Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't, what makes it an objective standard, is it's independence from any given subject and ability to be demonstrated as such.  What makes it a moral standard is it's fundamental relationship to moral statements.  It's what we're talking about.  Ergo, an objective moral standard.  When we ask ourselves, "what is the moral fact of the matter" in some x...well, harm.  Why is rape bad?  Because it causes harm.  Why is standing between a rapist and a victim good?  Because it stops or preempts that very same harm.  

The two of us agreeing is moral agreement, some asshole elsewhere disagreeing..is moral disagreement, but it doesn't change or alter the objectivity of the standard itself..it's just some asshole disagreeing....just as some schmuck thinking that rape is the greatest good (cuz his seed so stronk)won't change anything about the harm it causes to the victim.  

Because we have a need to reduce confrontation and conflict, particularly when another person does not or may not know that we meant no harm.  It;s called being polite, I;m sure you've heard of it.   We don't apologize only for being in the wrong, morally or otherwise.

So you don't feel bad when you accidentally hurt someone? You only feel scared that they will hurt you for it?

What part of any of the above leads you to conclude or ask that?  

Personally...I have this thing I tell my children.  Don't be sorry, behave.
(I generally don't fear other people...but that's only because I have it on good authority that I'm objectively the worst person in any given room... )

[Inkfeather132]

So you don't feel bad when you accidentally hurt someone? You only feel scared that they will hurt you for it?

What part of any of the above leads you to conclude or ask that?  

Personally...I have this thing I tell my children.  Don't be sorry, behave.

You seemed to be saying that you only apologize for accidentally hurting someone out of mere politeness or fear of a misunderstanding. Rather than for feeling bad because you hurt someone. Behaving only prevents intentional acts, accidents can happen to anyone.

[The Grand Nudger]

What part of any of the above leads you to conclude or ask that?  

Personally...I have this thing I tell my children.  Don't be sorry, behave.

You seemed to be saying that you only apologize for accidentally hurting someone out of mere politeness or fear of a misunderstanding. Rather than for feeling bad because you hurt someone. Behaving only prevents intentional acts, accidents can happen to anyone.

No, I answered your question..as to why people apologize even when they aren't in the wrong, morally or otherwise.  It's social lubricant. We do it because it makes all of our lives just that much more pleasant...but it doesn't have anything to do with an objective morality as-such.

Sure, accidents can happen to anyone (and some more-so than others, lol). I'm one of those clumsy motherfuckers..myself. It's a wonder I still have fingers or a face...at this point. I'm missing chunks of both - and worse, lol. When I apologize to someone it;s generally not because i either did or intended to cause them harm...but because all two hundo of me pushed them in the opposite direction than they intended to move in. Ships in the night, trading paint.

[RoadRunner79]

---

No, you are incorrect;  I do not equate harm with immoral.

If you say so.  Your own faith, however, disagrees.  

Also as you agreed with the example from C.S. Lewis; it was the act in which no damage was done, that was immoral, and not the one in which harm was committed.   So as we seem to agree, the wrong in this example is in the intent, not the objective damage done. 

The intent -to do what-?  I can intend to eat chocolate ice cream..moral decision or not, quick, go!  There;s no such thing as intent in a vacuum.  Intent is an inherently referent term.  You're not correcting me, you simply fail to recognize that you are agreeing with me, as your faith agrees with me...as everyone...anywhere, at any time...who has ever spoken about morality..agrees with me.  Harm is the foundation of morality.  We may not always agree on what is or is not harmful.....but we're -always- discussing harm.  At least, until you find a way to cogently disagree.  Good luck on that one.

Now one could say that it is in the intent to harm (in which I think you lose your position for objectiveness in your view).  Could I can steal from a rich man, because I don't intend him harm, I just wish for my greater well being (would this be moral)?  And as I said, I it's not about how we know what is moral, but the nature of morality itself.  Why is it right or wrong?

See how your intent..in this instance, doesn't matter...since you -did- harm that man?  Theft is wrong because it harms the person whom you've stolen from..by depriving them of their property.  Sure, you might imagine that you've done a bad thing for a good reason..but looking at the quality of your good reason...I doubt you have it in you.  

Just got pissed off, and harmed my phone from a sudden impact with the wall.

Did you, is there a moral component there that I;m missing?  Was there a dying man on the other end who's phone could only reach you or something?  Are you really this stupid?  Maybe you -did- harm yourself in some meaningfully moral way..since you're going to need that phone in the next five minutes..when you somehow manage to swallow a football on accident?

If you are talking about how we know what is right or wrong, or if X is immoral, then you are on the wrong track. It is about if there is a morality, independent of the subject, in which we can compare right/wrong.  It's not about what is, but what ought. 

No, -that- would be the compulsion to morality.  Handily called..wait for it "Moral compulsion".  Something is wrong because it is harmful.  Why you shouldn't do that thing....is another issue.  Is -that- what you'd like to discuss?  Why do you think that we shouldn't do the wrong thing?  Careful.

As we seen, you made statements which don't agree with "because it causes harm" as being immoral.  It sounds good, but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection (even if it is explicit).  

Which statements would those be?  You've failed to identify one.  

Again, it's not about assessment of if X is moral or not.   It is about morality itself, by which you are making the comparison and can even equate it with moral or immoral.

I'm not making a moral comparison.  I'm flat out telling you that harm is axiomatic to moral systems...worldwide, always has been.  Yours, mine, all of them.  It;s what we're talking about when we talk about good or bad.  We have a million names for it, and a million takes on it......but, they all have that much in common.

---

Ok... lets try this in the form of a logical syllogism.

Premise 1:  That which is harmful is immoral
Premise 2:  Jack accidentally tripped Jill causing her harm.

Conclusion:  Jack behaved immorally.


Is this valid?  You already said that is wasn't once when you agreed with the C.S. Lewis reference.  Now granted that you can change your mind, I don't think that you will.  How would you invalidate this syllogism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok... lets try this in the form of a logical syllogism.

Premise 1:  That which is harmful is immoral
Premise 2:  Jack accidentally tripped Jill causing her harm.

Conclusion:  Jack behaved immorally.

Not your fault, you're bad at this.  Your proposition does not satisfy necessity even when it satisfies sufficiency,  and so cannot comment in the absolute.  I've only told you that all things which are bad are so because they are harmful...not that all harm is bad.  You can certainly find some example of "harm" that has no moral component.  So can I.  And?  

Is this valid?  You already said that is wasn't once when you agreed with the C.S. Lewis reference.  Now granted that you can change your mind, I don't think that you will.  How would you invalidate this syllogism?

I;m honestly offended that you doubted my ability in this regard.  You might think all sorts of wierd shit about me.....but who doubts my ability to game?

Are we having a discussion regarding moral harm, moral agency, and moral desert, or just fucking around with words? You tell me. I can roll either way....but I'm -objectively- better at fucking around with words than you are....so....

-pick your fights?

[Amarok]

And no jack did not do anything wrong as it was not Jacks intent to hurt Jill we also likely apologize out of empathy for the person hurt. Not an admission of moral wrong .

[The Grand Nudger]

We do, even when it wasn't anything to do with us, but more accurately, them, that caused the offense.  

"I'm sorry that you feel that way, or that something I've done somehow leads you to feel that way"  

-the "somehow" being subtle shade...even in the act of apology, lol.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... lets try this in the form of a logical syllogism.

Premise 1:  That which is harmful is immoral
Premise 2:  Jack accidentally tripped Jill causing her harm.

Conclusion:  Jack behaved immorally.

Not your fault, you're bad at this.  Your proposition does not satisfy necessity even when it satisfies sufficiency,  and so cannot comment in the absolute.  I've only told you that all things which are bad are so because they are harmful...not that all harm is bad.  You can certainly find some example of "harm" that has no moral component.  So can I.  And?  

Is this valid?  You already said that is wasn't once when you agreed with the C.S. Lewis reference.  Now granted that you can change your mind, I don't think that you will.  How would you invalidate this syllogism?

I;m honestly offended that you doubted my ability in this regard.  You might think all sorts of wierd shit about me.....but who doubts my ability to game?

Are we having a discussion regarding moral harm, moral agency, and moral desert, or just fucking around with words?  You tell me.  I can roll either way....but I'm -objectively- better at fucking around with words than you are....so....

-pick your fights?

So you agree then, that the first premise is false?   This would correspond to my previous comment that immoral does not equate with "because it causes harm".

Let try another this time with your idea that "things which are bad are so because they are harmful.

Premise 1:  What is Immoral causes harm
Premise 2:  Bob tried to trip Bill, was unsucessful and Bill was unharmed.

Conclusion:  Bob did not act immorally.

Do you agree with this syllogism?   If not, how would you invalidate it?

[The Grand Nudger]

So you agree then, that the first premise is false?  

Sure, your premise is false, but since it isn't -my- premise....what does that matter to me?  You commonly suffer from an inability to accurately or adequately communicate what another person has relayed to you...so?

This would correspond to my previous comment that immoral does not equate with "because it causes harm".

Who cares if it correlates to your comments...are you attempting to criticize your own comments....or mine?  

Let try another this time with your idea that "things which are bad are so because they are harmful.

Premise 1:  What is Immoral causes harm
Premise 2:  Bob tried to trip Bill, was unsucessful and Bill was unharmed.

Conclusion:  Bob did not act immorally.

Still fucking up any premise premise with your own rewordings...but closer, at least.  Try this;  

"Bob -tried- to move on Bill like a bitch...but couldn't get there, therefore bob is in the wrong."

Do you agree with this syllogism?   If not, how would you invalidate it?

Mine or yours?  Just like before, by mentioning that yours is not mine.  If you doubt it, reach down and grab your nuts.  Are they my nuts?  No..they are not..mine are larger and far more manly.  Try again.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok...so we established (I think) that you are not saying.... what is immoral causes harm nor that which causes harm is immoral.

How is it, that you equate the two...(let alone the charge that I do as well)? I'm confused, because you have answered a number of times with "because it causes harm".

Perhaps you should stop arguing like a 12 year old, and think through these things, and express your self more fully. Just my subjective opinion. If I'm incorrectly representing you, tell me what is wrong. I'm no more impressed by you puffing yourself up, then I am the 12 yr old.