Motivation in Morality

[Bradskii]

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

So the guy was doing something to you that you thought was undesirable. Agreed?

 

[stevil]

So the guy was doing something to you that you thought was undesirable. Agreed?

You can use your words, I'll use mine.

 

[Bradskii]

You can use your words, I'll use mine.

Are you really trying to convince anyone that someone beating you up for fun is not something you'd find undesirable? Why on earth would you even argue the point? It's bizarre.

You've long passed the point where a reasonable discussion has become impossible.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

I've said in the past that those claiming there is an objective morality also seem to claim that they know what it is. (Else, why call it objective.) That is, such a one can say are wrong and not only that you should've known it was wrong. (Too, "my morality is the objective morality and if you don't hold it you are objectively immoral.")

It's like the Romans 1 argument.

 

[Bradskii]

I've said in the past that those claiming there is an objective morality also seem to claim that they know what it is.

But they do take some offence if it is suggested that if we then have a moral problem we can simply ask them.

 

[Treeplanter]

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

Yes, I realize that you have not advocated for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human!

What I asked you to do is to surmise why it is that someone else would advocate for such a thing


Despite your reticence to offer an answer, I suspect that you do have one...

In fact, it should be apparent and obvious to all that advocacy for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human is motivated by a belief that blacks ARE sub-human


Presumably, you and I are in complete agreement that laws designed to strip blacks of the same rights as enjoyed by whites would be detrimental to society and, by extension, to each of us and our loved ones


Earlier, 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

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

My point is that it behooves you, your loved ones, and society, itself, for you to start caring and become concerned when another person holds as obviously "wrong/bad/immoral/and evil" a belief as blacks being sub-human BECAUSE it is this very belief that leads to advocacy for laws to be implemented - laws that you, presumably, recognize as harmful to self/loved ones/ and society as a whole!

 

[stevil]

Yes, I realize that you have not advocated for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human!

What I asked you to do is to surmise why it is that someone else would advocate for such a thing


Despite your reticence to offer an answer, I suspect that you do have one...

In fact, it should be apparent and obvious to all that advocacy for blacks to be regarded, legally, as sub-human is motivated by a belief that blacks ARE sub-human

I presume the American whites did it because they were in a dominant position, money could be made out of owning blacks. Out of selling blacks. It was big business for them. At the time they were team USA and the blacks were another tribe to be used and discarded however the white american's pleased.
But now you have a society of very diverse peoples and your laws needed to change to include them all as citizens. Subjugating minorities now represents a danger to your own society. Violence will ensue as they and their sympathisers fight back, global nations will stop trading with you, other minorities may ask themselves "are we next?"

Earlier, 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

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

Sure

My point is that it behooves you, your loved ones, and society, itself, for you to start caring and become concerned when another person holds as obviously "wrong/bad/immoral/and evil" a belief as blacks being sub-human BECAUSE it is this very belief that leads to advocacy for laws to be implemented - laws that you, presumably, recognize as harmful to self/loved ones/ and society as a whole!

I'm not worried about the belief, but I am worried about laws. So if a person believes abortion or divorce is immoral, I am not concerned, but when they seek to make it illegal, then I say I am not on board with this law.

If they argue with me that abortion and divorce is immoral, I won't argue back. They are just expressing their beliefs, if they ask me for my opinion, I will tell them that I don't hold moral beliefs. If they ask me to support them in making a law against abortion and divorce, I'll tell them I don't support a nanny state or having a moral branch of the police force.

 

[stevil]

I've said in the past that those claiming there is an objective morality also seem to claim that they know what it is. (Else, why call it objective.) That is, such a one can say are wrong and not only that you should've known it was wrong. (Too, "my morality is the objective morality and if you don't hold it you are objectively immoral.")

It's like the Romans 1 argument.

Not too dissimilar to them claiming there is a god and it is the one that they believe in.

And then them claiming that they know what that god thinks, or wants
And then funnily enough, that this god's moral commands exactly equal the set of moral beliefs that the believer holds.

It is projection.
People want others to behave according to their own beliefs, what better way than to say there is a supreme being that wants them to behave that way.

 

[stevil]

Are you really trying to convince anyone that someone beating you up for fun is not something you'd find undesirable? Why on earth would you even argue the point? It's bizarre.

You've long passed the point where a reasonable discussion has become impossible.

Where did I say "that someone beating you up for fun is not something you'd find undesirable?"

It's not the words I'd use as it is extremely vague.
I was specific and clear when I told you my response.
You then came back, rewrote my response to make it vague and unclear.
I have no idea why you feel the need to do that. But hey, you are you, I am me.
I'm not going to try to force you to use the words that I prefer, I'm not like that.

 

[Treeplanter]

I presume the American whites did it because they were in a dominant position, money could be made out of owning blacks. Out of selling blacks.

There was also money to be made by whites buying and selling other whites, was there not?

Why was it, though, that the white men who bought and sold black men never gave any serious thought to doing the same with those of their same race?

I'll tell you why:
It's because these people didn't regard those of their same {white} race as inferior and sub-human

These people regarded the black man as inferior and sub-human

It's mind boggling to me that you refuse to acknowledge this belief as wrong/bad/immoral/evil

I'm not worried about the belief, but I am worried about laws.

You should be worried about the belief because it is beliefs that lead to the laws!

If you're going to worry about the effect {laws that impact you}
then doesn't it make sense to worry about the cause {beliefs that result in laws}?

Why wait for a law to be passed before taking action?

Why not take a stand and lend your voice, if nothing else, in opposition to the wrong-headed thinking that might eventually find form in the implementation of wrong-headed laws?

 

[stevil]

There was also money to be made by whites buying and selling other whites, was there not?

Why was it, though, that the white men who bought and sold black men never gave any serious thought to doing the same with those of their same race?

I'll tell you why:
It's because these people didn't regard those of their same {white} race as inferior and sub-human

These people regarded the black man as inferior and sub-human

I presume whites would blend in within USA and it would have been much harder to tell slaves apart from non slaves.
But anyway, I'm not history scholar, quite frankly I don't know the answers you want me to give.

It's mind boggling to me that you refuse to acknowledge this belief as wrong/bad/immoral/evil

I have no idea why it means so much to you for me to use these vague words.
I'm happy to be specific, but why do you want me to dumb it down?

You should be worried about the belief because it is beliefs that lead to the laws!

It's always a pleasure to have others tell me what I should do or should think

If you're going to worry about the effect {laws that impact you}
then doesn't it make sense to worry about the cause {beliefs that result in laws}?

Perhpas, unless I don't think that one person's beliefs can change the laws.

Why wait for a law to be passed before taking action?

I think we should set boundaries on the power of government. I think we should take moral beliefs out of the equation

 

[Treeplanter]

I have no idea why it means so much to you for me to use these vague words.
I'm happy to be specific, but why do you want me to dumb it down?

There is nothing vague about 'wrong' and 'bad' and 'immoral' and 'evil'

Wrong = unjust and dishonest / not correct or true
Bad = not such to be hoped for or desired / unpleasant or unwelcome
Immoral = not conforming to accepted standards / not manifesting high principles of proper conduct
Evil = profoundly immoral and wicked

These words are not vague
They have meaning - clear and concise meaning

Perhaps when you say that these terms are vague, what you are actually meaning to say is that the application of these terms upon a thought, word, action, and/or person thinking said thought, speaking said word, or committing said action is open to debate?

This is true
Not everyone agrees that 'X' is wrong, bad, immoral, or evil
Not everyone agrees that person 'A' is wrong, bad, immoral, or evil for doing 'X'

So what?

Why should that stop you from exercising your own judgement and assessing the thoughts and words and actions of others?

Why should this stop you from exercising your own judgement and assessing the person who is holding these thoughts and expressing these thoughts in word and deed?

You said that you see no point in it, but there is a very good reason for doing so...

When we identify and label that which is wrong, bad, immoral, and evil - we are helping to safeguard against it's spread

We are helping to ensure that others not be sucked into the madness

Perhpas, unless I don't think that one person's beliefs can change the laws.

One person's belief isn't going to change the law, but one person's belief can and does infect others and once enough people have become infected by a wrong/bad/immoral/evil belief - then it's a short leap

I think we should set boundaries on the power of government. I think we should take moral beliefs out of the equation

I agree with you!

 

[stevil]

There is nothing vague about 'wrong' and 'bad' and 'immoral' and 'evil'

Wrong = unjust and dishonest / not correct or true
Bad = not such to be hoped for or desired / unpleasant or unwelcome
Immoral = not conforming to accepted standards / not manifesting high principles of proper conduct
Evil = profoundly immoral and wicked

These words are not vague

They are very vague. They are individual beliefs rather than facts.
What one person sees as wrong is different from what another sees as wrong. They each have different reasons as to why they deem something wrong.
If a person declares something wrong, you would need to follow that up with another question to get them to clarify why they deem it as wrong. This helps for that particular situation, but when they claim something else to also be wrong, you again need to ask as their reasoning may be totally different. They make it up as they go along and so their declaration of "that is wrong" is completely veiled in mystery.
Same thing for bad, immoral and evil.

I'm on this forum, giving specific example, giving facts about why something might be dangerous to me, to my loved ones, to people in society, to the stability of society. I am making claims of facts, but it seems a couple of posters get all upset at that, and insist that I proclaim a belief (aligned with theirs) instead of present facts.

Perhaps this is why atheists are so disliked, because believers really really really want others to hold onto beliefs and don't like it when instead facts are referred to rather than a proclamation of belief????

Perhaps when you say that these terms are vague, what you are actually meaning to say is that the application of these terms upon a thought, word, action, and/or person thinking said thought, speaking said word, or committing said action is open to debate?

This is true
Not everyone agrees that 'X' is wrong, bad, immoral, or evil
Not everyone agrees that person 'A' is wrong, bad, immoral, or evil for doing 'X'

So what?

It's an individual belief system. There is no way to discover the facts to resolve belief disputes.
It is also vague because each person has their own underpinnings of the belief system.
Some people it is Jesus says
Some it is golden rule
Some it is harm
Some it is their own personal empathy and emotional response

So they all just argue and talk past each other. It is immoral, no its not, yes it is, no......

Why should that stop you from exercising your own judgement and assessing the thoughts and words and actions of others?

I can assess if others present a danger, but what is the point in assessing if others conform to a particular belief system?
I have no skin in the game, I just don't care if others are moral or not.

 

[Treeplanter]

I can assess if others present a danger, but what is the point in assessing if others conform to a particular belief system?

Some belief systems present a danger
Others do not

We are both in agreement that belief systems that do present a danger are detrimental to self, loved ones, and society, as a whole

The point of assessing belief systems and differentiating between those that do and do not present a danger is to stem the tide of dangerous belief systems altogether

The point is to make those who hold to dangerous belief systems feel uncomfortable in hopes that they will abandon their harmful ideas

The point is to make adoption of dangerous belief systems seem unacceptable to those on the fence

The words that we use to this effect are WRONG and BAD and IMMORAL and EVIL

We have no right to change minds by the use of physical force

We do, though, have every right to attempt to change minds by use of reasoning with words

I have no skin in the game, I just don't care if others are moral or not.

We all have skin in the game!

We share this world with one another, do we not?
Our actions affect one another, do they not?

And what is it that regulates what we, as individuals, are and are not willing to do?
One's morality dictates one's actions!!

You and I, we share the same standard of behavior

I phrase it like this:
To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another person is immoral

The reason that the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm is immoral is because it is detrimental, dangerous, and harmful to myself, my loved ones, and society, as a whole

It's beyond pointless to pretend that all belief systems are created equal
Those that present a danger are NOT equal to those that present no danger

Belief systems that present a danger are WRONG, BAD, IMMORAL, and EVIL!

 

[Treeplanter]

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"

What about a child being raped?

I trust that you, yourself, are not a child - so there is no danger to you

And let's say that your underage loved ones are protected from being raped

And, furthermore, let's just imagine that there are no societal repercussions, of any sort, to child rape


What now?


Now that there is no danger or detriment to yourself, your loved ones, or society as a whole - what are your thoughts and feelings on child rape?

Will you speak out against it or will you chalk it up to just another choice - one no better or worse than any other?

 

[stevil]

Some belief systems present a danger
Others do not

Sure

The point is to make those who hold to dangerous belief systems feel uncomfortable in hopes that they will abandon their harmful ideas

Do you want me to get into the habit of shaming and shunning and ostracising and talking negatively about people behind their backs because they don't conform to my own beliefs?
Am I to shame Christians because they believe in a god that I don't believe in?
Am I to shame people who believe abortion is immoral because I have not made any assessment on whether it is immoral or not?
Or am I to shame people that want to make abortion illegal because I don't believe this law fits my own defined purpose for government?

What is it that you want me to do?

The words that we use to this effect are WRONG and BAD and IMMORAL and EVIL

No thanks. I've done away with those words, I don't see any benefit in using them.

We do, though, have every right to attempt to change minds by use of reason

Sure, For people that believe abortion is immoral, I have no problems with them telling others what their own beliefs are, or with them doing PR campaigns, upto them really.

We all have skin in the game!

We share this world with one another, do we not?
Our actions affect one another, do they not?

Depends.
If my neighbor has an abortion or has gay sex or goes to a prostitute, it doesn't impact me. It doesn't endanger me or my loved ones, it doesn't make society unsafe. So why should I bother with trying to determine if these things are immoral or not? Why would I bother arguing with someone who was trying to convince me these things are immoral? I just don't care if they are immoral.
Not my business to judge people and their lives, I don't have to agree with their lifestyles, they don't need my acceptance or permission.

And what is it that regulates what we, as individuals, are and are not willing to do?
One's morality dictates one's actions!!

Not for me. I don't strive to be good.
I am more interested in the tangible consequences of my own choices and actions. Given the way reality is, rather than what i think it should be, which actions improve my own future.

I phrase it like this:
To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another person is immoral

I was always wanting to get back to this, we have detracted onto me and away from this.

If a person steals something, they generally do it because they want that thing.
Not generally for the purposes of inflicting needless harm on others. Does this mean that stealing is not immoral?

Also when people have affairs. A fair amount of the time they take efforts to make sure their partner doesn't find out about it, so as not to hurt their partner. Their intent isn't to hurt anyone. Does this mean cheating isn't immoral either?

 

[Treeplanter]

Do you want me to get into the habit of shaming and shunning and ostracising and talking negatively about people behind their backs because they don't conform to my own beliefs?

No, not at all

What I want you to do is to shame those who conform to beliefs that are dangerous and detrimental to yourself, your loved ones, and society, as a whole

You obviously recognize these beliefs when you see them and you oppose them when they are codified into law

The refusal to label it as wrong, bad, immoral, evil is nonsensical

It has the air of political correctness run amok...horrified at the prospect of pronouncing judgement on another...

Shun those who hold dangerous and detrimental beliefs?
No - seek them out!

Ostracize those who hold dangerous and detrimental beliefs?
No - engage them!

Talk negatively about them behind their backs?
No - tell them to their faces that their beliefs are wrong and bad and immoral and evil because they are dangerous and detrimental

Not for me. I don't strive to be good.

Sure you do!
Your definition of 'good' is that which does not pose a threat to self, loved ones, and society, as a whole

Which, again, is essentially the same as my definition of:
To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another human being is immoral

If a person steals something, they generally do it because they want that thing.
Not generally for the purposes of inflicting needless harm on others. Does this mean that stealing is not immoral?

Yes, more often than not, one steals for the express intention of personal gain - not to inflict harm upon another

However, more often than not, the person who steals knows full well that stealing inflicts harm upon the victim and chooses to inflict this harm anyway - thus, a conscious and purposeful infliction of harm

Also when people have affairs. A fair amount of the time they take efforts to make sure their partner doesn't find out about it, so as not to hurt their partner. Their intent isn't to hurt anyone. Does this mean cheating isn't immoral either?

Same thing

If you know that having an affair is harmful to your partner and you choose to do it anyway then you have consciously and purposefully inflicted harm

 

[Bradskii]

Where did I say "that someone beating you up for fun is not something you'd find undesirable?"

So it would be...what's the word I'm looking for...wrong? Except for you. That word is too...what was it? Vague. So is 'nice'. And 'pretty'. And 'right'. Don't you use those in everyday speech?

 

[stevil]

So it would be...what's the word I'm looking for...wrong? Except for you. That word is too...what was it? Vague. So is 'nice'. And 'pretty'. And 'right'. Don't you use those in everyday speech?

I've already answered this.
What was the answer that I gave you when you asked this particular question?

 

[stevil]

The refusal to label it as wrong, bad, immoral, evil is nonsensical

If I run around trying to convince people to abide by my view of morality then I am no different to other people running around trying to convince people to abide by their view of morality.

It's a fool's errand. There is no way to resolve moral disputes.

If I were to run around saying X is dangerous, I would do just that. I wouldn't veil it in moral vernacular.
I wouldn't be telling people to be moral. I wouldn't be proposing for a moral society. Instead I would be specific and would be saying X is dangerous, I would be proposing for a safe society.
I am unconcerned as to whether actions are defined by others as being moral or not.

Talk negatively about them behind their backs?
No - tell them to their faces that their beliefs are wrong and bad and immoral and evil because they are dangerous and detrimental

Nope. I would tell them outright that their actions or position leads to danger or violence. I wouldn't mention the morality of the thing. Morality is irrelevant to me.

Sure you do!
Your definition of 'good' is that which does not pose a threat to self, loved ones, and society, as a whole

What would be the point in me defining "good" in such away and talking about good with another person who defines "good" differently? This will just lead to miscommunication.
Better to cut out the middle man and discus threats and danger rather than "good" and "moral" or "immoral"

Which, again, is essentially the same as my definition of:
To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another human being is immoral


Yes, more often than not, one steals for the express intention of personal gain - not to inflict harm upon another

However, more often than not, the person who steals knows full well that stealing inflicts harm upon the victim and chooses to inflict this harm anyway - thus, a conscious and purposeful infliction of harm

But the person hasn't intentionally inflicted harm, that wasn't their intent at all. Harm might be an inevitable consequence but it isn't an intended consequence.
So maybe your position needs to be

"To consciously inflict needless harm upon another human being is immoral"
But then we would need to workout how to define if the harm is needless or not?
If stealing from someone has the inevitable consequence of harm then the harm isn't needless.
The need is to steal, the harm is an inevitable and needed consequence in order to steal.