonne chose.

But on what do you base the claim that rape is bad?

 

[Fervent]

We're still waiting to see how @Bradskii is going to achieve this feat, but I can guarantee you that it'll be some version of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

which is not an "is" statement so cannot be the bridge from is to ought, because the question then becomes how that was derived. And whether that is a moral absolute, since @Bradskii denies that such absolutes exist.

 

[Bradskii]

I am well aware, but what is the "x" that's supposed to lead to the y? In order to be valid, there must be a relationship between x and y such that the statement that if x, then y holds water. Otherwise it's a non-sequitor. So what is the relationship?

We'll get to that. But you've said that the moral conclusion as to whether you should be physically struck is already in the statement 'You will be hurt and angry'. There is no moral component anywhere in that and that is plainly obvious. And...as I skipped a post I can see you've commented on that. So...to continue.

 

[Bradskii]

It's neither good or bad, without adding a moral proposition. It just is a state of affairs.

Good. At last. There is no moral component. That took a lot longer than it should have, but now we eagree it's a premise and the conclusion is yet to come.

 

[Bradskii]

which is not an "is" statement so cannot be the bridge from is to ought, because the question then becomes how that was derived. And whether that is a moral absolute, since @Bradskii denies that such absolutes exist.

I can start here.

'Do unto others...' is a suggestion as to how one should live a valued life. It's been common throughout the ages. From Egypt and India, Greek and Roman, Christianity...all major religions and philosophies have their version. Earlier you said that Jesus has your moral answers (a matter I'll address later), so I'm certain that you agree with it. To the extent that it is a fact of life.

To expand on that...

I don't want to get smacked in the mouth. If I hit you then there's an excellent chance that you'll retaliate. So hey, that Golden Rule comes in handy. It is a fact that if I don't interfere with your well being then you are not going to interfere with mine. I'm treating you as I would like to be treated.

I also like living in a relatively peaceful society in general. My family is reasonably safe in the one in which we live. There is a social contact to which we (mostly) adhere which keeps things on an even keel. If smacking people in the mouth at random were to be the norm then that social contract dissolves. Violence would increase. Theft would increase. People would start thinking that hey, if he can do what he wants then so can I. Golden Rule again.

Add to this the fact that I don't like to see people in pain. That's empathy allowing me to understand what they are feeling. Empathy is not an emotion. It allows you to understand someone else's emotional state. What I feel about it may vary. I may be distraught. I may be happy. I may be indifferent. Yes, all feelings. But I can't change them. I can't decide to be happy when I see a child being hurt. I can't decide to be indifferent if my daughter is depressed. And you can also add to that that I (mostly) don't like causing pain (the last fight I had was in school and as soon as I punched the guy (he deserved it) I was immediately concerned that he'd been hurt).

So, what have we got here. Lots of facts. You've been smacked in the mouth. That IS a fact. You may well retaliate. That IS a strong possibility. I don't want to be hit. That IS another fact. I like living in a world where this sort of violence doesn't happen. That IS yet another fact. It IS a feature of my character that I don't like hurting people. It IS also a characteristic that I don't like to see people hurt.

So all these IS statements keep adding up. To a point where we OUGHT to do something to prevent all these non desireable outcomes. So if smacking you in the mouth IS going to cause all these problems then I OUGHT not to do it.

Now what I have given you are some facts why I OUGHT not to do it. And one way you may address it is by saying that some of those weren't facts but emotions. But we can't help our emotions. They spring unbidden into our lives. We're not Spock cooly and calmly determining consequences. Neither of us. Our emotions are simply facts of our characteristics. Built into our DNA. And mine come from an extremely long line of ancestors who felt roughly the same. As did yours. They come from a line of ancestors that managed to keep procreating through time until we arrived. And through an evolutionary dice toss they were generally the ones that thought that living in a society where people (mostly) didn't randomly attack each other was a better way of living. And so we think that way. You can't think any other way. It IS a fact.

So we OUGHT to live like that.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

French? Yet another one who thinks le viol est une bonne chose.

I mainly interact with people that believe that morals either don't objectively exist or that they are man-made. Never have I meet anyone that feels/thinks that rape is a good thing. So from where comes this idea that if you believe that morals are man-made it means that rape is acceptable or good?

However, I have seen online people arguing that marital rape is acceptable based on their religion. Which is completely wild to me, those are the real likely predators.

 

[partinobodycular]

which is not an "is" statement so cannot be the bridge from is to ought, because the question then becomes how that was derived. And whether that is a moral absolute, since @Bradskii denies that such absolutes exist.

But doesn't Hume's argument simply boil down to the observation that you can't derive subjective beliefs from objective truths? In which case my response is... that's a keen observation, but so what? It just means that I'll have to use some other means to determine morality, and I'm perfectly happy with that. It also means that your concept of morality may differ from my concept of morality, but I'm perfectly happy with that too.

@Bradskii has chosen to use the Golden Rule as his basis for morality, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's not exactly the same principal that I use, but I'm a solipsistic outlier, so I tend to wander a bit outside of the box.

From my perspective it's perfectly reasonable for morality to change from time to time, and place to place, because what's best for society may sometimes require behavior that other times may deem to be immoral. When you find a time and place that's perfect, let me know.

As I'm wont to say, until I've walked a mile in your shoes, I have no right to judge you. However, in every time and in every place there are those behaviors that lead to survival and there are those behaviors that don't, and therein abides a judge from which we can't escape.

 

[Bradskii]

So from where comes this idea that if you believe that morals are man-made it means that rape is acceptable or good?

It's the usual fallacy that's brought up constantly in discussions like this.

A: We individually decide on what is right or wrong. We shouldn't allow others to decide for us.
B: So...if someone says that torturing children is OK then you can't argue with that!

Well, yes...that's correct. If he thinks it's OK then I can't argue that he thinks otherwise. But I can obviously argue that it's a bad idea, give a boat load of reasons why it's a very bad idea indeed and take extreme measures to prevent him acting on his desires.

 

[Bradskii]

But doesn't Hume's argument simply boil down to the observation that you can't derive subjective beliefs from objective truths?

The problem that some on this thread have is that they object to the (rather obvious) argument that we have to decide ourselves what is right and what is wrong. And as I posted above, it's quite straightforward to get an OUGHT from an IS. Their position (I don't consider that is raised to the heady heights of an argument) is that things are wrong in themselves. So we can have no input.

What we will invariably get from that point is some example that nobody in their right mind would argue is morally acceptable and they then declare it to be objectively bad and no personal input is required. Put forward an example where there could be a variety of positions (how long can I lock a child up until it becomes immoral) and there's a notable silence. Because the person has to make their own personal decision.

 

[o_mlly]

Never have I meet anyone that feels/thinks that rape is a good thing.

Now, you may continue to waffle on the morality of rape or you can continue to deflect. Let's have your "context" in which you would recommend that one rape another as a good idea.

So you've asked for an example when the act [rape] would be considered good. And I've given you one. If the woman was perhaps in the throws of divorce and found out that her husband had had sex with her while sleeping then she might well report him and he might well be convicted. But if she's in a loving relationship and finds she's pregnant, then she may well be ecstatically happy.

Another red herring? Or just the working of a convoluted mind?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Another red herring? Or just the working of a convoluted mind?

Ok, so now I know that there exists cicumstances in which the victim hypothetically could find rape acceptable. I've never met anyone that have said rape in general is good/acceptable at least. So now there are circumstances where a small subset of christians defend rape (in the context of marital rape) and a hypothetical where the outcome could deemed good by the would be victim.

What do you mean by a "convoluted mind"?

French? Yet another one who thinks le viol est une bonne chose.

What do you mean when you reference "another one"? What did you have in mind when you wrote "le viol", that particular instance in the other thread? If so why did you not reference it earlier?

 

[Fervent]

But doesn't Hume's argument simply boil down to the observation that you can't derive subjective beliefs from objective truths? In which case my response is... that's a keen observation, but so what? It just means that I'll have to use some other means to determine morality, and I'm perfectly happy with that. It also means that your concept of morality may differ from my concept of morality, but I'm perfectly happy with that too.

Not exactly, the argument maintains that you can't draw prescriptive statements from descriptive ones. Just because a certain state of affairs exist, doesn't speak to how things should be.

@Bradskii has chosen to use the Golden Rule as his basis for morality, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's not exactly the same principal that I use, but I'm a solipsistic outlier, so I tend to wander a bit outside of the box.

But where did that come from? Isn't the goal to derive morality through reason? So how was the golden rule determined to be a guiding principle, and is it a moral absolute?

From my perspective it's perfectly reasonable for morality to change from time to time, and place to place, because what's best for society may sometimes require behavior that other times may deem to be immoral. When you find a time and place that's perfect, let me know.

So there are times when the golden rule is not the appropriate moral principle?

As I'm wont to say, until I've walked a mile in your shoes, I have no right to judge you. However, in every time and in every place there are those behaviors that lead to survival and there are those behaviors that don't, and therein abides a judge from which we can't escape.

Adaptability is hardly a determinant of moral behavior.

 

[Fervent]

I can start here.

'Do unto others...' is a suggestion as to how one should live a valued life. It's been common throughout the ages. From Egypt and India, Greek and Roman, Christianity...all major religions and philosophies have their version. Earlier you said that Jesus has your moral answers (a matter I'll address later), so I'm certain that you agree with it. To the extent that it is a fact of life.

To expand on that...

I don't want to get smacked in the mouth. If I hit you then there's an excellent chance that you'll retaliate. So hey, that Golden Rule comes in handy. It is a fact that if I don't interfere with your well being then you are not going to interfere with mine. I'm treating you as I would like to be treated.

I also like living in a relatively peaceful society in general. My family is reasonably safe in the one in which we live. There is a social contact to which we (mostly) adhere which keeps things on an even keel. If smacking people in the mouth at random were to be the norm then that social contract dissolves. Violence would increase. Theft would increase. People would start thinking that hey, if he can do what he wants then so can I. Golden Rule again.

Add to this the fact that I don't like to see people in pain. That's empathy allowing me to understand what they are feeling. Empathy is not an emotion. It allows you to understand someone else's emotional state. What I feel about it may vary. I may be distraught. I may be happy. I may be indifferent. Yes, all feelings. But I can't change them. I can't decide to be happy when I see a child being hurt. I can't decide to be indifferent if my daughter is depressed. And you can also add to that that I (mostly) don't like causing pain (the last fight I had was in school and as soon as I punched the guy (he deserved it) I was immediately concerned that he'd been hurt).

So, what have we got here. Lots of facts. You've been smacked in the mouth. That IS a fact. You may well retaliate. That IS a strong possibility. I don't want to be hit. That IS another fact. I like living in a world where this sort of violence doesn't happen. That IS yet another fact. It IS a feature of my character that I don't like hurting people. It IS also a characteristic that I don't like to see people hurt.

All of this speaks to why you might want to present as meek and mild, but none of them speak to a moral imperative. Simply a fear of retribution/consequences.

So all these IS statements keep adding up. To a point where we OUGHT to do something to prevent all these non desireable outcomes. So if smacking you in the mouth IS going to cause all these problems then I OUGHT not to do it.

And here you've taken a turn, and seem to be making a category mistake between compliance with external powers and an internal morality. There is no proper reason to comply except with what is being enforced socially which is not a basis for morality.

Now what I have given you are some facts why I OUGHT not to do it. And one way you may address it is by saying that some of those weren't facts but emotions. But we can't help our emotions. They spring unbidden into our lives. We're not Spock cooly and calmly determining consequences. Neither of us. Our emotions are simply facts of our characteristics. Built into our DNA. And mine come from an extremely long line of ancestors who felt roughly the same. As did yours. They come from a line of ancestors that managed to keep procreating through time until we arrived. And through an evolutionary dice toss they were generally the ones that thought that living in a society where people (mostly) didn't randomly attack each other was a better way of living. And so we think that way. You can't think any other way. It IS a fact.

So we OUGHT to live like that.

And you've presented a series of non-sequitors, and an argument that morality can only come from an external source and a fear of consequences. You haven't established a relationship between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones.

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, so now I know that there exists cicumstances in which the victim hypothetically could find rape acceptable.

Nope. The act is either intrinsically bad or it is not.

However, I have seen online people arguing that marital rape is acceptable based on their religion.

You mean based on their laws, right? More to the point, what do you say? Is rape good?