On Moral Authorities

[GrandizerII]

Allowable by whom or what rules? Think about what you're arguing here.

As for your second point:

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." — Mozi (c. 400 BC)

I stand corrected in my second point.

Please help me understand your question on whose or what rules it is allowable. You are asking of whose or what rules. Doesn't it imply subjectivity, especially if your talking about human rules?

Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that God exists, that God is the source of objective morality, and that God has made clear to all his moral rules. He's also made clear that killing another human being is wrong.

In such case, clearly everyone should know that killing is wrong. Would acknowledging that killing is wrong prevent someone from killing someone regardless? Not likely, since people are known to do things they know are wrong but they do them anyway for whatever reasons.

Just a reminder, you said this:

If I follow your logic, then if I have a personal goal which includes hurting and killing other people, it follows that it is allowable to hurt or kill other people.

So would it be right to conclude that, despite God, it is still allowable to kill other people just because they may have a reason to do so?

If your answer is no, then the answer should hold for cases of no God as well. Because even with no God, there are still laws to abide by. Even without God, we still have a conscience that nags at us. Even without God, we still feel obligations towards ourselves and others.

[robvalue]

Did we cover how God forgot to give psychopaths morality?

[GrandizerII]

Did we cover how God forgot to give psychopaths morality?

Nah, let's go easy on them. It's hard enough for them as it is now, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did we cover how God forgot to give psychopaths morality?

Saturday morning detail.  We all miss them.  

[Ignorant]

So far, you've written just under 1500 words in response to my original question about what it is, exactly, you are aiming to help and avoid harming and in what sense that is meant. Several times, you have said it is very obvious, and that anyone who has moral agency knows the answer. Somehow, you have avoided providing that answer in the 1500 words you have written about your own morality. That is fascinating to me.

You don't aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of human happiness (as you use the terms). Fine. 

But you DO aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of something. 

"The happiest human life consists in __________________."

Your evaluation then your apparent revised version: "That is mere hedonism! You couldn't possibly mean anything else by 'happiness' than what I understand by the term!" The happiest human life Something about a moral life consists in providing help and avoiding harm. 

You say it is good to do helpful things, and bad to do harmful things. Yes, even a child can grasp that concept. But children would struggle to formulate a sentence about WHAT helpful things are good for and WHAT harmful things are bad for. What do helpful things help? What do harmful things harm? I am not asking so I can agree or disagree with whatever your answer might be. I am asking because the fact that you have an answer AT ALL to the question means that you fall into one of the two broad categories I described earlier. 

Either your answer has something to do with the 1) intrinsic value and reality of human life, or 2) it has to do with obedience to some external and arbitrary authority.

Before, you explicitly rejected the rational appeal of #2 above.

I don't care what your answer turns out to be. The fact that you have an answer at all that is not categorized by #2 is enough for me. Getting you to actually formulate an answer could have easily shown that. 

If, however, helping is good and harming is bad "just because", then we can talk to each other as children. I'd prefer to talk to you as an adult.

Now, if, at any point, you can accept a simple disagreement, maybe we can have a conversation...but if you can;t...ofc we can;t. [1] I;m not interested in arguing with you over what belongs in either set, I'm not arguing with you that things I place in the helpful can't  lead to "he happiest life" -however you define it-, and I'm not interested in arguing with you over which morality is the "right morality". [2] I'm simply making you aware of a different framework. [3] You have found a way to make this simple task as odious as possible, lol. Congratulations. [4]

1) I am happy to accept simple disagreements where simple disagreements exist. I am happy to accept simple agreements where simple agreements exist. I'd prefer to accept ACTUAL disagreements and ACTUAL agreements.

2) Neither am I interested in these things. The fact that you suppose that I am is evidence that there has been a gross misinterpretation.

3) And I'm trying to make you aware that your "different framework" is a mere reformulation of already acknowledged frameworks.

4) That is often the case for me. I am sorry you have found this so miserable.

What follows demonstrates a simple but important misunderstanding of what I'm suggesting:

Does -this- lead to "the happiest life"? If I told you that decapitating someone and parading their skull up and down the street could -easily- fit into my "helpful" category, would you twist your scrote into knots to tell me how this leads to or has something to do with "the happiest life"? [1] What if I told you that my harm category could include chemical therapy and brain surgery to remove any negativity in a person..would you twist your scrote in the other direction to tell me how that -doesn't- lead to "the happiest life"? [2] At this point, I'd love to watch you turn "happy life" into a dumpster term in order to make it the same as things it isn't. [3]

1) No. I would simply make the distinction I made here in my first post: 

"All people, therefore, would be subjects who try to act in ways that would perfect their nature (i.e. the object of their intellectual judgment), in common with every other person, according what THEY hold true (some holding truer things than others) about the reality of human nature"

So, if you hold it to be true that decapitating someone is helpful and therefore good according to the reality of what a human is, then that means YOU have judged such an action as leading toward a happy life. You have made a subjective judgment about an objective reality. Subjective judgments can be wrong. Some judgments are closer to the objective reality than others (e.g. some "lists" of helps and harms will bring about better human lives than others, objectively. And I'm not interested in trying to determine which lists those are right now) 

I think there are any number of reasons why you (the royal you) could have made this bad judgment, but the things that will guide the conversation in discovering where you went wrong will revolve around the reality/intrinsic value of humanity (what is a human) and how actions actually bring about the best versions of that reality. These also happen to be the two things you are refusing to provide even a bare bones answer.

2) See above. People can make bad subjective judgments about objective reality. Subjective judgments are unavoidable. Either you think objective reality exists, or you don't. Either you think subjective judgments can approach the truth about objective reality, or you don't. Either human life itself is the objective reality about which subjective moral judgments are made, or it isn't. I think in the affirmative in each case. I think you do too. Your interpretive key for making judgments about the objective reality of human life is help and harm, seemingly meant as "does this 'help' the objective reality of human life, or does it 'harm' it?" What is explicitly missing, but what I am sure you know very well, is the 'what' about the objective reality of human life the help or harm relates to. Whatever that turns out to be, it will mean your own judgment about the "in what a good human life consists".

3) Actually, quite the opposite. I was trying to rescue "happy life" from the dumpster and return it to its fuller meaning, and you seem hell bent on keeping it where it is among the hedonist garbage. Clearly we're not at the place where we can do that.

[Ignorant]

Sorry if I misunderstood. Are you saying human happiness is just one proposed goal then? [1]

I agree it is a good goal, but it is incredibly vague and qualifying it is very hard. I don't think it can be objectified in any way. [2]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

2) This is EXACTLY the point. Happiness IS living a full human life WELL. What does that mean? The answer is not easy nor perfectly clear. Arriving at a universal answer and full account of this object may even be impossible. Does this mean any discussion is pointless or that nothing at all can be ascertained about the objective reality? I don't think so. Something tells me that, merely by sharing a common humanity, we would agree on some simple and fundamental aspects of the object (and therefore, will have begun to objectify it).

[Ignorant]

@Rhythm, this is how I feel our conversation has gone (I am Lloyd and you are the guy on the ground, start at 3m18s):

[robvalue]

Sorry if I misunderstood. Are you saying human happiness is just one proposed goal then? [1]

I agree it is a good goal, but it is incredibly vague and qualifying it is very hard. I don't think it can be objectified in any way. [2]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

You're welcome

Well, in my case, the happiness of animals is very important to me too. I try and place it as high on my agenda as I can. You could say that the reason I care about animals being happy is because that makes me happy. This is ultimately true. When you boil down morality, it comes down to emotions. It is about what you want to be the case. Without emotions or desires, morality makes no sense. A neutral, uncaring observer will have no opinion. This is all a tautology really; it's modelling morality rather than seeking to guide or measure it. My idea of human happiness might be so warped that anyone else would consider what I want to be horrific.

2) This is EXACTLY the point. Happiness IS living a full human life WELL. What does that mean? The answer is not easy nor perfectly clear. Arriving at a universal answer and full account of this object may even be impossible. Does this mean any discussion is pointless or that nothing at all can be ascertained about the objective reality? I don't think so. Something tells me that, merely by sharing a common humanity, we would agree on some simple and fundamental aspects of the object (and therefore, will have begun to objectify it).

Absolutely, yes. I agree living life well is important. You could in theory objectify it, but it would simply be one person's version of what it means to live life well. It's not like measurements where it's of practical use for us to all agree on a certain system.

Discussion is absolutely crucial, yes, for exactly this reason. If I/we consider a moral position to be superior, it's vitally important that every effort is made to try and explain to others why that is. It's in this way that "progress" is made, and eventually societal norms are altered. What is absolutely useless is to simply announce that one moral system is better than another. This achieves nothing except a feeling of self righteousness.

So indeed yes, discussing the very basics of what we are trying to achieve is incredibly important, to find as much common ground as possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

So far, you've written just under 1500 words in response to my original question about what it is, exactly, you are aiming to help and avoid harming and in what sense that is meant. Several times, you have said it is very obvious, and that anyone who has moral agency knows the answer. Somehow, you have avoided providing that answer in the 1500 words you have written about your own morality. That is fascinating to me.

You don't aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of human happiness (as you use the terms). Fine. 

But you DO aim to help and avoid harm for the sake of something. 

"The happiest human life consists in __________________."

Your evaluation then your apparent revised version: "That is mere hedonism! You couldn't possibly mean anything else by 'happiness' than what I understand by the term!" The happiest human life Something about a moral life consists in providing help and avoiding harm. 

It's not my fault that hedonism is a dirty word to you.  If its the happy life that forms the basis of morality then you're describing some form of hedonism or another -no matter what you define as a happy life-, ask a hedonist, lol.  

Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is most associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE.) who taught that our life's goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

You say it is good to do helpful things, and bad to do harmful things. Yes, even a child can grasp that concept. But children would struggle to formulate a sentence about WHAT helpful things are good for and WHAT harmful things are bad for. What do helpful things help? What do harmful things harm? I am not asking so I can agree or disagree with whatever your answer might be. I am asking because the fact that you have an answer AT ALL to the question means that you fall into one of the two broad categories I described earlier. 

There is no "for" in my moral system.  Doing helpful things -is- good, harm -is- bad.  In my system, you don't do good for the sake of the happiest life, you do good....wait for it, because it is good.  Goodness for the sake of goodness.  Very straightforward.  

Either your answer has something to do with the 1) intrinsic value and reality of human life,

Nope, though I do think we have value and meaning, it may not be intrinsic, and I do not require it anyway.  Helping -is- good, even if we have no intrinsic value.  Harm -is- bad, even if we have no intrinsic value.  OFC it has to to with the reality of human life, all moral systems have to have something to do with the reality of human life, or they aren't moral systems.  

or 2) it has to do with obedience to some external and arbitrary authority.

Ah, but it is obedience, just not necessarily external and certainly not arbitrary.  

Before, you explicitly rejected the rational appeal of #2 above.

Because an external, arbitrary moral authority is less-than-compelling.  

I don't care what your answer turns out to be. The fact that you have an answer at all that is not categorized by #2 is enough for me. Getting you to actually formulate an answer could have easily shown that. 

If, however, helping is good and harming is bad "just because", then we can talk to each other as children. I'd prefer to talk to you as an adult.

I take these to be moral facts of the matter.  If you don't, it's easy to see why you're having trouble.  I simply have no interest in arguing with you that they -are- moral facts of the matter  

1) I am happy to accept simple disagreements where simple disagreements exist. I am happy to accept simple agreements where simple agreements exist. I'd prefer to accept ACTUAL disagreements and ACTUAL agreements.

You're clearly not, lol.

2) Neither am I interested in these things. The fact that you suppose that I am is evidence that there has been a gross misinterpretation.

....uh huh...

3) And I'm trying to make you aware that your "different framework" is a mere reformulation of already acknowledged frameworks.

What aren't you interested in, again?

4) That is often the case for me. I am sorry you have found this so miserable.

Then stop?

So, if you hold it to be true that decapitating someone is helpful and therefore good according to the reality of what a human is, then that means YOU have judged such an action as leading toward a happy life. You have made a subjective judgment about an objective reality. Subjective judgments can be wrong. Some judgments are closer to the objective reality than others (e.g. some "lists" of helps and harms will bring about better human lives than others, objectively. And I'm not interested in trying to determine which lists those are right now) 

I think there are any number of reasons why you (the royal you) could have made this bad judgment, but the things that will guide the conversation in discovering where you went wrong will revolve around the reality/intrinsic value of humanity (what is a human) and how actions actually bring about the best versions of that reality. These also happen to be the two things you are refusing to provide even a bare bones answer.

There you go, telling me it;s bad judgement.  Irrelevant.  In my system decapitating someone and parading their skull up and down th street can be a moral good.  If I''m wrong, if my subjective appraisal of the situation is a mistakje by your standard of the happiest life...then guess what - they clearly and obviously aren't the same thing and so we can just put that to bed and move forward, can't we?  The same goes for example two, where you -continue- to not be interested in arguing those things with me, while describing all of the ways that your petulant little bullshit argument has been pointless and remains pointless.

3) Actually, quite the opposite. I was trying to rescue "happy life" from the dumpster and return it to its fuller meaning, and you seem hell bent on keeping it where it is among the hedonist garbage. Clearly we're not at the place where we can do that.

Again, not my fault that hedonism is a dirty word, for you. It's not, to me. I think that, as far as it goes, it's a useful moral heuristic. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that you and I would arrive at the same moral conclusions regarding many of the same things. If maximizing happiness and "the happiest life" are not the same thing..then I don;t know what you could possibly be referring to. You may think that some list of things some other hedonist you talked to gave you doesn't adequately encapsulate "the happiest life"...but what you both agree on is the very point of hedonism...that maximizing happiness is what it means to be moral. That goodness comes from doing things that will maximize happiness, that will lead to "the happiest life". don't tell me you've been a fucking hedonist all this time and just didn't realize it, for reasons™?

Our respective moral systems are different., not only with respect to their foundation, but also with respect to at least -some- of the conclusions that arise from them. How much more different do you think they could be........is that not enough, to realize that they are different?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Either your answer has something to do with the 1) intrinsic value and reality of human life, or 2) it has to do with obedience to some external and arbitrary authority.

I would suggest a third option...3) following internal compulsions and cupidities.