Motivation in Morality

[stevevw]

I can't control another person's beliefs. They don't need me to tell them whether their beliefs are right or wrong or OK.
I'm not the giver of rights

You named several reasons for how and why people hold their moral values. This suggests that there is no objective moral value. If thats the case then how do you establish what is right and wrong. Because by acknowledging that people have many different ways to see morality would suggest there is no way to tell what is objectively right or wrong.

It is

I wasnt making a point of whether the fetus is life or not but rather that it is relevant to determine whether the fetus is life or not to determine if it has rights. You mentioned you were concerned about peoples rights (womens rights). So if a fetus is life and human then we should also be concerned for their rights. Your premise was you didnt care about whether a fetus is life or human as to what is important to establish what should be the basis for government intervention.

At present it seems governments allow abortion but if a fetus is life and human then that makes the governments intervention immoral. Therefore it is important to establish if a fetus is life and human.

Nope, I'm not concerned about the individual rights of a fetus

But you are concerned about the individual rights of women. Why women and not the fetus.

That's all I'm concerned about. I'm not going to stick my nose into the lives and decisions of other people.

So what if the decisions and lives of other people affect the safety, stability and thriving for society.

Once the baby is born it is much more problematic to society in killing it.
If I go around killing babies, then people are certainly going to try to kill me.
If a pregnant woman gets an abortion, people aren't going to try to kill her.

Why

I agree. Let's just give up on the idea of morality altogether.

We can't, its within all of us. Its more of a case of determining what morality is. If subjective morality is unworkable then maybe objective morality is the only option.

A corporation setting ethics and judging its employees by ethics is not an example of objective morality. The ethics made by the bosses at the corporation is subjective to those bosses.

Yet they enforce their subjective morality onto their employees. So isnt the employers then claiming their morality is good enough and right enough to be the best morality for others. Arnt they making a claim beyond their personal subjective opinion by making others follow them.

 

[stevil]

You named several reasons for how and why people hold their moral values. This suggests that there is no objective moral value.

No way to objectively resolve moral disputes.

If thats the case then how do you establish what is right and wrong.

I don't. I've cast that vague belief in the bin.

Because by acknowledging that people have many different ways to see morality would suggest there is no way to tell what is objectively right or wrong.

Correct. No way to resolve moral disputes.

I wasnt making a point of whether the fetus is life or not but rather that it is relevant to determine whether the fetus is life or not to determine if it has rights.

You mentioned you were concerned about peoples rights (womens rights).

No I didn't. I just acknowledge that governance over women's wombs does not fall under the purpose of government. So it's not up to society or government to decide whether she should remain pregnant or not.

So if a fetus is life and human then we should also be concerned for their rights.

OK, that is your belief. It is not my belief. I am not concerned for the rights of the unborn.

Your premise was you didnt care about whether a fetus is life or human as to what is important to establish what should be the basis for government intervention.

Correct

At present it seems governments allow abortion but if a fetus is life and human then that makes the governments intervention immoral.

I don't care about your personal judgement as to the moral or immoralness of government.
I am not proposing us having a moral government. It is not a goal I support. I go the opposite. I don't want a government that is concerned about having a moral society. I just want a government that supports safety, stability and a thriving society.

Therefore it is important to establish if a fetus is life and human.

I don't think it is important. But I do recognise it as a scientific fact.

But you are concerned about the individual rights of women. Why women and not the fetus.

I want a minimal government, not a nanny state. I want govt to remove laws not add them.
Govt don't need to dictate a woman's reproductive system.

So what if the decisions and lives of other people affect the safety, stability and thriving for society.

I want to live in a safe, stable and thriving society.
If my society is not these things I would seriously seek to move to another country.
Humans are social animals, we need to co-exist with others. But we don't want to get killed or murdered, we don't want to be forever guarding our stuff. We do need a bare minimum of laws over how people behave in our society. That is the purpose of our elective government. Not to force someone's moral beliefs on others.

Why

If you are asking why people would kill a baby killer?
I presume it is because people don't want others in society going around killing their family members.
They would see me as a threat to their safety.

We can't, its within all of us.

We can.

Its more of a case of determining what morality is. If subjective morality is unworkable then maybe objective morality is the only option.

Nope. There is no objective morality. Subjective morality is nonsense. It is easier and clearer to talk in non moral language.

Yet they enforce their subjective morality onto their employees. So isnt the employers then claiming their morality is good enough and right enough to be the best morality for others. Arnt they making a claim beyond their personal subjective opinion by making others follow them.

Still doesn't make it objective.

 

[Bradskii]

If thats the case then how do you establish what is right and wrong.

I don't.

That is by far the strangest thing I have read on this forum. Possibly on any forum. Possibly anywhere at all.

 

[stevil]

That is by far the strangest thing I have read on this forum. Possibly on any forum. Possibly anywhere at all.

It's quite clear to me that you haven't been following or understanding what I have been saying.
But also you haven't been interested in asking questions for me to clarify either.

 

[Bradskii]

It's quite clear to me that you haven't been following or understanding what I have been saying.
But also you haven't been interested in asking questions for me to clarify either.

Ohhh.. kay. Here's one. How do you establish what is right or wrong?

 

[stevil]

Ohhh.. kay. Here's one. How do you establish what is right or wrong?

It is an unimportant question.
I am not concerned whether an action or a decision is right or wrong in the moral sense.

I don't walk around judging people or their actions. I am not the judge.

With regards to making my own choices and taking my own actions, I consider what the consequences are.

 

[Treeplanter]

It's quite clear to me that you haven't been following or understanding what I have been saying.
But also you haven't been interested in asking questions for me to clarify either.

I have a question for you


You said that you don't care what people believe in - that people can believe whatever they want

{an example might be that blacks are sub-human and there is nothing wrong with a white person owning a black person as a piece of property}


You said that the only time that you become concerned is when people try to create laws that will impact you and your loved ones

{an example might be a society that strips rights away from black people and legalizes slavery}


The question, then, is this:

What do you think is the impetus to remove rights from the black man and to create a law making it legal for a white person to own a black person as a piece of property?

 

[stevil]

The question, then, is this:

What do you think is the impetus to remove rights from the black man and to create a law making it legal for a white person to own a black person as a piece of property?

It would take a lot of force and violence to do so, and that would make society dangerous and unsafe for all.

 

[Treeplanter]

It would take a lot of force and violence to do so, and that would make society dangerous and unsafe for all.

You're not understanding what I am asking...

The people that would push for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human - why would they do so?

What motivates someone to advocate for laws that deny equal rights to "out groups"?

 

[Bradskii]

It is an unimportant question.
I am not concerned whether an action or a decision is right or wrong in the moral sense.

I don't walk around judging people or their actions. I am not the judge.

With regards to making my own choices and taking my own actions, I consider what the consequences are.

I didn't you as to what you consider to be right or wrong in the moral sense. I don't want to get involved in how you view right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

I also didn't ask you whether you should judge other people.

And I didn't ask you about how you determine what your actions should be in any given situation.

I asked you, plain and simply, how you establish what is right or wrong. So...how do you?

 

[stevil]

I didn't you as to what you consider to be right or wrong in the moral sense. I don't want to get involved in how you view right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

I also didn't ask you whether you should judge other people.

And I didn't ask you about how you determine what your actions should be in any given situation.

I asked you, plain and simply, how you establish what is right or wrong. So...how do you?

Hmmm, OK. Given the context of this thread I thought you were talking about the moral context.


Right vs wrong in a factual context.
e.g. if someone said 1+1=3
I was taught that 1+1 = 2 so I would consider the statement 1+1=3 to be wrong.
Or if someone said that Sydney is the capital of NZ.
Well I know that Sydney is in Australia and definitely not NZ. Wellington is the capital of NZ so just through my knowledge I know Wellington is the captial so the statement Sydniey is the capital of NZ would be wrong.

I could verify this by doing an internet search. And doing so would find that most sites would declare that Wellington is the capital of NZ.

So that's the moral sense covered and now I covered the factual sense, i'm not aware of any other sense.
I'm pretty sure you weren't asking in a factual sense. But to be honest I found your last post hard to understand.

 

[stevil]

You're not understanding what I am asking...

The people that would push for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human - why would they do so?

What motivates someone to advocate for laws that deny equal rights to "out groups"?

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I haven't advocated for this, so why ask me?

 

[Bradskii]

Hmmm, OK. Given the context of this thread I thought you were talking about the moral context.


Right vs wrong in a factual context.
e.g. if someone said 1+1=3
I was taught that 1+1 = 2 so I would consider the statement 1+1=3 to be wrong.
Or if someone said that Sydney is the capital of NZ.
Well I know that Sydney is in Australia and definitely not NZ. Wellington is the capital of NZ so just through my knowledge I know Wellington is the captial so the statement Sydniey is the capital of NZ would be wrong.

I could verify this by doing an internet search. And doing so would find that most sites would declare that Wellington is the capital of NZ.

So that's the moral sense covered and now I covered the factual sense, i'm not aware of any other sense.
I'm pretty sure you weren't asking in a factual sense. But to be honest I found your last post hard to understand.

I think that you knew what I meant. So I'll try one more time and then I'm out of here.

How do you determine if someone's actions are right or wrong as far as you are concerned?

 

[stevevw]

No way to objectively resolve moral disputes.

That is why I was pointing out that moral truth is moral realism in that its lived out. We cannot help but live it out and point it out. Even if someone claims there is only subjective morality they cannot help live moral truths which contradict their claims to subjective morality.

I don't. I've cast that vague belief in the bin.

So therefore if you see or hear of someone doing something horrible to a child you cannot really claim that its objectively wrong. The person doing the act can also claim its morally OK.

But I disgaree with this position if thats the case. That is why I pointed out moral realism because real lived morality is different to claims about morality.

Correct. No way to resolve moral disputes.

Wouldnt that leave any relationship, groups or society in trouble where they could not prevent people going around claiming all sorts of strange and crazy things are morally OK. Well I guess thats sort of happening now which for me seems to once again show how impracticle and self defeating subjective morality is.

No I didn't. I just acknowledge that governance over women's wombs does not fall under the purpose of government. So it's not up to society or government to decide whether she should remain pregnant or not.

It would be up to the government is it was shown that the fetus was life and human. That is why I pointed out that establishing what status the fetus has is important and relevant to morality.

The government intervenes in womens or anyones life in other ways. If a person is being destructive and at risk of harming others the law stops them. If children drink underage the law stops them and parents can be held accountable for their kids. Individual rights don't always trump other peoples rights or the wellbeing of the person.

OK, that is your belief. It is not my belief. I am not concerned for the rights of the unborn.

So let me ask you if it was discovered that the fetus was a human life and terminating it was killing a human would you be pro-life.

Correct

As I pointed out thats an inconsistent position to take and therefore not a good basis for whether a government should get involved. Governments get involved all the time on issues similar to abortion.

I don't care about your personal judgement as to the moral or immoralness of government.
I am not proposing us having a moral government. It is not a goal I support. I go the opposite. I don't want a government that is concerned about having a moral society. I just want a government that supports safety, stability and a thriving society.

I agree we cannot function as a theocracy. But I am goint to that extreme but rather pointing out that it is impossible for governments to detach morality from what they do. So we surely must be able and want to ensure the best moral position to take as a society and nation.

For example the decision to force mothers back to work while their baby involves morality. Drug testing drug addicts to determine their eligibility for welfare involves morality. Easy divorce laws involve moral values.

So what I am saying is that when the government decides to take a certain position on these situation they are inevitably taking a moral position. They are saying drug addicts don't derserve help, the family unit and motherhood has no value ect. They can pretend its all about the budget but even that is a moral position by putting money before people. Everything we do is interwoven with moral values.

I don't think it is important. But I do recognise it as a scientific fact.

So if its a scientific fact then isntcannot the science be a measure of what is right and wrong. The recent scientific discoveries have shown that the fetus feels pain and has more function than we thought that has changed many of the laws about allowing full term abortions. So the logical extention would be if further science showed that earlier stages were vital then that would change peoples moral views about abortion.

You make a point of governments not denying a womens right. That is itself a moral position. You are placing value of womens rights. Why womens rights, why human rights. Thats because human life is of value. Why is human life of value. Some say because it denies a full and free life. But why is that of value.

Some say it harms women/humans. But why is human harm of value. So why isnt the fetus of value. Why should womens lives be above a fetus life. Why should human life be above animals lives. . See how it can keep going back to a moral truth position.

I want a minimal government, not a nanny state. I want govt to remove laws not add them.
Govt don't need to dictate a woman's reproductive system.

Except if the fetus was determined to be a human life. Then if the government didnt intervene it becomes legalised murder. Thats why the government has laws about killing now which range from 1st degree to self defence and assisted suicide which is illegal in many places.

The givenment cannot help but set certain laws, rules and regulations as otherwise there would be chaos, self rule run riot. Otherwise people would be saying oh, I decided to kill my neighbour because they had their music up too loud last night and now I don't have to be disturbed by them ever again and can have peace ect.

I want to live in a safe, stable and thriving society.
If my society is not these things I would seriously seek to move to another country.
Humans are social animals, we need to co-exist with others. But we don't want to get killed or murdered, we don't want to be forever guarding our stuff. We do need a bare minimum of laws over how people behave in our society. That is the purpose of our elective government. Not to force someone's moral beliefs on others.

I have already covered government and laws. This is something beyond the control of people to some extent. We can vote governments out that we don't like but all governments are pretty similar today. They all have a raft of laws, rules and regulations that help keep society in order and to some extent these are imposed even if people disagree.

But I was thinking more about social situations. Where people interact and how they determine what is morally right and wrong. Do they just both walk away from a situation without any moral truth if they disagree. Or is there some way of determining moral truth for that situation. I see this asked by someone else on this thread. What if 2 people with different subjective moral views about child abuse. One says its OK the other says its not. Is there any way of determining what the moral truth is.

If you are asking why people would kill a baby killer?
I presume it is because people don't want others in society going around killing their family members.
They would see me as a threat to their safety.

OK a couple of scenarios for you. 1st- If a person kills a pregnant women isn't there also a murder charge on killing the unborn baby. 2nd- If the fetus is determined as human life would not the same baby killer label be applied to you and therefore people would see you as a threat to their safety.

3rd-who says that killing family members is bad an that peoples safety should be the measure of what is right and wrong. What if another society thought that killing babies is good. Who says your society has the ultimate truth to whether that is right or wrong.

We can.

Not really. As soon as we are in a situation where a moral value needs determining we will intuitively and automatically revert to thinking in moral truths. You will say its OK, I will say its not. You will say we don't need honesty in our debate but as soon as I misrepresent your position or provide dubious statistics you will protest that I am being dishonest.

If you don't use honesty as a value then we have no way of engaging in anything of substance or in interaction that needs to be determined or a truth found. Human interactions are about finding the truth. The very act of claiming something, anything is a proclamation that a person holds a truth about something.

Nope. There is no objective morality. Subjective morality is nonsense. It is easier and clearer to talk in non moral language.

Yet you began with an objective statement. How do you know theres no objective morality. Is that your subjective or non-moral claim.

Still doesn't make it objective.

The question has to be in light of you saying there is no subjective, objective or morals (moral language) at all. Can a corporation operate without any moral values or ethics. If morality is not objective (objective meaning morality is universal and isn't up for interpretation).

Then how do you explain a corporation imposing their ethics which can also be based on morality on others who may disagree and have a different moral interpretation. Isnt the corporation taling a universial position on morality by saying that their moral view applies to everyone regardless of what their personal interpretation is.

 

[stevil]

I think that you knew what I meant. So I'll try one more time and then I'm out of here.

How do you determine if someone's actions are right or wrong as far as you are concerned?

Your last post said you weren't interested in my view on morality. You said "I didn't you as to what you consider to be right or wrong in the moral sense. "

So then it was very difficult to try and answer your question "I asked you, plain and simply, how you establish what is right or wrong. So...how do you?"
I mean, if you weren't interested in the context of "moral sense" then what where you meaning????

So, anyway we get back to you asking me a question in the moral sense.
"How do you determine if someone's actions are right or wrong"

It is an unimportant question.
I am not concerned whether an action or a decision is right or wrong in the moral sense.
I don't walk around judging people or their actions. I am not the judge.

So, if I don't judge people as to whether their actions and choices are right and wrong, then why would I determine if someone's actions are right or wrong?

I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. I don't get the difficulty you are having here.

Anyway, you don't have to have this conversation with me, I can't answer your question the way you would like it answered. No matter how much I try to explain it to you, you don't seem to be able to understand.

 

[Bradskii]

Your last post said you weren't interested in my view on morality. You said "I didn't you as to what you consider to be right or wrong in the moral sense. "

"How do you determine if someone's actions are right or wrong"

It is an unimportant question.
I am not concerned whether an action or a decision is right or wrong in the moral sense.
I don't walk around judging people or their actions. I am not the judge.

So, if I don't judge people as to whether their actions and choices are right and wrong, then why would I determine if someone's actions are right or wrong?

I'm not asking you to judge people from a moral perspective (and it was really hard not to put that in all caps). I want to know how you can tell right from wrong. I could care less what you think of other people or their morality.

These aren't obscure philosophical terms we're using here. You know what they mean. It couldn't be more basic. Everyone is able evaluate an action and say 'that was right' or 'that was wrong'. So without judging anyone, how do you tell?

 

[stevil]

That is why I was pointing out that moral truth is moral realism in that its lived out. We cannot help but live it out and point it out.

Yes we can live our lives without painting people's decisions and actions with labels "good", "bad", "neutral"
I don't do that. Seems a waste of time to me. It's not my job to judge.

So therefore if you see or hear of someone doing something horrible to a child you cannot really claim that its objectively wrong. The person doing the act can also claim its morally OK.

I don't see the point in claiming it to be objectively wrong.

Wouldnt that leave any relationship, groups or society in trouble where they could not prevent people going around claiming all sorts of strange and crazy things are morally OK.

People claim all sorts of stuff, some crazy, some not, so what?

Well I guess thats sort of happening now which for me seems to once again show how impracticle and self defeating subjective morality is.

I agree with you here.

It would be up to the government is it was shown that the fetus was life and human.

Depends on the purpose of government. If you determine that it is government's purpose to ensure a moral society then you are giving them an obligation to define things as moral or immoral and to then outlaw immoral things. Problem comes when you personally don't agree with what your politician leaders have defined as immoral. You have really no capability to discover together the truth of whether it is moral, immoral or neutral. Both sides are just stating their own personal beliefs.

That is why I pointed out that establishing what status the fetus has is important and relevant to morality.

Maybe, depending on your moral beliefs. But if we take morality out of the picture then it is unimportant to determine the status of the fetus.

If a person is being destructive and at risk of harming others the law stops them. If children drink underage the law stops them and parents can be held accountable for their kids. Individual rights don't always trump other peoples rights or the wellbeing of the person.

I don't agree with all the laws that governments impose on people.

So let me ask you if it was discovered that the fetus was a human life and terminating it was killing a human would you be pro-life.

I accept that a human fetus is human and I accept that it is alive. I accept that abortion is the intentional act of killing the fetus. I am still pro choice because I don't consider it to be the purpose of government or society to interfere just for the sake of it. Abortions don't make society dangerous or unstable.

Governments get involved all the time on issues similar to abortion.

I think governments should change. I think they should reduce the amount of laws and only interfere when absolutely necessary.

But I am goint to that extreme but rather pointing out that it is impossible for governments to detach morality from what they do.

I don't think it is impossible. I think they can do this and be more effective and give people more choices.

So we surely must be able and want to ensure the best moral position to take as a society and nation.

This is not what I want. People will disagree with each other on what is the best moral position. This will cause a lot of fighting.

So what I am saying is that when the government decides to take a certain position on these situation they are inevitably taking a moral position. They are saying drug addicts don't derserve help,

If we want a thriving society, maybe we are best to support people with problems, help them out of those problems so that they can become productive rather than be thieves.

Everything we do is interwoven with moral values.

I think we as a scoiety would be better off if we cast away that belief.

The recent scientific discoveries have shown that the fetus feels pain and has more function than we thought that has changed many of the laws about allowing full term abortions. So the logical extention would be if further science showed that earlier stages were vital then that would change peoples moral views about abortion.

It wouldn't change my view of abortion.

You make a point of governments not denying a womens right.

That is not the point I made. I was unconcerned about women's rights.
I was concerned however about the government going above their purpose and creating laws where laws aren't needed to support having a safe, stable and thriving society.

Except if the fetus was determined to be a human life. Then if the government didnt intervene it becomes legalised murder.

I'm OK with that. Not my place to judge.

The givenment cannot help but set certain laws, rules and regulations as otherwise there would be chaos, self rule run riot.

Yes, we need rules to maintain a safe, stable and thriving society.

Otherwise people would be saying oh, I decided to kill my neighbour because they had their music up too loud last night and now I don't have to be disturbed by them ever again and can have peace ect.

Yeah, all sorts of things would happen, you would also get vigilante justice, and gangs and gang warefare etc. So some rules are necessary to maintain a stable society.
But laws against abortion are not necessary, we don't get mayhem when pregnant women have abortions.

But I was thinking more about social situations. Where people interact and how they determine what is morally right and wrong. Do they just both walk away from a situation without any moral truth if they disagree.

Depends on how strong their moral beliefs are, Depends if they are willing to risk their own safety in order to stand up for their moral beliefs. Some people are more confrontational than others, some people turn the other cheek, some people like to play the hero.

Or is there some way of determining moral truth for that situation.

I am yet to learn of a way to determine a universal moral truth.

I see this asked by someone else on this thread. What if 2 people with different subjective moral views about child abuse. One says its OK the other says its not. Is there any way of determining what the moral truth is.

I don't think there is.

OK a couple of scenarios for you. 1st- If a person kills a pregnant women isn't there also a murder charge on killing the unborn baby.

I don't know. "murder" is a legal term. I'm not a lawyer.

2nd- If the fetus is determined as human life would not the same baby killer label be applied to you and therefore people would see you as a threat to their safety.

If a pregnant woman aborts her fetus, perhaps her next fetus could consider her a threat to its own safety. But of course the fetus won't know of the fate of her previous fetus, it wont have a clue about what is happening, even if it did, it wouldn't be able to protect itself.

3rd-who says that killing family members is bad an that peoples safety should be the measure of what is right and wrong.

I don't know. Each person comes up with their own moral belief system.

What if another society thought that killing babies is good.

Firstly a society doesn't have a belief system. Individual people do.
If individuals thought that killing babies was the thing that people should do, then perhaps that society would die off because their babies wouldn't live old enough to procreate.

Who says your society has the ultimate truth to whether that is right or wrong.

Precisely!

If you don't use honesty as a value then we have no way of engaging in anything of substance or in interaction that needs to be determined or a truth found.

If you gain a reputation for lying then people wont trust you, if they don't trust you, they won't hire you or buy things from you or loan things to you, eventually they won't talk to you. The consequences can become problematic to you.

The question has to be in light of you saying there is no subjective, objective or morals (moral language) at all. Can a corporation operate without any moral values or ethics.

I think so, yes.

Then how do you explain a corporation imposing their ethics which can also be based on morality on others who may disagree and have a different moral interpretation. Isnt the corporation taling a universial position on morality by saying that their moral view applies to everyone regardless of what their personal interpretation is.

I haven't worked in such a corporation.

 

[stevil]

I'm not asking you to judge people from a moral perspective (and it was really hard not to put that in all caps). I want to know how you can tell right from wrong. I could care less what you think of other people or their morality.

These aren't obscure philosophical terms we're using here. You know what they mean. It couldn't be more basic. Everyone is able evaluate an action and say 'that was right' or 'that was wrong'. So without judging anyone, how do you tell?

I don't label actions or choices as "right" or "wrong"
I might label things as "a danger to me" "a danger to my loved ones", "a danger to society"
But not a vague "right" or "wrong"

 

[Bradskii]

I don't label actions or choices as "right" or "wrong"
I might label things as "a danger to me" "a danger to my loved ones", "a danger to society"
But not a vague "right" or "wrong"

So somebody that does something that is a danger to you or your loved ones or society is doing something wrong. As in doing something in (a dictionary definition) 'an undesirable manner'. One assumes that if someone was beating you up just for the fun of it you would consider that he was acting in 'an undesirable manner'.

So no judgement required by you on our local thug, but I assume you'd agree?

 

[stevil]

So somebody that does something that is a danger to you or your loved ones or society is doing something wrong.

That's not at all what I said.
I have no idea why you insist on taking my clear and specific statement and making it vague and unclear. But anyway, whatever.

One assumes that if someone was beating you up just for the fun of it you would consider that he was acting in 'an undesirable manner'.

I would consider them doing something that is harmful to my health.

So no judgement required by you on our local thug, but I assume you'd agree?

Huh?