Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, but you have just illustrated that harm is not the measurement in the three scenarios.

No..I haven't.  We call one killer a hero because, ostensibly, his killing has prevented some greater harm.  We call another a monster because his killing -is- the harm, and we call the last unfit because he is incapable of understanding or intending, or preventing himself from harm.

I'd call this an epic fail, but in context of your failure in literally every aspect of this discussion it rates no more than a meh.

It was an underlying set of values that say that say humans have value, individually, they have intrinsic rights not to be killed, that these rights can be superseded in certain circumstances, and accountability requires an understanding of these underlying values.

You mean a modifying set of logical principles that is applied to the axiom of harm. 

Regarding this last example, someone unfit to be held accountable might be a person that knew very well that killing would create harm (resulting in a dead guy), but did not have a firm grasp on the underlying value framework to make sense of it.

Right, so we withhold some measure of condemnation.  The act was still harmful, it was still immoral, he simply isn't fit for the punishment that such an act would otherwise deserve.  He gets the padded cell rather than the electric chair. Amusingly, this is why I give -you- a pass on morality as well. Your comments and moral beliefs would be evil, if it weren't for your inability to understand the subject matter.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think it is the basis?  

1.) Because it is, and transparently so.  It's not as if we haven't seen page after page of examples.  

Even if harm is a common result, it doesn't mean it is the basis for it.  As we have seen, "because it causes harm" doesn't always mean immoral.

2.) Still fucking up, huh?   Where's the harm, amiright?  

No, I am asking you to show me where the harm is, that you say is the basis for it's immorality.  And again, I'm not trying to justify it morally.... you are misunderstanding my intentions. 

3.) intention is simply to avoid what you have no reason to deny.  It's pretty silly.  What would god think about all this blatant dishonesty, eh?  

 Perhaps, you could say this type of wrong is harmful to yourself. I could even agree, that in some way, all immorality harms ourselves.  

4.) Even the immorality that we don't actualize, like "lusting in our hearts"?  Even the immorality that we conceal, say..murdering your brother and hiding his body?  Do you think that maybe immorality harms other as well?  How about society?  How about god?  How about the relationship between god, oneself, others, and society?  OFC you fucking do.......if you didn't, you could neither argue or believe that god was just.  

 However, I could just bring up again, things that are harmful, that are amoral. I think that you need to think through this some more, and explain, how you are making this relationship to make it a basis for, and not a result of.

5.) Could you...then why don't you?  So far we've heard about you "harming" your phone...that's been your sole, brilliant, amoral objection.  I also think it's amoral, since it causes harm in no meaningful or objective way....but go ahead, bullshit us some more for absolutely no reason, repeatedly lying like a common sinner.

I numbered your points for easier reference.

1. )  I don't think it is quite so transparent (as a basis that is).  In doing some research, it appears the idea wasn't expressed until the middle 18th century, and didn't really become popular until the later 20th century.  While others have classified this as a mostly American ideology.  And your examples don't really show anything, other than some connection.   I think that connection is that harm tends to follow immoral behavior.  You don't answer the questions about it being the basis, but claim it is axiomatic.  But you also don't address the reasons, for why harm alone isn't the basis, and seem to agree with most of my examples.  I think this is because you are smuggling in moral principles, to add to your axiom of harm (which, kinda defeats it).

2.)  Is this sarcasm to avoid discussion?  It doesn't seem to address what I said.

3.) No dishonesty on my part (and I think it shows the weakness of your position to resort to such tactics).   But what if his intention is to avoid emotional harm to his wife (as was stated).  You seem to be avoiding this!

4.) I would suggest you focus on your own arguments.  And yes, all sin grieves God (which I suppose would be harm).  But you do not (at least from your current worldview) have the luxury of appealing to that.  And even showing that all immorality involves harm (which I don't necessarily agree or think is a stretch to make the claim work), doesn't go to show that it alone  is the basis.  

5.)  If it helps, the phone thing, was an example, that I made up.  Perhaps you can use that now, to divert the topic to me as well.  However I have known people who have reported having done such, and meaningful and objective harm was done to the phone.  It's just not meaningful, in a moral sense.   "Because it harms" doesn't mean immoral here.  Again, you seem to be smuggling in moral principles, to make your harm axiom work. 

And again, I'm just examining what you are claiming; to evaluate it.  I'm not making any other assumptions or adding anything to it based on what I know is moral, or claiming that these things are necessarily moral or not.  So far as the moral assessments go, we are not very far apart at all.  So you can stop portraying that I am.  Also axiomatic doesn't mean unquestionable.   It was once though axiomatic, that the sun revolved around the earth.  But it would be foolish if people had ignored the defeaters for this, and said "look it's obvious the sun revolves around the earth"

[The Grand Nudger]

1. )  I don't think it is quite so transparent (as a basis that is).  In doing some research, it appears the idea wasn't expressed until the middle 18th century, and didn't really become popular until the later 20th century.  While others have classified this as a mostly American ideology.  And your examples don't really show anything, other than some connection.   I think that connection is that harm tends to follow immoral behavior.  You don't answer the questions about it being the basis, but claim it is axiomatic.  But you also don't address the reasons, for why harm alone isn't the basis, and seem to agree with most of my examples.  I think this is because you are smuggling in moral principles, to add to your axiom of harm (which, kinda defeats it).

It's as transparent as your objections which each, themselves, referred back to harm.  Now you think that you can object by complaining that it wasn't written on a cave wall somewhere?  "Some connection" is all that needed to be shown, since my use of harm as axiomatic is based precisely on the fact that morality and harm are inescapably connected.  Harm is the foundation of all moral systems, that's what makes it axiomatic, that's what makes it a properly basic belief.  No system is complete by simple reference to an axiom..that's why it's called a system.  What moral principle am I smuggling in..have I ever referred to anything other than some relationship to harm?  Have I been less than explicit in anything?

2.)  Is this sarcasm to avoid discussion?  It doesn't seem to address what I said.

Isn't this a precious freudian slip?  I deliver sarcasm because your comments have been -ridiculous-...they deserve them.  

3.) No dishonesty on my part (and I think it shows the weakness of your position to resort to such tactics).   But what if his intention is to avoid emotional harm to his wife (as was stated).  You seem to be avoiding this!

If he wished to avoid emotional harm to his wife he shouldn't have cheated on her.  After having cheated on her, if faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral decisions, he chooses the most harmful but personally convenient of the field..he is compounding past immorality with present and continued immorality.  At what point do two wrongs make a right?  

4.) I would suggest you focus on your own arguments.  And yes, all sin grieves God (which I suppose would be harm).  But you do not (at least from your current worldview) have the luxury of appealing to that. 

OFC I do, since I'm simply explaining to you that your own moral system is also based on harm.  It doesn't matter that what you believe is a ridiculous ghost story, that ridiculous ghost story is the backdrop for a moral system based upon harm.  I don't have to believe in ghost stories for that to be demonstrably true, and your ghost stories being objectively immoral doesn;t change the fact that the attempt was maid.  As I said -waaaaay- way back.  Godism moved on objective, harm based morality like a bitch, but couldn't get there.  

And even showing that all immorality involves harm (which I don't necessarily agree or think is a stretch to make the claim work), doesn't go to show that it alone  is the basis.  

Showing that all moral considerations reduce to some comment on a relationship to harm is -exactly- how one demonstrates the accuracy and utility of their axiom.  You literally can't talk about morality without talking about harm.  No other thing in your moral system, or in anyone else's, has meaning aside from that referent.  

5.)  If it helps, the phone thing, was an example, that I made up.  Perhaps you can use that now, to divert the topic to me as well.  However I have known people who have reported having  done such, and meaningful and objective harm was done to the phone.  It's just not meaningful, in a moral sense.   "Because it harms" doesn't mean immoral here.  Again, you seem to be smuggling in moral principles, to make your harm axiom work. 

OFC you made it up................?  If you're not talking about harm in any sense meaningful to morality, then you aren't talking about morality, you're playing with words.  You could have stopped, or never did it..since you obviously understand that it was disingenuous...but that's just the kind of guy you are, I guess.  What's the harm, amiright?

And again, I'm just examining what you are claiming; to evaluate it.  I'm not making any other assumptions or adding anything to it based on what I know is moral, or claiming that these things are necessarily moral or not.  So far as the moral assessments go, we are not very far apart at all.  So you can stop portraying that I am.  Also axiomatic doesn't mean unquestionable.   It was once though axiomatic, that the sun revolved around the earth.  But it would be foolish if people had ignored the defeaters for this, and said "look it's obvious the sun revolves around the earth"

You're not examining any claim of mine.  You're denying what cannot be denied, attempting to change the subject, and flailing around with words and concepts you don't understand. You wouldn't know objective morality, moral agency, moral desert, moral compulsion, moral reasoning, harm, or virtue if they jumped up and bit you in the ass...and this is why you cannot competently engage with me, anyone else, or yourself.... on the subject. You are literally incapable.

[SteveII]

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

I disagree, the values aren't underlying, they're pursuant to the axiom of harm.  At least, in my objective morality they are.  I think we're all aware that you can pretend otherwise until theres a cure for cancer...I still don;t see the point.  Carry on.  / shrugs.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

Actually I'm just asking you whether or not you wish tyo harm or be harmed, and whether or not a society which harms or is complicit in the face of harm is a society which can survive, or one you would live in.........simple questions, that we get no answers for.  OFC, the question was rhetorical, I only asked it so that I could watch you refuse to answer.  

In an objective morality based upoin a harm, a "naturally good" person simply wants to do the moral thing, a person who has no specific desire to be moral still has compelling self interests, and a person who is neither naturally "good" or self interested does not get to determine the status of moral compulsion for others who either do want to be good, wish to avoid being harmed, or frankly, possess either the agency or the rationality required to competently comment.  

'Wants to do the moral thing' in no way compels people to act. While harm can certainly judge a situation, can it compel people to act?  

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.

Are you still unclear on something in my description of the objective morality I use?  Harm isn't applied to a moral system, it's a foundational axiom -of- moral systems.  A properly basic belief.  Some things are objectively harmful.  These things, are immoral things, in an objective moral system based upon harm.   If there is no objective harm, there is no moral component.  If there is a moral component, there is a reference to objective harm.  That's what it means for something to be axiomatic, that's what it means for something to be a properly basic belief.  All subsequent things flow from this as an inescapable referent.  We can apply any number of other things to that axiom, to that inescapable referent, to that foundation, to that properly basic belief.

For example, the foundational axiom of logic is that knowledge can be had.  That something can be known.  That there is a fact of the matter.   That doesn't tell us how to demonstrate it, for that we require rules of inference, and standards of evidence.  The latter modify the former.  In an objective morality based upon harm, harm is the moral fact of the matter.  We still require rules of inference - moral reasoning.  We still require a standard of evidence.  Objectivity.

In any scenario you have to ask the question why. In order for harm to be the foundation, the answer to the question why has to be that harm is wrong (an explanatory ultimate). In the example of murder, asking the question why is it wrong does not simply stop at because it caused harm. As you agreed earlier, you have to apply moral reasoning.  The why (the explanatory ultimate) is rather:

1. That humans have intrinsic value (we don't call killing a rodent murder). 
2. That we have an inalienable right to life and that that right cannot be abridged by another individual in just any circumstances (not all killing is murder)

How are these in any way 'pursuant' to the axiom of harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

'Wants to do the moral thing' in no way compels people to act. While harm can certainly judge a situation, can it compel people to act?  

People personally desiring something is the singlemost decisive form of compulsion there is...Steve........  

When that fails, can harm compel someone to act?  Why, it certainly can.  You pull your hand back from a fire, don't you?  That's the point of shame and societal pressure and even law.  To put the fire to your unmotivated feet.  That's the point of hellfire, as well, ofc. 

Ideally, it won't come to that, your fear of being harmed by immoral people in an immoral society, and natural tendency towards reciprocity as a human being should be enough.  For most of us it is.  We don't want to do some bad thing, we want to be good people, we don;t find ourselves charged with moral (or legal) crimes with any sort of regularity..and when we do we face punishment or seek to escape it.   

But, for some people, none of this works.  If you're one of those people we'll put you were we put such people. Padded cells, or the grave.  The final and most ultimate form of compulsion. Do what is right or be killed.

In any scenario you have to ask the question why. In order for harm to be the foundation, the answer to the question why has to be that harm is wrong (an explanatory ultimate). In the example of murder, asking the question why is it wrong does not simply stop at because it caused harm. As you agreed earlier, you have to apply moral reasoning.  The why (the explanatory ultimate) is rather:

1. That humans have intrinsic value (we don't call killing a rodent murder). 
2. That we have an inalienable right to life and that that right cannot be abridged by another individual in just any circumstances (not all killing is murder)

How are these in any way 'pursuant' to the axiom of harm?

Those are subjective claims, Steve.  I happen to agree with both, but they aren't necessary for an objective morality based upon harm. They can, however, both be justified -by- and objective morality based upon harm. You said that you had to ask the question "why"..well, ask it of yourself, for each of those claims. Why do you have value (intrinsic or otherwise)? Why do you have an unalienable right to life (laying aside that it's obviously "alienable" as hyperbole)? Let's try and keep it objective, ghost based answers from magic books need not apply. My chain of why's ends with harm, why is harm immoral - because that's what we're talking about when we talk about morality, harm. No further elaboration can meaningfully add to that answer. There is no and need be no why beneath it. We can comment on how we evolved this or that, but ultimately, we evolved to be and do alot of things - none of which make a lick of difference now in and of themselves. Even if we hadn;t evolved in such a way we could still cogently comment, now, about morality, in this way.

[Whateverist]

I wonder if not giving a shit is likewise a properly basic belief? Perhaps all the OP and Steve are saying is that objective morality is like not giving a shit. Hard to argue with that .. especially when I don't give a shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

The corollary of harm being axiomatic is that some things don't matter, to morality.  Thus not giving a shit about some x could very well be an expression of a properly basic belief that it doesn't matter.

[Whateverist]

Yeah I definitely don't give a shit about x, but z .. now that I care about. Don't know y.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't matter y.  If by morality you're talking about z then discussing x is changing the subject.

[RoadRunner79]

---

1. )  I don't think it is quite so transparent (as a basis that is).  In doing some research, it appears the idea wasn't expressed until the middle 18th century, and didn't really become popular until the later 20th century.  While others have classified this as a mostly American ideology.  And your examples don't really show anything, other than some connection.   I think that connection is that harm tends to follow immoral behavior.  You don't answer the questions about it being the basis, but claim it is axiomatic.  But you also don't address the reasons, for why harm alone isn't the basis, and seem to agree with most of my examples.  I think this is because you are smuggling in moral principles, to add to your axiom of harm (which, kinda defeats it).

It's as transparent as your objections which each, themselves, referred back to harm.  Now you think that you can object by complaining that it wasn't written on a cave wall somewhere?  "Some connection" is all that needed to be shown, since my use of harm as axiomatic is based precisely on the fact that morality and harm are inescapably connected.  Harm is the foundation of all moral systems, that's what makes it axiomatic, that's what makes it a properly basic belief.  No system is complete by simple reference to an axiom..that's why it's called a system.  What moral principle am I smuggling in..have I ever referred to anything other than some relationship to harm?  Have I been less than explicit in anything?

2.)  Is this sarcasm to avoid discussion?  It doesn't seem to address what I said.

Isn't this a precious freudian slip?  I deliver sarcasm because your comments have been -ridiculous-...they deserve them.  

3.) No dishonesty on my part (and I think it shows the weakness of your position to resort to such tactics).   But what if his intention is to avoid emotional harm to his wife (as was stated).  You seem to be avoiding this!

If he wished to avoid emotional harm to his wife he shouldn't have cheated on her.  After having cheated on her, if faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral decisions, he chooses the most harmful but personally convenient of the field..he is compounding past immorality with present and continued immorality.  At what point do two wrongs make a right?  

4.) I would suggest you focus on your own arguments.  And yes, all sin grieves God (which I suppose would be harm).  But you do not (at least from your current worldview) have the luxury of appealing to that. 

OFC I do, since I'm simply explaining to you that your own moral system is also based on harm.  It doesn't matter that what you believe is a ridiculous ghost story, that ridiculous ghost story is the backdrop for a moral system based upon harm.  I don't have to believe in ghost stories for that to be demonstrably true, and your ghost stories being objectively immoral doesn;t change the fact that the attempt was maid.  As I said -waaaaay- way back.  Godism moved on objective, harm based morality like a bitch, but couldn't get there.  

And even showing that all immorality involves harm (which I don't necessarily agree or think is a stretch to make the claim work), doesn't go to show that it alone  is the basis.  

Showing that all moral considerations reduce to some comment on a relationship to harm is -exactly- how one demonstrates the accuracy and utility of their axiom.  You literally can't talk about morality without talking about harm.  No other thing in your moral system, or in anyone else's, has meaning aside from that referent.  

5.)  If it helps, the phone thing, was an example, that I made up.  Perhaps you can use that now, to divert the topic to me as well.  However I have known people who have reported having  done such, and meaningful and objective harm was done to the phone.  It's just not meaningful, in a moral sense.   "Because it harms" doesn't mean immoral here.  Again, you seem to be smuggling in moral principles, to make your harm axiom work. 

OFC you made it up................?  If you're not talking about harm in any sense meaningful to morality, then you aren't talking about morality, you're playing with words.  You could have stopped, or never did it..since you obviously understand that it was disingenuous...but that's just the kind of guy you are, I guess.  What's the harm, amiright?  

And again, I'm just examining what you are claiming; to evaluate it.  I'm not making any other assumptions or adding anything to it based on what I know is moral, or claiming that these things are necessarily moral or not.  So far as the moral assessments go, we are not very far apart at all.  So you can stop portraying that I am.  Also axiomatic doesn't mean unquestionable.   It was once though axiomatic, that the sun revolved around the earth.  But it would be foolish if people had ignored the defeaters for this, and said "look it's obvious the sun revolves around the earth"

You're not examining any claim of mine.  You're denying what cannot be denied, attempting to change the subject, and flailing around with words and concepts you don't understand.  You wouldn't know objective morality, moral agency, moral desert, moral compulsion, moral reasoning, harm, or virtue if they jumped up and bit you in the ass...and this is why you cannot competently engage with me, anyone else, or yourself.... on the subject.  You are literally incapable.

---

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.