Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm (This post was last modified: February 27, 2015 at 5:15 pm by Ignorant.)
Parkers Tan Wrote:Why are you asking me this?
Well, I am asking you questions about your position so that I can better understand it. You said that you thought that all "people of sound mind" would agree about how they wanted other people to treat them. By asking you questions about that thought, I hoped to get a better sense of what you mean. I am sorry if it annoys you, but you are under no obligation to respond to me.
Parkers Tan Wrote:I said "I treat others the way I would like to be treated", not "I poll them and treat them the way that they answer".
Well, sure. But supposing a hypothetical person who wants other people to kick him in the face, such a person, according to the imperative, would be justified in kicking people in the face (i.e. he is treating other people the way he would like to be treated). Obviously, there is more to your understanding of good action than merely that imperative... and you reveal it in your post, for which I am thankful:
Quote:even if he enjoys being kicked in the face himself, he has no right to physically assault anyone else
Which is an important piece (i.e. "rights") that is only now being put forth as a part of your understanding. UNLIKE the simplicity you attributed to your position earlier:
"My conception of goodness is pretty simple -- treat others the way I'd like to be treated, add to the general weal, and leave the world a better place than I find it." (pg. 4, #39)
In response to my question: "[Is] your conception of goodness an imperative to act in a way that you would like others to add toward you?" (pg. 19, #187), you answered, without qualification, "Yes" (pg. 22, #219)
To the "simple" imperative, which is intelligible only to people of "sound mind" and bounded by individual physical harm rights (which as of yet have no description), you have finally added a "guiding principle" (which seems like it would be a pretty important aspect of a description of goodness of which it is guiding...), viz. "inflict no unnecessary harm". So what started out as a single imperative (pg. 22, #219):
1) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you
Has become a simple imperative AND several more complex and currently ambiguous and unexplained things:
1) To be of sound mind (pg. 22, #219) (what does that mean?)
2) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you (pg. 22, #219) (Can this ever lead to bad action?)
3) Individuals have a right not to be harmed (pg. 24, #237) (How do you know that? What is a right? What causes individuals to have this particular right?)
4) The principle that guides all of this is "inflict no unnecessary harm" (pg. 24, #237) (what makes it necessary or unnecessary? In what way does this guide the other aspects?)
Not so simple I guess. That is ok! That is why we talk it out.
Parkers Tan Wrote:Why this should mystify you baffles me. This is pretty simple stuff.
See above. It isn't so simple and you have left quite a bit unexplained. You are assuming that there is a lot of common ground between us about the language of goodness and right action (there is common ground... but if we want to speak rationally about it, we need to articulate exactly what that ground is. Don't just assume that I know what you mean when you use terms like "sound mind" and individual rights). Not to worry, pretty much everyone in Western civilization does the same thing (and it makes rational discussion about the common good almost impossible).
(February 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Godschild Wrote: You have proof of this I suppose, actually you need to prove evolution before making assertions about what it did.
GC
Our need to get along as a social species necessitates coming up with rules to get along together. These are morals. Morals most often fall apart when interacting with other groups, for instance when we executed japanese soldiers for waterboarding out troops in WW2, but our government claims waterboarding isn't torture when we do it to other people.
That is how morals come to be within a group, but also shows why they are subjective.
Sonny boy you ever study WWII, you know what they actually did to our soldiers, unprovoked attack on a sleeping navy without a declaration of war. The Bataan Death March, which came after a undeclared attack on the Philippines. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bataandeathmarch.htm
The Japanese were as brutal if not more than the Germans, they deserved everything that came their way. Water torture was only one of many charges against Japanese soldiers the water torture they used was a more harsh treatment than that used to day. Go look at the trial records as I did and see what they did. I know about WWII, I had uncles there, even one at Pearl Harbor the day they attacked. I saw what those days did to men.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
February 27, 2015 at 5:24 pm (This post was last modified: February 27, 2015 at 5:29 pm by Chad32.)
(February 27, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(February 27, 2015 at 4:36 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Our need to get along as a social species necessitates coming up with rules to get along together. These are morals. Morals most often fall apart when interacting with other groups, for instance when we executed japanese soldiers for waterboarding out troops in WW2, but our government claims waterboarding isn't torture when we do it to other people.
That is how morals come to be within a group, but also shows why they are subjective.
Sonny boy you ever study WWII, you know what they actually did to our soldiers, unprovoked attack on a sleeping navy without a declaration of war. The Bataan Death March, which came after a undeclared attack on the Philippines. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bataandeathmarch.htm
The Japanese were as brutal if not more than the Germans, they deserved everything that came their way. Water torture was only one of many charges against Japanese soldiers the water torture they used was a more harsh treatment than that used to day. Go look at the trial records as I did and see what they did. I know about WWII, I had uncles there, even one at Pearl Harbor the day they attacked. I saw what those days did to men.
GC
Yes, I know what they did. Whether they deserved to be executed or not wasn't my point. I'm just demonstrating that one of the things we executed them for is water torture, but when we start doing it to other people, suddenly they tell us it isn't torture. Morals change when someone is from outside of the group. Just the fact that you got defensive about it helps prove my point. We do it to a lesser degree than they did it, so it's ok.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
(February 27, 2015 at 8:53 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Yes. This is literally the reason why you cannot be convicted of murder without someone proving you killed anybody.
GC, this has been explained to you over and over again. Im curious about something...
Of all the people on this forum, are you telling me that you consider yourself among the elite with regards to your critical thinking skills?
Statistically, we can't all be average, and so some members here will definitely excel while others will be a bit weaker in those areas.
I notice that you get the exact same things corrected over and over again. Yet, you are oblivious and continue on in error, ( just like your blatant disregard for the concept of The Burden of Proof above), while simultaneously lecturing 99% of the other members with incorrect information (see your conversation with Esquillax). Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? You may want to consider whether or not you're being persuaded by it...
If you think I'm going to change my mind about evolution, then you're just plain mistaken, I know you have no proof, no proof has ever been presented nor will it ever be. If you want to live a delusion then be my guest, but I'm not going against the truth I know. It would be a betrayal to myself and the truth I know.
GC
I wasn't referring to anything specifically. I was talking about your general outlook toward anybody who disagrees with a position that you hold. It just so happened that while "debating" evolution with Esquillax, you were also demonstrating the very behavior I was talking about. Your general attitude toward what constitutes a good reason to believe something is perplexing and inconsistent. I find it odd that you use the words "evidence" and "proof" as though they something to you and then continuously fail to correctly identify their purposes or applications. Tell me, what sort of evidence would it take you to change your mind about God?
February 28, 2015 at 4:51 am (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 4:51 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote:
Parkers Tan Wrote:Why are you asking me this?
Well, I am asking you questions about your position so that I can better understand it. You said that you thought that all "people of sound mind" would agree about how they wanted other people to treat them. By asking you questions about that thought, I hoped to get a better sense of what you mean. I am sorry if it annoys you, but you are under no obligation to respond to me.
I treat others the way I would like to be treated is straightforward English -- yet your question asked me about an entirely different matter. My curiosity as to your motive is no less valid than your curiosity as to my meaning -- particularly because my meaning is much plainer than your motive.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote:
Parkers Tan Wrote:I said "I treat others the way I would like to be treated", not "I poll them and treat them the way that they answer".
Well, sure. But supposing a hypothetical person who wants other people to kick him in the face, such a person, according to the imperative, would be justified in kicking people in the face (i.e. he is treating other people the way he would like to be treated). Obviously, there is more to your understanding of good action than merely that imperative... and you reveal it in your post, for which I am thankful:
No, simply because someone has a desire to do something, that doesn't mean they have the justification. That is why my morality is based upon empathy, and not sophistry.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote:
Quote:even if he enjoys being kicked in the face himself, he has no right to physically assault anyone else
Which is an important piece (i.e. "rights") that is only now being put forth as a part of your understanding. UNLIKE the simplicity you attributed to your position earlier:
"My conception of goodness is pretty simple -- treat others the way I'd like to be treated, add to the general weal, and leave the world a better place than I find it." (pg. 4, #39)
It falls under "add to the general weal". I will assume for ease of conversation that you know what that means.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: In response to my question: "[Is] your conception of goodness an imperative to act in a way that you would like others to add toward you?" (pg. 19, #187), you answered, without qualification, "Yes" (pg. 22, #219)
To the "simple" imperative, which is intelligible only to people of "sound mind" and bounded by individual physical harm rights (which as of yet have no description), you have finally added a "guiding principle" (which seems like it would be a pretty important aspect of a description of goodness of which it is guiding...), viz. "inflict no unnecessary harm".
Sorry for explaining stuff to you. I hadn't realized it was needed, and quitefrankly, I'm not big on writing giant posts, so I give my interlocutor the benefit of the doubt and assume that common concepts are understood typically.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: So what started out as a single imperative (pg. 22, #219):
1) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you
Has become a simple imperative AND several more complex and currently ambiguous and unexplained things:
1) To be of sound mind (pg. 22, #219) (what does that mean?)
I had assumed you knew what mental illness is. You can google it.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 2) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you (pg. 22, #219) (Can this ever lead to bad action?)
"Ever" is a long time. Can you be more specific?
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 3) Individuals have a right not to be harmed (pg. 24, #237) (How do you know that?
I accept it as axiomatic. It's that whole living things like to live hook, coupled with living things prefer to be happy. I avoid impeding the ability of others to live a happy life.
Be aware, I'm speaking of humans, and not other animals.
The right to not be harmed is reflected in our laws -- not that they are the basis of morality, but they do tend to reflect consensus. It should be noted as well that a society in which people had no right to be free of harm would be less likely to hold together over time. History supports this point.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: What is a right?
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: What causes individuals to have this particular right?)
See above, this is in essence a repeated question.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 4) The principle that guides all of this is "inflict no unnecessary harm" (pg. 24, #237) (what makes it necessary or unnecessary?
That would depend on the situation; whether the harm one inflicts belays a greater harm being done.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: In what way does this guide the other aspects?)
The right to be free of harm ends when one intends to harm another person unjustly, i.e., without due cause. My apologies for being so confusing.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Not so simple I guess. That is ok! That is why we talk it out.
It's pretty simple to me. Your welter of questions puzzles me. You don't seem to have given morality much thought, as shown by this post of yours; you seem to be unaware of some common concepts.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote:
Parkers Tan Wrote:Why this should mystify you baffles me. This is pretty simple stuff.
See above. It isn't so simple and you have left quite a bit unexplained. You are assuming that there is a lot of common ground between us about the language of goodness and right action (there is common ground...
Perhaps. I had assumed that I was writing simply, and that the ground was understood. Apologies.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: but if we want to speak rationally about it, we need to articulate exactly what that ground is. Don't just assume that I know what you mean when you use terms like "sound mind" and individual rights).
Whenever I use a word, you may rest assured I am using standard usage; I am a writer and do like the idea of supplying my own definitions to the common language, and that tends to clutter the conversation -- as we're witnessing here.
(February 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Not to worry, pretty much everyone in Western civilization does the same thing (and it makes rational discussion about the common good almost impossible).
Oh, I'm not worried. I had assumed you had a firmer grounding in some pretty simple concepts and definitions. The mistake is mine.
February 28, 2015 at 10:34 am (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 10:40 am by Ignorant.)
Parkers Tan Wrote:It's pretty simple to me. Your welter of questions puzzles me. You don't seem to have given morality much thought, as shown by this post of yours; you seem to be unaware of some common concepts.
I have actually been giving morality a great deal of thought. So much so that I have been studying the subject for the past 3 years. What I have found is that what most people consider to be "common concepts" and "simple" definitions are quite frequently understood in largely differing ways. What I have also found is that, having accepted these moral concepts and principles as "simply" true or "commonly" held, most people don't know how to articulate exactly what they mean by those terms. Your evolving description and even the utilization of an online dictionary demonstrates what I mean (which moral philosopher have you read who resorts to the dictionary in order to describe goodness and morality based on rights language?). Most people who have given morality "much thought" know fully well that the dictionary can tell them what the term "right" is meant to signify. It is another thing all together to provide an adequate account of "what" exactly it is and why people have them. Your brushing attempt at it (6 sentences) and your fumble over legal vs. natural/inherent rights shows either a lack of knowledge regarding its fundamental principles, or else a lack of desire to go into those depths. But to pretend that moral "rights" are self-evident principles is naive. I know this because I found myself in the same position 4-5 years ago, and I wanted to change that. That is ok. All I ask is that you be patient with me. Usually people talk about things to understand each other better. That is all I am trying to do.
Quote:My curiosity as to your motive is no less valid than your curiosity as to my meaning -- particularly because my meaning is much plainer than your motive.
I have no problem understanding the meaning of your formulated ethical imperative. What I had trouble understanding are the implications which that imperative has for real human action. My questions explore those implications in an attempt to understand you more.
Quote:I had assumed you knew what mental illness is. You can google it.
Yes, I know what a mental illness is. Many people would take great offense to your equating mental disorder with an inability to agree about "what other people should do to them". Mental illness does not amount to lack of correct moral judgment. For example, a person with Bipolar Disorder or Bulimia Nervosa (These are both defined by the DSM-IV and the ICD as mental disorders. I googled it for you: HERE) can't be said to be without the moral judgment necessary to agree with society about what they would like other to do to them.
Are there specific types of mental disorders that severely distort the reality by which a human being judges what is good? Certainly. Does "sound mind" adequately account for that distinction? Definitely not.
Quote:"Ever" is a long time. Can you be more specific?
Sure. Can you think of a particular set of circumstances and agents in which one of those agents, by applying the imperative to those circumstances, would actually act in a way which is bad?
In summary, I am familiar with the genre of ethics to which your descriptions seem to subscribe. Do not mistake my questions as coming from ignorance of ethics in general. My questions come from a desire to know how you understand your own ethical framework and the way by which you describe it. You may be surprised to know that not everyone who begins with a reflexive moral imperative explain the rest the same way that you do.
February 28, 2015 at 10:48 am (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 10:55 am by robvalue.)
Do you believe, ignorant, that a "list" of moral rules is preferable, in your opinion, to using our own morality on a subjective basis?
If so, why?
I really cannot understand what you are saying about christians, ignorant. If they claim the bible is the word of God, which most of them seem to, then I don't see what justification they have for then overriding it as they see fit. Can you address that?
And to try and imply that our conscience is somehow some magical thing which has pulled pieces together from God or something... Again it doesn't line up with the bible, which most christians say is the word of God. And also it's a baseless assertion and an unnecessary assumption, when we already have very good explanations.
I don't dislike christians, I dislike Christianity. If they weren't claiming the bible was the word of God, then what you say might have some merit. But they do, and it's the stupidest claim ever as they contradict it on a daily basis.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
February 28, 2015 at 11:53 am (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 12:07 pm by Ignorant.)
(February 28, 2015 at 10:48 am)robvalue Wrote: Do you believe, ignorant, that a "list" of moral rules is preferable, in your opinion, to using our own morality on a subjective basis?
If so, why?
No. I personally don't believe that a "list" of moral rules is preferable.
Edit: I believe what is preferable is that we, using our own subjective moral judgments, improve upon the goodness of our actions in a direction which trends toward the fullness of what human beings are in reality. In short, I think we should all be and act as human as is possible. But, in order to do that, we need to have a common understanding of what a human is and how a human becomes "fully" human. "Love, and do as you will." -St. Augustine of Hippo.
Ignoring the obvious subjective aspect of human action (i.e. individual judgments about what goods to seek and how to seek them) seems largely inadequate to me.
(February 28, 2015 at 10:48 am)robvalue Wrote: I really cannot understand what you are saying about christians, ignorant. If they claim the bible is the word of God, which most of them seem to, then I don't see what justification they have for then overriding it as they see fit. Can you address that?
I am not quite sure what you mean. Have I said this somewhere? If I may attempt an interpretation of what you mean here, I do not think they are "overriding it" as they see fit, even though I think some of them clearly do. The question is one of hermeneutics (i.e. the interpretive framework with which a text is interpreted). The different Christian traditions have different hermeneutics they apply to scripture. The Catholic Tradition, for example, has a single general understanding of hermeneutics which is open to differing yet compatible particular hermeneutics.
(February 28, 2015 at 10:48 am)robvalue Wrote: And to try and imply that our conscience is somehow some magical thing which has pulled pieces together from God or something... Again it doesn't line up with the bible, which most christians say is the word of God. And also it's a baseless assertion and an unnecessary assumption, when we already have very good explanations.
Well, that is a complicated philosophical/theological history as I have alluded to in another post. "Conscience" is, itself, a term understood in many different ways while we all assume that everyone just "knows" that it means what "I" mean by it. I can't speak for all Christians, but I would never call conscience something in any way magical/supernatural.
I have yet to meet a person who would disagree with the imperative: "Do and seek the good and avoid what is evil." Not even the Bible diagrees with this. The disagreement ONLY comes when you ask: "What is good? What good should I seek?"
(February 28, 2015 at 10:48 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't dislike christians, I dislike Christianity. If they weren't claiming the bible was the word of God, then what you say might have some merit. But they do, and it's the stupidest claim ever as they contradict it on a daily basis.
Is it also possible that you only dislike Christianity "in as much as you have understood it"? Do you think every Christian agrees about what it means to say that the Bible is "the Word of God"? As a Christian, I can tell you that the sad answer is a resounding no. Some treat it as if the book fell from heaven. Others think it was mostly invented by men, and still others have a more complex understanding of what the texts actually are. Unfortunately, not every Christian can give an articulate account of what exactly the biblical texts are. Fewer still can propose a rational description of the ethics which the texts, taken as a whole, eventually teach (I am personally working on a START to such a task).
But that is a different discussion entirely.
What does goodness mean to you? When you say that something is good, what do you mean?
February 28, 2015 at 12:19 pm (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 1:20 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(February 26, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Ignorant Wrote: . All it means is that goodness is understood as that aspect of things which humans judge to be satisfying of particular human hungers/appetites/desires (e.g. the hungers for food, survival, reproduction, community, justice, love, etc.). It is strictly about goodness.
Couldn't it be said that these things that we judge to be good, are entirely dependent upon our recognition that there are less desirable options? I'm not supporting moral relativism on a macro level, but with regard to conscious brain states, there are certainly some that are better than others, and each experience triggers one or another. If they were all the same, we wouldn't need descriptive concepts such as "good" or "bad"...right?
(February 26, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Human experience shows us that nothing in this universe seems to sate all of our desires.
Yes, but I think I would say that all things in the universe that are perceived to be good or bad, require a conscious mind to make them so. And the meaning of anything good can only have meaning by the recognition of something less desirable which we tend to recognize and describe as bad. But the two words seem entirely conceptual and do not seem to have any practical use beyond their descriptive application. A rotten egg and a rose both trigger different neurological responses. And it may be that there are some who prefer the response caused by a rotten egg, but this anomaly would not prevent us from making an accurate predictive model that shows us which one is commonly desired. And through research, we may even discover the cause of the anomaly. The subjective description of what each person experiences while smelling [edited to correct my typo] is useful when paired with the third person understanding of the underlying brain states which give rise to them. There seems to be no reason to believe that a similar model of morality cannot be understood in the same way. And while there may not be any single right answer to a moral question, there may be several. And by establishing answers that are good in principle, in comparison, there are several others that we can say are objectively wrong. All of this is entirely dependent whether or not we admit that the objective of our inquiry is to maximize the quality of conscious experience of creatures who are capable of possessing it. Give me an example of a question regarding good or bad that exists apart fro such beings, and I'll begin considering whether or not this "absolute good" is a coherent question. At the moment, I'm inclined to say that it is not.
February 28, 2015 at 12:29 pm (This post was last modified: February 28, 2015 at 12:29 pm by Whateverist.)
(February 28, 2015 at 10:34 am)Ignorant Wrote: I have actually been giving morality a great deal of thought. ... What I have also found is that, having accepted these moral concepts and principles as "simply" true or "commonly" held, most people don't know how to articulate exactly what they mean by those terms.
Well that is pretty ignorant. [Sorry but I always go for the obvious pun, is that not good?]
Seriously though I wonder what difference it truly makes to articulate a crisp definition of what are morally good and bad acts. Should we then make it our reason for living to do 'the good' and 'avoid the bad'? Who would call that a 'good' life? To me it all seems too self-conscious and myopically focused. Life is more complex than that.
I will often enough choose the expedient at the expense of the virtuous. Who doesn't? Does that mean I will throw people under a bus to save five minutes ore five dollars? No. But neither do I need to anticipate every possible set of choices and how I could/should respond in advance. Whatever decision I would reach now, I could reach then and there is something to be said for spontaneity.
