(July 17, 2017 at 7:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 17, 2017 at 4:22 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: How is he keeping her from harm? by hiding the truth that he is increasing the risk of her catching a disease? or by the risk of her finding out somehow and the devastation that could bring to her life?
Or are you suggesting that by hiding the affair he is keeping her from harm when what he would seem to be doing to me is hiding his wrong doing and shielding himself from the consequences he would face.
What you imply is a  bit like saying the cover up of fraud was to keep the company from harm.

So is increasing the potential for harm is immoral (by itself)?  Like, getting into my vehicle and cruising down the highway (aren't I increasing the potential for harm here)? 

Cruising down the highway can be done for many reasons but cheating on your wife is just cheating on your wife.

Quote:I could see where he could be hiding it, for selfish reasons (avoiding the consequences).  But it seems equally valid, that he could be hiding it, not to cause unnecessary harm to his wife (as stated).   I don't think this makes it less immoral.  Adding deceit makes it more so.

She still might find out. Like the Trumps are finding out, cover ups don't always work.

Quote:Are you saying, that doing the moral thing, can sometimes increase harm?   I would agree .  Take your example of fraud in a company.  Now simply using harm as a basis, one might justify their lying about it in court, on the basis of not doing so, would cause more harm to the company, and it's workers.  I would disagree with this reasoning;  would you?

How would lying about fraud help the company?

And of course lying about fraud in a court is a crime which could have bad concequences itself.

(July 17, 2017 at 6:40 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: No, I don't think I am, Their system is well aware that death is harmful and infinite torture is the most harmful, and yet they are both used as moral forms of punishment.

Both as punishments for harm.  It's a draconian system, but the point -is- to scare you shitless, and keep you from doing what they consider to be harmful. Those things are considered just retribution.  They're not, but we're not talking about whether or not they got it right, but why they propose what they do. There's is neither an objective morality, nor an accurate morality, nor a just or consistent system of moral desert.... but it is based on harm as they see it.

(July 17, 2017 at 7:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why do you think it is the basis?  

Because it is, and transparently so.  It's not as if we haven't seen page after page of examples.  

Quote:Even if harm is a common result, it doesn't mean it is the basis for it.  As we have seen, "because it causes harm" doesn't always mean immoral.

Still fucking up, huh?   Where's the harm, amiright?  

[/quote]

Quote:No, I am asking you to show me where the harm is, that you say is the basis for it's immorality.  And again, I'm not trying to justify it morally.... you are misunderstanding my intentions. 

Your intention is simply to avoid what you have no reason to deny.  It's pretty silly.  What would god think about all this blatant dishonesty, eh?  

Quote: Perhaps, you could say this type of wrong is harmful to yourself. I could even agree, that in some way, all immorality harms ourselves.  

Even the immorality that we don't actualize, like "lusting in our hearts"? Even the immorality that we conceal, say..murdering your brother and hiding his body? Do you think that maybe immorality harms other as well? How about society? How about god? How about the relationship between god, oneself, others, and society? OFC you fucking do.......if you didn't, you could neither argue or believe that god was just.

Quote: However, I could just bring up again, things that are harmful, that are amoral. I think that you need to think through this some more, and explain, how you are making this relationship to make it a basis for, and not a result of.

Could you...then why don't you?  So far we've heard about you "harming" your phone...that's been your sole, brilliant, amoral objection.  I also think it's amoral, since it causes harm in no meaningful or objective way....but go ahead, bullshit us some more for absolutely no reason, repeatedly lying like a common sinner.

Hey, lying isn't a sin. Only very specific kinds of false accusations, and only against one of the chosen people. And god lies too so it's not like he can be a hypocrite, 'cause he's perfect, right?

Like I said, their system is neither objective, accurate, consistent, or just. Groping in the dark, and compromised by attributes of their subjective natures, they managed to get it wrong from the floor up..and in so doing precipitated immense harm. Immorality-as-virtue. Still, it was a recognizable attempt.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"

Umm...that morality is based on intended consequences, and what matters the most is what you're trying to do. If I try to grab your hand to keep you from falling and I accidentally punch you in the nose instead, I'm being clumsy, not evil (though if I know I'm so clumsy that I'm more likely to punch you in the nose than successfully grab your hand, that enters into the moral equation). If I punch you to knock you out because you can't stop panicking over the Nazis looking for you, my intent is to keep the Nazis from finding you, so my punching is regrettable but morally justified.

Do you get why people might think you're being deliberately obtuse for seeming to be mystified by this?

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?  

Or is this a false dichotomy?

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:He was trying to keep his wife from harm.  Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm? 
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?

For fuck's sake, if his intention is to keep his wife from harm, he shouldn't fucking cheat on her!

---

If one accepts 'cause no unnecessary harm' and the converse 'promote well-being in others and society' as axiomatic, certainly it must follow that cultivating good in oneself is desirable in order avoid causing unnecessary harm and to promote well-being in others and society. If I aspire to have qualities that will help motivate me in those areas and help keep me from making moral mistakes, I will be 'better at morality'. Cultivating one's own integrity and charity follow from the premises.

-after having cheated on her, perhaps he;s faced with an exclusively sub-optimal field of moral decisions.

Divorce her, causing harm (though, probably more harm to himself than her at this point.....)
Tell her, causing harm (here again, more to him than to her, lol)
Lie to her, causing harm

Hilariously, your hypothetically not-immoral prick.... chooses the option of greatest harm.  Good job, bet he believes in jesus, at least he avoided two of the things that would cause harm to himself.

Vir-tu-ous

Indeed living a lie is harmful and relationship built on lies is harmful

I don't think Harm can stand alone as a moral theory let along be objective in its own right.

1. I keep seeing the statement "harm is objective". That is true only in the sense that there is harm or there isn't harm--which, by iteself, is insufficient to make moral judgments. It does nothing to address categories of harm (and their relative weight in an equation), thresholds of harm, intensity of harm, competing harms, exceptions to harm -- all of which are needed to assess moral choices--all of which are subjective.

Additionally, to assess harm, all kinds of moral value must be inferred and assigned to issues like relative (quantity) harm, comparing and grading different types of harm (physical, mental, slander, other intangible harms), intent, a higher value placed on humans, exceptions in war, punishment for crimes that can't possibly be repeated, etc. Over time and across cultures these underlying values are different, so any moral system based on harm changes along with it.

2. It does not take into account actions which may cause no harm like undiscovered adultery, instances of lying that don't have real consequences, breaking promises, etc., OR consensual harm like drug use, assisted suicide, voluntary slavery, medical testing.

3. Morality based on Harm does little to instruct us on our moral obligations to act and if you claim it can compel us to act, on what grounds?

4. It seems to hang your hat on harm alone is just a huge ball of situational ethics (the very definition of subjective) or is riding on top of another moral theory that has already established value to all the moving parts.

Harm is no good as an objective standard because you still have to all that hard moral reasoning! Like 'every natural number has a unique natural number as its successor'. What good is that when you still have to do math?

(July 17, 2017 at 10:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: -after having cheated on her, perhaps he;s faced with an exclusively sub-optimal field of moral decisions.

Divorce her, causing harm (though, probably more harm to himself than her at this point.....)
Tell her, causing harm (here again, more to him than to her, lol)
Lie to her, causing harm

Hilariously, your hypothetically not-immoral prick.... chooses the option of greatest harm.  Good job, bet he believes in jesus, at least he avoided two of the things that would cause harm to himself.  

Vir-tu-ous

How is "lie to her" causing harm?