The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Bradskii]

So is that a "no, it isn't possible to judge an outcome as being factually good or bad"?

In what sense? Good for me but bad for you? Good for my family but bad for everyone else? For society as a whole? In these specific circumstances or some others? At this time, or some other time? Good in the short term with no thought of the consequences or bad right now but good at some future time as best I can see?

That's a tough question you're asking, Moral.

 

[Moral Orel]

In what sense? Good for me but bad for you? Good for my family but bad for everyone else? For society as a whole? In these specific circumstances or some others? At this time, or some other time? Good in the short term with no thought of the consequences or bad right now but good at some future time as best I can see?

In any sense that you could say "It is good that this happened" and that statement would be factually true.

That's a tough question you're asking, Moral.

Not really. I'm not asking you to prove it or justify it at all. I just want to know what you think.

 

[Bradskii]

Right, and when I was replying to the thread a month ago it seemed like you were saying that morality serves a social function (both in survival and in cooperation). For example, earlier in the thread you gave the example of a father punishing his child, and the punishment ensures that the act was wrong (because wrong acts have bad outcomes, and punishment is a bad outcome). There is something circular about this, but it is the circularity that retains the subjectivity.

Another example would be the thief who is fined by a society when he is caught stealing. He "learns" that stealing is wrong because it carries with it the bad outcome of being fined, and the society disincentivizes stealing because it believes that stealing leads to bad outcomes.

The first is an extention of reciprocal altruism. 'You've got lots of food - give me some now and I'll give you some when I have lots'. Or alternatively: 'Don't hit me and I won't hit you' up to something that's actually relevant to the thread: 'Don't attack us and we won't attack you'. The father is simply explaining the 'rules' to his kid. That is, if you don't at least try to follow the golden rule then things can get pear shaped very quickly. Hit your sister and there might well be repercussions.

In passing regarding the second - everyone who steals knows it's wrong. The only justification that they might likely give for what they do is along the lines of 'wealth distribution'. But we all know the rules.

I tend to agree with you that consequentialist morality isn't usually understood to be objective morality. That is, I think there is something objective about your appeal to evolution and survival, but I don't think it describes what we normally refer to as morality. Part of this is because acts are colloquially considered to be moral or immoral regardless of the (accidental) circumstances that are crucial to your account.

It's my point that things aren't moral/immoral regardless to the (accidental) circumstances described. They are moral/immoral because of them.

 

[Bradskii]

In any sense that you could say "It is good that this happened" and that statement would be factually true.

I was looking through some old paperwork earlier and found a memory card with pictures of a trip we did through the States on it. That was good.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was looking through some old paperwork earlier and found a memory card with pictures of a trip we did through the States on it. That was good.

Okay, follow up question. Is the following statement true: "We should do good things"?

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, follow up question. Is the following statement true: "We should do good things"?

Yeah, I should sell my house and give the money to those more in need.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, I should sell my house and give the money to those more in need.

I dunno if that's sarcasm or not. Is the following statement true: "We should do good things"?

 

[Bradskii]

I dunno if that's sarcasm or not. Is the following statement true: "We should do good things"?

What I suggested wasn't 'good'? Maybe another example. I'm just about to have a glass of Wild Turkey. That's 'good' as well. Or maybe give up drinking all together. Which will be 'bad' in the short term but 'good' in the long term. At least for my health. But I'll be crabby as hell so it'll be 'bad' as well. But the money I save I can give to the poor. So maybe 'good'. But just giving money to the poor might deter them looking for a way out of their poverty. So...'bad'?

C'mon Moral. It's not a yes/no question. I don't have a means whereby one simple answer to an overly simple question will solve all my moral problems. That's not the way it works. And after 500+ posts I would have thought that at least that would have been apparent.

 

[Moral Orel]

C'mon Moral. It's not a yes/no question. I don't have a means whereby one simple answer to an overly simple question will solve all my moral problems.

It is a simple question. The difficulty you described is in judging what is good. So, I'll modify the question thusly. Is the following statement true: "We should do things we know are good"?

 

[Bradskii]

There have been over 500 posts that have been trying to answer this in one way or another and you're offering two boxes and 'please select one'.

But I'll answer personally: Yes, I generally try to do things that are good. But...my opinion on what is good will not be the same as someone else's. And what I consider to be good will vary according to the situation - as I intimated in the last two posts.

So you have an answer, but quite frankly it doesn't tell you anything except the fact that I believe that objective morality doesn't exist.

 

[Moral Orel]

There have been over 500 posts that have been trying to answer this in one way or another and you're offering two boxes and 'please select one'.

And plenty of folks have answered the question. What folks are discussing is the justification for answering it the way that they did. But you don't have to do that. I don't care if you justify your answer in the slightest.

But I'll answer personally: Yes, I generally try to do things that are good. But...my opinion on what is good will not be the same as someone else's. And what I consider to be good will vary according to the situation - as I intimated in the last two posts.

So you have an answer, but quite frankly it doesn't tell you anything except the fact that I believe that objective morality doesn't exist.

What you "try to do" is not an answer to the question at all.

How about a third box? Feel free to say "I don't know if the statement 'We should do things we know are good' is true or not true". The statement is either true or it is not true. You either believe it is true, or you believe it is not true, or you don't know. It is exactly that simple.

 

[Bradskii]

What you "try to do" is not an answer to the question at all.

Omnipotence is not one of my characteristics. So it's the only answer you're going to get I'm afraid.

 

[Moral Orel]

Omnipotence is not one of my characteristics. So it's the only answer you're going to get I'm afraid.

Fine. I'll keep trying to get you to commit to a position, though I think that's what you're actively trying to avoid.

Is the following statement, "We should do what we know is good and we are capable of doing?" factually true?

 

[Bradskii]

Fine. I'll keep trying to get you to commit to a position, though I think that's what you're actively trying to avoid.

Is the following statement, "We should do what we know is good and we are capable of doing?" factually true?

You mean to 'generally try to do things that are good'? Like give up drinking?

No. Because I'll be Mr. Grumpy and a little of what you like keeps you cheerful.
Yes. Because I'll be healthier.
No. Because a glass of wine helps lower blood pressure.
Yes. Because I'll have more disposable income.

Which one should I choose?

 

[Moral Orel]

You mean to 'generally try to do things that are good'? Like give up drinking?

No. Because I'll be Mr. Grumpy and a little of what you like keeps you cheerful.
Yes. Because I'll be healthier.
No. Because a glass of wine helps lower blood pressure.
Yes. Because I'll have more disposable income.

Which one should I choose?

Again, you are talking about the difficulty in judging something as good. Once you have judged something to be good, is the statement true or not true or do you not know?

 

[Bradskii]

Again, you are talking about the difficulty in judging something as good. Once you have judged something to be good, is the statement true or not true or do you not know?

I didn't have any difficulty in determing something as good or bad. I just gave four examples and each statement is true.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't have any difficulty in determing something as good or bad. I just gave four examples and each statement is true.

You gave one example: giving up drinking.

Is the statement, "We should do what we know is good and we are capable of doing" true, or not true or do you not know? After two pages of you refusing to answer, why not just say "I don't know"?

 

[Will Joseph]

An easier concept might be incest. Morally wrong? Well, yeah. Everyone would agree. But if breeding within a family had been the best way to promote the survival of the species, then having sex with a stranger would then result in the same feelings of disgust as suggesting that you have sex with your sister. Which is wrong because it doesn't work.

Having sex with a stranger is as disgusting as having sex with a sister. It's why most women are repulsed by random men who want sex. Nobody knows what STIs are in a stranger, so it's a horrible risk. Some strangers would lie about not having any STI, especially if they won't ever see you again. And some strangers could be transgender, a gender that some people would not want to have sex with. It's more favorable to be familiar with the person and marry before having sex

 

[Bradskii]

You gave one example: giving up drinking.

Is the statement, "We should do what we know is good and we are capable of doing" true, or not true or do you not know? After two pages of you refusing to answer, why not just say "I don't know"?

You wanted an example of doing good or not. I gave you four. They all relate to the same thing. Which shows the impossibility of giving a single catch-all answer. Some things can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, so I'm not going to commit myself to an answer that can be quite easily be refuted.

I suggest that if you think there is a simple answer then give it yourself and then show me where you think it goes. I'm going to ignore all further requests.

 

[Bradskii]

Having sex with a stranger is as disgusting as having sex with a sister. It's why most women are repulsed by random men who want sex. Nobody knows what STIs are in a stranger, so it's a horrible risk. Some strangers would lie about not having any STI, especially if they won't ever see you again. And some strangers could be transgender, a gender that some people would not want to have sex with. It's more favorable to be familiar with the person and marry before having sex

To spare your feelings and to dissuade anyone reading this who might have been considering having sex with an std infected random transgender man, allow me to change that from 'sex with a stranger' to 'sex with someone to whom you are not related'.