Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[theVOID]

Of course it relies on what you define morality to be, though most commonly it is used to mean "a standard by which we judge action" or phrased in another way "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."(Dictionary.com)

I am arguing for an objective moral theory, until recently i was a moral subjectivist, but I think Desirism is a better framework that best represents our moral intuitions about right and wrong with only the use of empirically testable phenomenon and objective measurements of relationships between desires and a state of affairs. It can achieve moral facts, such as making the statement "rape is wrong" factually true instead of subjectively unpleasant.

Ok, I can generally agree that true moral conduct stems from virtue in a way and even if I think that morality in the common use of the word is non-existant it still takes some virtue for an individual to attempt to obey the rules of morality in their "desire" to "do the right thing".

Well of course you have to want to do the right thing. All oughts are qualified by If's. If you want to get to antarctica, you ought to go south. If you want to see at night, you ought to turn on the lights. If you want to make the world a better place, you ought to be a moral person.

Without the desire to make the world better there is no reason to act morally in the first place, this is somethign that is subject in all moral systems, you always need an IF. If you wish not to have your ass fried by god for all eternity, you ought to follow the rules. etc.

However where I think you're going wrong with applying desirism here is that often "the right thing to do" isn't always pleasant, hence why it's easier to just give up or not make the effort rather than trying to be virtuous because you're unconciously or conciously using your own desire for happiness as the driving force behind your actions.

Pleasentness doesn't matter at all, if you had to kill 1,000 people to save 10,000 then it would certainly be unpleasent, but it would also be the action that promoted more and stronger desires than it thwarted. There is no exclusivity here.

I know that we can often take our desires first, all that means is we aren't always acting morally. If that was not the case then morality would simply become whatever we desire at the time.

I'm not trying to say that this behaviour doesn't exist, of course it does, but it's more accurately described as a completely selfish state of mind, rather than an ideological philosophy with any merit.

You just seem to be lost in your own confusion, people being selfish has nothing to do with the validity of any moral theory, it's simply a fact about this world that has an impact on the wright and wrong of moral action inside the theory.

Granted if you applied long term consequentialism into desirism and if peoples desires were not entirely selfish, then it turns into something much better, more productive, but desirism alone is like a car engine without a car; it's just a rampant uncontrolled force which only provides any use when put to work inside the context of another philosophy- consequentialism.

Now i'm convinced you're lost. Can you cite my argument when stating these conclusions so i can see where you've gone wrong?

Explain to me how a better state of affairs is one that produces more desires? You could use that logic to validate consumerism, individualism... it doesn't give either one any more merit and it doesn't fix their destructive impacts. If any desire needs to be thwarted it'd have to be selfishness.

You've got it wrong here too. A better state of affairs is one in which there are more and stronger desires promoted than at the present. This is a state of affairs in which people get to do more of what they want to do whilst having less of their desires thwarted by the desires of others.

Since our desires are what drives all of our action, a better state of affairs is one where we are free to take more action towards fulfilling our desires than we are currently. Desires that lead to a better state of affairs are good desires.

You cannot use desireism to validate anythign other than the impact of desires and whether or not they lead to a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfilled than at the present moment.

Well keep telling yourself that. Everytime you give charity to anybody it makes them less concerned about providing for themselves because they can always go back to you for handouts. People generally don't do anything for themselves until they've realised that the only people who'll improve their lives is them themselves. This is really a case where the taking action in agreement with the best long term consequences aren't in fact the most pleasent thing to do, but it is nevertheless, the right thing to do..

If we left them in an impoverished desert nation where there are simply not enough resources to survive in the first place then not giving them aid will not help them, it will kill them.

So fuck charity, they need a revolution. But thats a subject for another conversation...

Sure, if you've got a case then i'd like to see it.

Besides have you studied macro economics? The first world desperately needs the third world to exist in poverty in order to get cheap goods and resources, if the third world was as wealthy as the first they wouldn't be making our sneakers for us, so nobody would be! Do you think the world leaders would take a course of action that is so obviously detrimental to the continuation of their powerbase and even the economc system itself? This is one of the big reasons why the US is so fond of controlling the third by installing vassal dictators to keep them in line.

No i don't doubt that happens, but negating aid for them is just going to leave them even more at the mercy of certain exploitative companies (stabucks).

My point was that to disinterest people who're intent on doing harm, you shouldn't wait for them to do harm and hope they will realise by themselves that their actions are counter productive to their own desires, you should force them into realisation as soon as possible. If you fail to completely make them realise this then there's no guarantee they aren't just biding their time waiting until an eaiser oppourtunity comes along where they can fulfill their destructive desires.

I don't see how this is relevent, but i agree. Their desires are destructive, and of course if they aren't concerned with creating a better state of affairs then we should not expect them to act morally. If someone isn't going to care, or have stronger desires to do wrong, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest under what moral theory you determined right and wrong.

We can use praise and condemnation on individuals long term to change their desires, we can threaten them with punishment, which means their desires will be thwarted for proloned periods of time while they are imprisoned. We can also praise and reward good desires to help people desire actions that promote other desires as well as being fulfiled themselves, lik the example of making your friends happy, it's both self fulfilling and promotive of other desires.

We need to apply consequences to desires before we can resolve this arguement properly.

You're basing that desirism will make peoples choices more "morally good" on the aspect that those people aren't falling prey to false-fulfillment, they may believe they're happy and moral, but they're just deluded because of their short term vision and lack of perspective, and that's proved when any action they take leaves them walking in a circle without any change or notable achievement.

No, desirim won't make anyone's choices morally good, it will provide a standard by which we can judge these actions.

If someone believes that they are doing the right thing and they actually arent all that means is they are mistaken, this again has nothing to do with determining right and wrong. Intentions play a large part, an accidental wrong is not as bad as an intentional wrong, because the desire to do wrong is stronger than a desire that unintentionally did wrong, even though they might have the same negatvie impact, so in that case the accidental thwarting of desires is less wrong because of the strenght and intention of the desire.

Also, someone acting towards their own happiness and fulfilment doesn't say anythign about how moral their actions are. It is possible that a person's desires that make them promote and fulfil more and stronger desires in others while being self fulfiled. This is an ideal state, we can use praise and condemnation to make other people desire to have desires tha promote other desires. A state of affaris in which all desires are desires than promote more and stronger desires is the ultimate state of affairs. A state of affairs in which all desires thwart other desires is the antithesis of that state.

If we want to be moral we ought to act in a way that leads to a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfiled and promoted than at present.

You quoted this again. you didn't like the response?

So all desirism achieves universally then, is putting off the inevitable harder choices for short term gains (and we'll assume that inaction and remaining neutral is considered a short term gain as well) and forgetting to take account for the long term consequences of the act, which you didnt even consider then when creating the example... or willfully ignored.

Short term and long term gains are no different, the impact of the desire is relevent for as long as it has impact. All desires thwarted for any length of time contribute towards how morally bad the initial desire was. If the desire in question intially promoted more desires but long term ended up thwarting more then this was a desire than thwarted mroe and stronger desires than it promoted, and thus is morally wrong.

Likewise an action that intially thwarted more and stronger desires but went on to promote more is a good desire.

Neutral is just that, the action has not made the state of affairs better or worse.