(July 17, 2024 at 10:11 am)Ahriman Wrote: I would like to know, are you guys really suffering that much? The word has been used many times in this thread, how much is it affecting you, personally?

I am not personally, but then I don’t think people are being grossly immoral towards me. I also think that suffering is a scale, so even if I accept the concept as suffering as a reason for many moral views it wouldn’t mean it would have to be overly bad.
I think another thing to bear in mind is that if moral views were grounded on the basis of suffering caused, it wouldn’t have to mean that that suffering is a universal invariable consequence of the act. If something had a propensity to cause suffering, it could still be seen as immoral on such a scheme even if I don’t experience that consequence personally.
As per my post above though… I don’t think suffering is the whole of it so am not trying to defend that view

(July 17, 2024 at 10:03 am)Lucian Wrote: Suffering is certainly a consequence of many acts that are deemed immoral but not all. If I lie to you about something inconsequential, it will not cause suffering but would still be seen by many people to be immoral  depending on the context. It could be said that if people lied too often about things then trust would break down and that could lead to wider issues, but it doesn’t seem that suffering is the key there
Similarly, incest that could not result in a baby would still seem to be immoral to many, but there is no suffering

Not saying that you don’t have a point; but just that it is too narrow a point

IDK, lies cause quite a bit of suffering, and those that don't we even have a term for.  Little white lies.  Like lying about your age, or your weight, or whether or not you intend to go to the casino or the concert next door when you pull up in the parking lot and the rent a cop asks you.

I do think that, in general, it's safe to assume that when a person says something is immoral it's a thing that they at least believe has the potential for harm. That there are people who see immorality where there is no harm and no potential for harm is, imo, just a description of a mistake.

The classic example of whether or not truth telling is a moral goal in and of itself or a secondary product that sometimes but not always aligns with moral behavior lies in whether or not it would be moral to lie to an assassin about the location of their intended target. Are we under any moral obligation to tell them the truth? Do we have a moral duty to lie..either directly, or by omission?

Morality isn't complicated. Do what you want. If you can justify it to yourself, and live with it, then it's moral.

That would be the absence of any moral system, not a simple moral system.

(July 17, 2024 at 11:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(July 17, 2024 at 10:03 am)Lucian Wrote: Suffering is certainly a consequence of many acts that are deemed immoral but not all. If I lie to you about something inconsequential, it will not cause suffering but would still be seen by many people to be immoral  depending on the context. It could be said that if people lied too often about things then trust would break down and that could lead to wider issues, but it doesn’t seem that suffering is the key there
Similarly, incest that could not result in a baby would still seem to be immoral to many, but there is no suffering

Not saying that you don’t have a point; but just that it is too narrow a point

IDK, lies cause quite a bit of suffering, and those that don't we even have a term for.  Little white lies.  Like lying about your age, or your weight, or whether or not you intend to go to the casino or the concert next door when you pull up in the parking lot and the rent a cop asks you.

I do think that, in general, it's safe to assume that when a person says something is immoral it's a thing that they at least believe has the potential for harm.  That there are people who see immorality where there is no harm and no potential for harm is, imo, just a description of a mistake.

The classic example of whether or not truth telling is a moral goal in and of itself or a secondary product that sometimes but not always aligns with moral behavior lies in whether or not it would be moral to lie to an assassin about the location of their intended target.  Are we under any moral obligation to tell them the truth?  Do we have a moral duty to lie..either directly, or by omission?

The problem here for both of us is that without reviewing the relevant studies across societies and seeing the proportion of people who see what as moral and immoral and why, we can’t really armchair theorise our way out of this I think. I guess that is a question though for you as I don’t know - have you read many studies on this. I haven’t, so am at a disadvantage here

Oliver Scott Curry has some good stuff on morality across cultures. I need to go back over some of this stuff sometime
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oliver-Curry
See also https://oxford.academia.edu/OliverScottCurry

(July 17, 2024 at 11:45 am)Lucian Wrote: The problem here for both of us is that without reviewing the relevant studies across societies and seeing the proportion of people who see what as moral and immoral and why, we can’t really armchair theorise our way out of this I think. I guess that is a question though for you as I don’t know - have you read many studies on this. I haven’t, so am at a disadvantage here

Consider one of the most common and intuitive stories humans have told about normative content.  That we should not anger the gods or the spirit of the land or the king...or...honestly..whatever, because of what will or might happen if we do.  This invokes a specific or general harm in the explanation of a normative command.  Then we have the various carrot and stick deontologies which are all doubly harm-based..in that they invoke harm as both a consequence and a promise.  

I think we need to be super clear going forward that when I say I think it's safe to assume that a person talking about bad stuff is talking about harmful stuff I don't mean that I believe that there actually is any harm in a given x.  Just like I don't believe that there are any gods to do that purported harm.  Just that I recognize and acknowledge that people making such a claim are invoking harm. We don't have to agree that a harm is real or actual  and it doesn't require a treatise on morality as the individual sees it for a system to be recognizably harm based or harm interested in an accurate and descriptive sense.  

What you'll find in the literature is that there is broad intersubjectivity in moral content - harm is a part of that - but that even in harm interested or harm based systems the correlation between morality and harm is not universal.  It's more often conditional.  That there is space for a good bad guy, and a bad good guy.  For unintended consequences.  I think this reflects our experience in reality with morally motivated actions and actors - and..often enough, we find some proverb or utterance or whole ass narrative to that effect in the cultural products of societies across the globe.  In that sense, it's a negotiation with reality; between how we think things ought to be or ought to happen, and how they are or do. 

Returning to the beginning...I think it's intuitive for us to believe that doing the good thing will lead to beneficial results.  With religious ideologies doing the good thing -is- the beneficial result...explicitly. Now...sam harris summed this up much better and more succinctly than I can or will..but, in short.... If we're not talking about harm, at all, when we talk about morality and bad things...I have no clue what we're talking about.

(July 17, 2024 at 12:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Consider one of the most common and intuitive stories humans have told about normative content.  That we should not anger the gods or the spirit of the land or the king...or...honestly..whatever, because of what will or might happen if we do.  This invokes a specific or general harm in the explanation of a normative command.  Then we have the various carrot and stick deontologies which are all doubly harm-based..in that they invoke harm as both a consequence and a promise.  

I think we need to be super clear going forward that when I say I think it's safe to assume that a person talking about bad stuff is talking about harmful stuff I don't mean that I believe that there actually is any harm in a given x.  Just like I don't believe that there are any gods to do that purported harm.  Just that I recognize and acknowledge that people making such a claim are invoking harm. We don't have to agree that a harm is real or actual  and it doesn't require a treatise on morality as the individual sees it for a system to be recognizably harm based or harm interested in an accurate and descriptive sense.  

What you'll find in the literature is that there is broad intersubjectivity in moral content - harm is a part of that - but that even in harm interested or harm based systems the correlation between morality and harm is not universal.  It's more often conditional.  That there is space for a good bad guy, and a bad good guy.  For unintended consequences.  I think this reflects our experience in reality with morally motivated actions and actors - and..often enough, we find some proverb or utterance or whole ass narrative to that effect in the cultural products of societies across the globe.  In that sense, it's a negotiation with reality; between how we think things ought to be or ought to happen, and how they are or do. 

Returning to the beginning...I think it's intuitive for us to believe that doing the good thing will lead to beneficial results.  With religious ideologies doing the good thing -is- the beneficial result...explicitly.

Interesting. I need to get around to reading on this side of things more, will defer to your more widely read views for now until have had read enough to be constructively belligerent. Any suggestions for resources that you get your info from on this?

Too bad "doing the good thing" often (and almost exclusively) involves lowering yourself to a kind of slave status, and in fact it's ultimately not about just "doing the good thing", the people doing that will always, no matter if they're demanding it or not, expect some crumb of a reward for putting up with being a slave. In my estimation, slaves deserve nothing. Their attitude is appallingly distasteful, and I can't justify why such people should be allowed any kind of reward when they are essentially putting their hands on a hot stove in exchange for a lolipop.

(July 17, 2024 at 12:58 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Too bad "doing the good thing" often (and almost exclusively) involves lowering yourself to a kind of slave status, and in fact it's ultimately not about just "doing the good thing", the people doing that will always, no matter if they're demanding it or not, expect some crumb of a reward for putting up with being a slave. In my estimation, slaves deserve nothing. Their attitude is appallingly distasteful, and I can't justify why such people should be allowed any kind of reward when they are essentially putting their hands on a hot stove in exchange for a lolipop.

As an inveterate misanthrope I am not opposed to having a grumpy attitude towards people, however does yours derive from any works in particular or is it more of your view about things? 
I am not going to argue with your position, will just note that I disagree with it and leave it at that as I am incompetent in this area