Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[gmjackson]

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

[theVOID]

So you define (moral?) right and wrong as 'maximizing survivability'? In other words what ever best aids in survival is what is morally right?

Um, yes and no. Though this is what i feel nature tends to point too, I know morality isn't real its just created in our mind.

Morality is a standard by which we judge action, it's entirely possible for their to be an objective way to determine what is morally right and wrong, but that's for another thread.

Sorry dude, but randomness is the theory of evolution, or it should be written that way.

No it isn't "dude". Random mutations are a part of Evolution but without natural selection there would be no pressure for only the best suited mutations to survive.

Every thing happened out of randomness, molecules meshing together in a watery soup.

Now you've convinced me you have an ultra basic understanding of evolution.

Read and learn: http://talkorigins.org/

Let say i make robots with the ability to reproduce...

Where'd ya get the robots? I guess they just randomly happen when you've got enough silicon and metal right?

but also vary, much like our dna does with bacteria and every other living creature. Okay out of randomness some of these robots will kill their offspring, some will do nothing with their offspring, and others will provide for their offspring out of sheer randomness.

So randomness alone kills the unfit generations? Due to what? Some part of the robot stops and says "woah i'm too random, better die now"?

Who is going to survive better? Evolution will make more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and probably even more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and provide for their offspring.

I suggest you go look at some basics of natural selection, your analogy doesn't seem to get it at all.

Randomness, all they are is randomness, they can still survive, reproduce, but they might not have all the awesome traits that would make them super awesome. Its hard getting all the right traits!

Correct. You steal crap someone doesn't want, its not morally wrong. Lets say a person throws away stuff in a garbage can, the person himself throws it away because the object does not have value or significantly enough value to him. If a homeless man comes and steals it from his trash, does it matter? As long as the homeless guy ain't stealing credit card numbers, the survivability of the first guy goes unchanged.

What if i steal something you really want but it doesn't help you survive, like your favorite picture of your long dead mother, it certainly has no impact on your ability to survive. Is that morally wrong? Of course it is, because survival is a tiny portion of what contributes to morality.

My theory fits buddy ?

No it doesn't, you basically have a typical high-school understanding of how natural selection works and moral criteria than cannot account for the vast majority of moral questions.

It is considered wrong to be lazy and not become educated, yes, personally I don't give a shit, but thats what we humans in general consider and what nature points morality too. Come on your parents never put a guilt trip on you, to go to school, get good grades, as oppose to ditch school, smoke weed...lol

I never said they were lazy, i said they didn't get an education and probably didn't want one. For all you know this is someone who works very hard and is a good person generally. Based on your criteria of maximizing survivability being the base of morality, these people don't at all achieve that. If they don't achieve maximal survivability for the species then under your framework they have done something morally wrong.

I went to school, got good grades AND smoked weed. Was i partially immoral for the latter? It seems that in your framework anything at all that doesn't potentially maximize survival is morally wrong, and anything that doesn't hinder survival can't be immoral.

I respectfully disagree with you. moral right and wrong seem to have completely arisen from evolution, randomness.

Based on what? A concept of a standard by which we judge action is not something that can arise biologically. It is a mental concept. We have a biological sense of right and wrong, is that what you mean? Simply having a sense of right and wrong does not mean you have a concept of morality.

Though I find you equating desire with morality, I would have to disagree. My desire to rape you is equal to your desire not to get rape... so i'm morally right? Though your theory makes since in that situation you would have to elaborate on all situations

Not the case at all. We both have the desire not to be raped, it's impossible to desire an act that is non-consensual. Because we both have absolute desires not to be raped, where only you have the desire to rape (which cannot be as strong as an absolute desire because it's not necessarily true) there are more and stronger desires not to be raped. Therefore it is immoral to rape under all circumstances.

Hypothetically lets say my desire to kill you is equal to your desire not to die, so there is nothing wrong with killing you? You would have to elaborate cause I would have to disagree if its based on desire. We all have different desires.

Desiring to murder is not as strong as a desire not to be murdered. Because we both (necessarily) have the desire not to be murdered (because murder is without consent) and because the desire not to be murdered is absolute there are more and stronger desires not to be murdered than there are to be murdered. Therefore murder is an act that thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes, and therefore Murder is immoral.

If you had only 100 people in existence, and 99 of them liked murder, then murder would still be wrong because 100% of the population desires not to be murdered (necessarily, because murder is non consensual).

There are not only more desires not to be murdered than there are to murder, but the desires not to be murdered are absolute (you cannot desire to be murdered). Again, therefore murder is morally wrong.

Lol it is still considered immoral to steal, even if he is fat lol. Due to stealing in general is stealing something that increases survivability or can be sold in increase survivability.

Right, it's wrong to steal regardless of whether or not it helps survival. Therefore survival is an insufficient criteria for establishing moral propositions.

Your right he probably don't need that pie and his survivability might increase if he lays off all that pie, but due to the negative connotation involved with it such as assault, injury, and death that occur when stealing from people. It as seen as something that decreases survivability in general, I mean your still going to jail for stealing, even if he's fat. And don't need it.

His survivability will increase. If survivability is the deciding factor in morality then the fact that he better survives makes it morally permissible. Of course you don't think that's true, by now you should see the problem in attributing everything to survival.

And yes, stealing probably does decrease survivability generally, but then you would have to categorically declare theft wrong, even if one is starving to death. Another problem for your moral theory.

Also, what if i was on drugs before going to prison and during my time in prison i got clean and started working out, in that case not only did my theft from the fat man aid in his survival, it also increased my survival.

My theory is awesome, I hope you will be able to understand it one day in all its glory.

It has MASSIVE flaws, to the point where you have to address each contention by intuition. And since intuition is subjective then there is no real standard by which actions can be judged right and wrong.

And you're super naive to suppose that 1) you are the first to propose that morality is grounded in survival, 2) That survivability is comprehensive enough to cover all moral contentions and 3) That using survival we can establish true moral propositions.

You know now that i think about it, morality is just another feeling of evolution to help us adapt, like depression, its just a series of chemical reactions in our brains, Its as real as any other feeling, happyness, love, sadness, anger all these feelings made to help us interact motivate us and do stuff to help us prosper in the world

Morality is not a feeling, it is a standard by which we judge right and wrong. What you have just proposed seems to be a form of Error Theory (all moral statements are false because morality does not exist). I agree completely that this type of thing can evolve in biological systems, but this isn't morality, it is intuitive right and wrong. If we want a standard by which we can establish moral facts then we need something else. I think Desirism can establish these moral facts.

But the island you stand on is burning, you must see why the water is the most logical path, or not. I know my theory is good. Thanks for posting, I appreciate your input very much.

Your moral theory is inadequate, you either resort to nihilism or you have to intuitively decide which cases do and do not fit your standard of 'survivability' manually.

[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]

---

No it isn't "dude". Random mutations are a part of Evolution but without natural selection there would be no pressure for only the best suited mutations to survive.

Everything you said is no different to what I think, I think your arguing here cause you think I disagree but your basically stated the same as what I think. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough but your arguing for no reason on this issue.

Every thing happened out of randomness, molecules meshing together in a watery soup.

Now you've convinced me you have an ultra basic understanding of evolution.

Read and learn: http://talkorigins.org/

No again you are misunderstanding me. Simple cells, prokaryotes, were formed though the randomness of millions of millions of molecular interations in a watery soup of molecules. These prokaryotes sometimes would combine and become more complex, turning into eukaryotes, (en example would be mitochondria in our cells.) As time went buy all these molecules meshing together formed more complex beings, leading to us...Humans. If you don't believe we are the product of this randomness then you believe an external force intelligently put these molecules together... intelligent design... sorry I won't be going into that immense issue, there is a reason why I posted this thread an in atheist forum. To save me the headache of trying to convince you there is no god.

Let say i make robots with the ability to reproduce...

Where'd ya get the robots? I guess they just randomly happen when you've got enough silicon and metal right?

The same way prokaryotes appeared, what you think god created them?

but also vary, much like our dna does with bacteria and every other living creature. Okay out of randomness some of these robots will kill their offspring, some will do nothing with their offspring, and others will provide for their offspring out of sheer randomness.

So randomness alone kills the unfit generations? Due to what? Some part of the robot stops and says "woah i'm too random, better die now"?

No natural selection does, again I fell maybe what I said went over your head.

Who is going to survive better? Evolution will make more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and probably even more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and provide for their offspring.

I suggest you go look at some basics of natural selection, your analogy doesn't seem to get it at all.

No, I get it completely. I think maybe I need to elaborate more natural selection is more then the the selection of good physical traits, they also involve how we think and feel towards things. Maybe that's a new concept for you but put some thought into it and you can find more then one example of how this is true.

Randomness, all they are is randomness, they can still survive, reproduce, but they might not have all the awesome traits that would make them super awesome. Its hard getting all the right traits!

Correct. You steal crap someone doesn't want, its not morally wrong. Lets say a person throws away stuff in a garbage can, the person himself throws it away because the object does not have value or significantly enough value to him. If a homeless man comes and steals it from his trash, does it matter? As long as the homeless guy ain't stealing credit card numbers, the survivability of the first guy goes unchanged.

What if i steal something you really want but it doesn't help you survive, like your favorite picture of your long dead mother, it certainly has no impact on your ability to survive. Is that morally wrong? Of course it is, because survival is a tiny portion of what contributes to morality.

Really if you steal my favorite picture your not pissing me off and breaking bonds with me. I'm not more likely to kick your ass, or maybe even kill you, decreasing your survivability as oppose to say, if you did not steal my favorite picture... yeah I thought so.

My theory fits buddy ?

No it doesn't, you basically have a typical high-school understanding of how natural selection works and moral criteria than cannot account for the vast majority of moral questions.

Sorry, you are wrong, I actually have a pre-school education, in fact I can't even read or write, as you can see by my horrendous grammar and spelling, also i am completely retarded... insult my intelligence all you want, my theory still stands strong.

It is considered wrong to be lazy and not become educated, yes, personally I don't give a shit, but thats what we humans in general consider and what nature points morality too. Come on your parents never put a guilt trip on you, to go to school, get good grades, as oppose to ditch school, smoke weed...lol

I never said they were lazy, i said they didn't get an education and probably didn't want one. For all you know this is someone who works very hard and is a good person generally. Based on your criteria of maximizing survivability being the base of morality, these people don't at all achieve that. If they don't achieve maximal survivability for the species then under your framework they have done something morally wrong.

It as seen as morally wrong by the perception of society to be lazy, and not maximize your potential. Of course there's millions if not billions of people who don't do this, but society encourages people to go to school, get good grades, be a productive member of society. Those are survival values, and again morality again points to survival.

I went to school, got good grades AND smoked weed. Was i partially immoral for the latter? It seems that in your framework anything at all that doesn't potentially maximize survival is morally wrong, and anything that doesn't hinder survival can't be immoral.

Does society percieve smoking weed as immoral? Yes! There's a stupid law agianst it. Society see's weed as an unhealthy recreation, again morality being shaped by survival values.

I respectfully disagree with you. moral right and wrong seem to have completely arisen from evolution, randomness.

Based on what? A concept of a standard by which we judge action is not something that can arise biologically

Umm, yes it is as I've been proving this whole thread.

It is a mental concept. We have a biological sense of right and wrong, is that what you mean? Simply having a sense of right and wrong does not mean you have a concept of morality.

Yeah that is what i mean. And yes your are right as well on your second sentence.

Though I find you equating desire with morality, I would have to disagree. My desire to rape you is equal to your desire not to get rape... so i'm morally right? Though your theory makes since in that situation you would have to elaborate on all situations

Not the case at all. We both have the desire not to be raped, it's impossible to desire an act that is non-consensual. Because we both have absolute desires not to be raped, where only you have the desire to rape (which cannot be as strong as an absolute desire because it's not necessarily true) there are more and stronger desires not to be raped. Therefore it is immoral to rape under all circumstances.

I have the desire not to get raped... how do you know what if I'm a freak! I knew a girl who fantasized about it. Sorry your wrong buddy. My theory works. Yours, I already squashed.

Hypothetically lets say my desire to kill you is equal to your desire not to die, so there is nothing wrong with killing you? You would have to elaborate cause I would have to disagree if its based on desire. We all have different desires.

Desiring to murder is not as strong as a desire not to be murdered. Because we both (necessarily) have the desire not to be murdered (because murder is without consent) and because the desire not to be murdered is absolute there are more and stronger desires not to be murdered than there are to be murdered. Therefore murder is an act that thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes, and therefore Murder is immoral.

If you had only 100 people in existence, and 99 of them liked murder, then murder would still be wrong because 100% of the population desires not to be murdered (necessarily, because murder is non consensual).

There are not only more desires not to be murdered than there are to murder, but the desires not to be murdered are absolute (you cannot desire to be murdered). Again, therefore murder is morally wrong.

Sorry dude, your theory works here, but what about incest? If both parties desire it, then your saying its right but society as a whole sees it morally wrong. Your theory is bunk.

Lol it is still considered immoral to steal, even if he is fat lol. Due to stealing in general is stealing something that increases survivability or can be sold in increase survivability.

Right, it's wrong to steal regardless of whether or not it helps survival. Therefore survival is an insufficient criteria for establishing moral propositions.

No the perception of society is that it is almost always wrong, but like a said it could be right based on survivability.

Your right he probably don't need that pie and his survivability might increase if he lays off all that pie, but due to the negative connotation involved with it such as assault, injury, and death that occur when stealing from people. It as seen as something that decreases survivability in general, I mean your still going to jail for stealing, even if he's fat. And don't need it.

His survivability will increase. If survivability is the deciding factor in morality then the fact that he better survives makes it morally permissible. Of course you don't think that's true, by now you should see the problem in attributing everything to survival.

And yes, stealing probably does decrease survivability generally, but then you would have to categorically declare theft wrong, even if one is starving to death. Another problem for your moral theory.

I'm not arguing that theft is wrong even if one is straving, I'm arguing the perception of societies morality is based on survivability. And if survivability is what morality is based on then yes a person not dying because he stole food and survived is not immoral as long as the over all survival value of the species increased.

Also, what if i was on drugs before going to prison and during my time in prison i got clean and started working out, in that case not only did my theft from the fat man aid in his survival, it also increased my survival.

Yeah and wouldn't becoming a good little citizen be seen as a good thing by society. Exactly, societies perception of morality is based on that. Your survival value increased and now society says, oh what a good boy.

My theory is awesome, I hope you will be able to understand it one day in all its glory.

It has MASSIVE flaws, to the point where you have to address each contention by intuition. And since intuition is subjective then there is no real standard by which actions can be judged right and wrong.

And you're super naive to suppose that 1) you are the first to propose that morality is grounded in survival, 2) That survivability is comprehensive enough to cover all moral contentions and 3) That using survival we can establish true moral propositions.

Sorry dude you are completely wrong, my theory is like saying that water is the bases of all life, because everywhere there is water there is life. My theory is saying that morality is shaped by survival values, because every time I look at a moral issue, survival values are there to be found.

You know now that i think about it, morality is just another feeling of evolution to help us adapt, like depression, its just a series of chemical reactions in our brains, Its as real as any other feeling, happyness, love, sadness, anger all these feelings made to help us interact motivate us and do stuff to help us prosper in the world

Morality is not a feeling, it is a standard by which we judge right and wrong. What you have just proposed seems to be a form of Error Theory (all moral statements are false because morality does not exist). I agree completely that this type of thing can evolve in biological systems, but this isn't morality, it is intuitive right and wrong. If we want a standard by which we can establish moral facts then we need something else. I think Desirism can establish these moral facts.

No, i'm right it is a feeling, you've never felt bad after accidently running over an animal. How about when you see starving africans on television. You might not feel bad or good for all moral issues but people have them, and they shape morality.

But the island you stand on is burning, you must see why the water is the most logical path, or not. I know my theory is good. Thanks for posting, I appreciate your input very much.

Your moral theory is inadequate, you either resort to nihilism or you have to intuitively decide which cases do and do not fit your standard of 'survivability' manually.

---

I said this earlier, but I think it should be said again...My theory is like saying that water is the bases of all life, because everywhere there is water there is life. My theory is saying that morality is shaped by survival values, because every time I look at a moral issue, survival values are there to be found.

---

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?

Lol krazedkat! You are correct. I'm embarrassed now

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.

[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