Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[gmjackson]

Interesting post and perspective. I will have to ponder what you have said.

[theVOID]

[Dotard]

I'm sorry if your the product of rape or something I don't mean to say your inferior or hurt your feelings. Cause it sounds like your fighting this simple concept pretty hard.

Whut?

I just see flaws with your hypothesis and chose the rape example in an attempt to convey what I see wrong with it. You said; "Rape is ALWAYS wrong no matter the context." I disagree.

Taken to extreme you could come up with situations in which it would not be considered wrong. Therefore it would not always decrease survivability of the offspring and may actually increase it.

For you to say, as if it is an absolute fact, if a woman does not chose exactly who fathers the offspring the child has a decreased chance of survival is being a little bit intellectually dishonest IMO. You're starting with a false premise.

If you can somehow provide evidence that your premise is true, please do so. I believe it to be false and contend whether a woman chose the father of her offspring or not has no bearing what-so-ever on their suvivability.
(You can't count possible abortions because if the woman chooses abortion then she didn't chose a father)

--------------
and just to add;
That was an insultive move for you to take. Your premise got challenged and you tried to make my attack on it a personal one stemming from you hurting my feelings with that super superior arguement of yours. You didn't hurt my feelings buddy, I believe I may have hurt yours by argueing your concept is not so "simple".

..|.,

[Cerrone]

(I'd post more responses if I had time, but I really just need to say this.)
feminism is supposed to be about equality. it has just got a bad rep from some outspoken assholes. I think there should be a different name for it now, because of that and it's not like their aren't certain expectations of men that shouldn't exist. or for instance only men have to sing up for selective services.

(I am not going to rant, now. sorry, I don't have time to post about the thread at the moment.)

I can appreciate that Cego, in my experience though- and there has only really been exception and this was the leader of an Iraqi freedom for women organisation (who was quite charming)- the women i've spoken to who have come out loudly and dare I say brutishly talking about feminism seem to be the same women whose behaviour is situated purely from a point of hatred, jealously or frustration with men, and who have no idea about the original intention of feminism, which was as you said, to move towards gender equality.

Although something i've noticed with the behaviour of women in general, in england at least, who seem to push towards gender equality... they try and acheive it by imitating the more self destructive behaviour of men, by acting like idiots, trying to be tom-boys and drinking themselves to death... which is absurd. I mean, if you want somebody to respect you more, you don't copy the most negative aspects of their behaviour do you? Hell no. It makes me have even less respect for that kind of woman than I did before frankly.. and I hope any women reading this who notice the same traits in their behvaiour should have a long hard think about what the fuck they're doing to themselves. Its disgrace. Really. These women are going to be mothers someday... i dread to think what kind of genetically inferior, braindead idiots my kids are going to grow up having to deal with in the future.

hahah just had to get that off my chest.

I don't think the "selection process" is at all useful in the sense of pairing of man and woman (and this is if you believe in enforced monogamy at all), you mentioned charisma, but without intelligence all charisma is is the ability to talk shit. Therefore women may end up with a very stupid man who has a way with words i.e "lying", and that's certianly no survival trait worth having.

But we as a culture seem to accept and socially encourage shit-talking and spinning lies because it's good business sense that'd serve you well in the exploitative world of capitalism... and that's true, you'll get no arguement from me there. But what's the consequence of this? Surely every generation parented by these kind of people just get stupider, vainer and more dishonest. Is that worth survival? The human race may endure, but it'll be repugnant, even more than it is today.

Pacian, respond to the above. It's not worth glossing over it.

[pacian]

Interesting post and perspective. I will have to ponder what you have said.

Thank you for your input, I see your a writer, maybe we could collaborate on a book or something haha.

[krazedkat]

Interesting post and perspective. I will have to ponder what you have said.

Thank you for your input, I see your a writer, maybe we could collaborate on a book or something haha.

It's you're not your, so maybe not too much of a writer, are you?

[pacian]

[theVOID]

It's still impossible to define a universal right and wrong within ideas of morality. It's true what you're saying with "desires", but that itself isn't morally stating right or wrongs, it's using a selfish impulse with is left unchecked by other means of comparison from other people and it's running free; in the case of the desert island dude.

Not it isn't, we can establish moral standards based on the universal considerations of the desires of all agents that need to be considered.

Lets put it this way:

Desirism is:

cognitivist – ethical sentences like “murder is wrong” can be true or false; they assert a proposition.

objectivist – ethical sentences refer to facts, not opinions.

realist – some ethical sentences are true; they correspond to reality.

naturalist – moral facts reduce to non-moral facts about the world.

gnostic – many ethical sentences can be known to be true; moral knowledge is possible.

consequentialist – the goodness and badness of something (of a desire, in the case of desirism) is determined by its consequences.

Desirism is both a theory about what our moral terms mean to, such as what it means to say "rape is wrong" and about how we determine these moral propositions to be true.

Morality is a standard by which we judge actions. All morality refers to someones reasons for action, causing the death of a human changes morally by intention. It cannot be morally wrong to accidentally kill someone (given no fault to the causer) but it is morally wrong to allow a death to result of your negligence given you have responsibility in a situation, and it is morally wrong to murder someone. So reasons for action are how we determine whether or not the outcome was the result of a moral right or wrong.

Desires are the only reasons for action that actually exist. If you drink coffee it is because you desire to drink coffee, if you eat pig penis is it because you desire Joe Rogan's $50,000, if you kiss the mob bosses shoes it is because you desire not to be beaten.

So how do we tie together morality and desires? Because morality is a standard by which we judge action, and actions are only the result of desires, morality in desirism is a measured relationship between the desires of all the people involved, and the state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are promoted than are thwarted.

A good desire is a desire than tends to promote other desires. A bad desire is a desire that tends to thwart other desires. When talking about action, a right action is an action that a moral person would perform, and a wrong action is one a moral person would not perform. A moral person is one who's actions tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwarts.

Being a moral person does not just affect our actions, it also affect how we influence the desires of others, because the desire for people to be moral is in it's self a desire. We can use our praise and condemnation of others to promote good desires and thwart bad desires. The goal is to eliminate the desires that tend to thwart more and stronger desires than they promote, while promoting desires that tend to promote more and desires than they thwart.

The relationships between our desires and a state of affairs that will be realized upon performing an action is what is measured. If the action is going to promote more desires it is good, thwart them and it's bad. We can objectively say that "rape is wrong" because it thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes.

I'll give an example.

There are a room of 100 people, and 99 of them have the desire to rape. But all 100 of them have a desire not to be raped (because it is not possible to desire non consensual acts) therefore a desire to rape is a desire that thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes and it is an action that a moral person will not perform.

If you desire to be moral you should act like a moral person.

[Cerrone]

It's still impossible to define a universal right and wrong within ideas of morality. It's true what you're saying with "desires", but that itself isn't morally stating right or wrongs, it's using a selfish impulse with is left unchecked by other means of comparison from other people and it's running free; in the case of the desert island dude.

Not it isn't, we can establish moral standards based on the universal considerations of the desires of all agents that need to be considered.

Lets put it this way:

Desirism is:

cognitivist – ethical sentences like “murder is wrong” can be true or false; they assert a proposition.

objectivist – ethical sentences refer to facts, not opinions.

realist – some ethical sentences are true; they correspond to reality.

naturalist – moral facts reduce to non-moral facts about the world.

gnostic – many ethical sentences can be known to be true; moral knowledge is possible.

consequentialist – the goodness and badness of something (of a desire, in the case of desirism) is determined by its consequences.

Desirism is both a theory about what our moral terms mean to, such as what it means to say "rape is wrong" and about how we determine these moral propositions to be true.

But all of that replies on the assumption that you've first defined what "morality" itself is. What is your idea of a moral fact, or moral knowledge... or even true ethics? Morality and ethical standards differ from one culture and person to the next, as they're impossible to define universally- prove me wrong.

And if I understand you right, "Desirism" isn't even properly defined- of course the casual observer/student can attatch tags to what Desirism represents, but i'm struggling to find a cogent meaning for it.

Morality is a standard by which we judge actions. All morality refers to someones reasons for action, causing the death of a human changes morally by intention. It cannot be morally wrong to accidentally kill someone (given no fault to the causer) but it is morally wrong to allow a death to result of your negligence given you have responsibility in a situation, and it is morally wrong to murder someone. So reasons for action are how we determine whether or not the outcome was the result of a moral right or wrong.

So how do we tie together morality and desires? Because morality is a standard by which we judge action, and actions are only the result of desires, morality in desirism is a measured relationship between the desires of all the people involved, and the state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are promoted than are thwarted.

No no, that fails when stood next to consequentialism; when you take responsibility for uprighteous moral behaviour and all the indirect or direct negativity it causes. Easy example, murder isn't always morally wrong, if for example the person murdered was causing others to suffer then the consequence of that persons death would be a welcome relief to the people he had made suffer. However, by the standard of morals that includes "murder is always wrong", i'd ask you to consider that if the man in the example hadn't been murdered that the people he had caused to suffer would have likely to gone on suffering indefinately- and which is worse ultimately? Or another example thats probably easier for most people to relate to; people consider giving money to charities in africa to be a morally good thing, but the result of this is the exact opposite, as it increases the people in those countries need for dependency on outside sources and reduces their ambition for independence and/or social revolution to change their life for the better in the exact same way that somebody whoses lived a life on government handouts has grown accustomed to "not bothering to work" when somebody is ready to hand him money for nothing. Examine the long term consequences instead of the short term to really be able to get a clearer understanding of "consequentialism" in all its instances.

In fact, if you do go by your current society's (wherever you are) definition of morality, how do your actions differ in anyway from that of a slave christian?

I'd go as far as to say that deferring your entire behaviour to what is deemed currently to be morally correct, is taking the easy way out from making hard choices. No surprise there in this world of ours.

There are a room of 100 people, and 99 of them have the desire to rape. But all 100 of them have a desire not to be raped (because it is not possible to desire non consensual acts) therefore a desire to rape is a desire that thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes and it is an action that a moral person will not perform.

If you desire to be moral you should act like a moral person.

In that same room, you have 99 people potentially ready to do other people harm, but only through their own cowardice they do not. If they were in a situation where they weren't likely to be harmed, but able to rape another person, they would do it. Therefore the consequence of watching them stand around uncomfortabley and then leaving the room is the consequence of letting those people to go and inflict harm onto others. Better that they should be cattle proded into raping each other than putting off the inevitable, they might just learn something from the experience.

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.

"Oh and by the way people, if you want me to reply to a post don't order me around, or at the very least, say please. Thanks." wrote Pacian, with a smug sense of moral righteousness

"Well if you raise a topic then can't be bothered to respond to the people who engage with you, then you should expect to get ordered to fulfill your end of the bargain... you claim to have answered the meaning of right and wrong, yet you revert to primitive behaviour and demanding of 'pleases' and 'thank youse' in an attempt to claim a 'moral highground' when asked to justify yourself. Especiall since the moral highground is certianly no fit thing to hide behind when it's already under heavy bombardment."

..wrote Cerrone, smirking to himself at this sudden use of a third person narritive, as he reminded himself that real writers do not boast about stringing words together for effect, let alone bother to hold themselves to account for common spelling errors.

[Cerrone]

Listern dude, no one starts a thread so that anonymous people on the internet can order them around. I didn't start a thread to be anyone's... well you know. Anyways, you want my cooperation, then your gonna have to use some manners. Else, acting like a douche ain't gonna get you any where with me. I don't know you, your not my mom, so don't order me around like you do know me. Anyways cerrone I like you. You seem like a cool guy, plus I see you probably are a gamer like me... (hitman anyone), your also smart and post intelligent post, but like I said I don't need to do anything I don't want, i'm under free will, you ask for my cooperation, then please use manners.

Ahhhh free will; the first step on the road of excuses...

Look, i'm not annonymously ordering you to do anything aside from show the same respect I showed you when I wrote a response to your topic. If you take offence at the idea of anybody but your mom giving you guidance in your behaviour, then you aren't likely to have much decency of behaviour at all- unless your mom is an expert in all understandings of absolutely everything you'll ever need to know about anything, and i'd struggle to find a single person who'd be able to qualify at all of that by themselves. Afterall, you'd be prepared to take advice from a doctor about healthy living and excercise, so perhaps you should be prepared to take some advice from a sociologist/anthropologist about healthy thinking and modifying negative behavioural traits.

If you perceived any of that or the above as an insult, then I do apologise because that wasn't my intention- it was designed as constructive criticism, anyhow if you'd like to continue the discussion- we can do that, in the interests of harmony and mutual gain

EDIT!

you had a valid point pacian, there was no need to delete it lol