Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

He was trying to keep his wife from harm.  Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm? 
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?

If he was trying to keep his wife from harm he wouldn't be cheating on her.  Kind of basic stuff buddy.  Deceit is a dead give away that a person knows what they're doing is harmful, in addition to being yet another vector of harm in and of itself. That you have to ask suggests that your moral agency is......lacking.

So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out? You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work. It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis. And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff. I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.

[Mr.wizard]

Imagine a sign in the distance, occluded by fog, and the slight glare of sunrise.  There are many objective and subjective reasons for this lack of clarity, but the sign still says one thing or another - objectively.  The same could be, would be, and is true of any objective moral system.  There are any number of things that rob us of clarity.  Thankfully, there are also tools to cut through that.

The question is whether a moral "fact" exists "out there" somewhere, like your example sign. I would say not. Rather, a given act has likely and also potentially unexpected / unknowable consequences that we have an imperfect ability to predict.

Torturing innocents for no particular reason is a highly contrived scenario that is unlikely to even happen, but if it did, it cuts so sharply to the needs of society that almost no one would imagine a possible excuse or net benefit and I can't imagine anyone ending up regretting stopping the torture for any likely reason. I mean, if the child grew up to be another Hitler, maybe, but this is stretching.

Back here in the real world where moral conundrums are more prosaic and hazy and our natural impulses are more unhelpful, I don't think there are signs on the horizon that will resolve when we get there. A better metaphor is that there's a foggy landscape that we are unsure of until we're past it and we can tell what it was like by the mud splatters on the car, the damage to the suspension, the dings on the body. Or the lack thereof.

As a society we have the collective input of various actors to say, don't go down this particular road because beyond the likely consequences to you personally, which would normally be your personal problem, it will cause these various problems for us collectively. That's all morality is.

Once upon a time we had different ideas such as that certain sexual activities were inherently harmful or that slavery was acceptable. Our understanding evolved and we changed. Someone a hundred years ago might have felt that a woman showing leg or someone enjoying jazz music was "clearly" a harm and would undermine society. Today we have evolved our understanding of these things. All of this sounds pretty subjective to me, but the subjectivity is beside the point.

Of course morality is subjective, we choose our foundations for morality, but you can't deny that objective conclusions can be reached from subjective foundations. That doesn't mean that every conclusion you reach will be objective, but there will be some. Again if well-being is your foundation then feeding your child battery acid is objectively immoral. It is detrimental to the child's well-being regardless of anyone's subjective opinion, chopping off someone's head is objectively detrimental to their well-being. In my opinion you arguing against "Absolute Morality" and not objective morals.

[The Grand Nudger]

The foundation of harm doesn't appear to be subjective.  People have subjective opinions on what causes harm..sure, but in any moral system harm is the opening salvo. Well being is very literally the converse of harm.

[Mr.wizard]

The foundation of harm doesn't appear to be subjective.  People have subjective opinions on what causes harm..sure, but in any moral system harm is the opening salvo.  Well being is very literally the converse of harm.

Well it is subjective because we have seen societies not base their moral decisions on harm, Theocracies are a perfect example.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theocracies -do- base their moral systems on harm.  Can you suggest a harmless sin..not a sin that -you- would see as harmless, but one that -they- would? The whole point of following a gods rules is to avoid harm to oneself, to whomever the harmful thing is supposed to hurt, to society, or even to god.

You think that they;re wrong about what causes harm, or to whom..and so do I, I would say objectively wrong..... but it's very clear that harm is fundamental to their theocratic morality.

---

If he was trying to keep his wife from harm he wouldn't be cheating on her.  Kind of basic stuff buddy.  Deceit is a dead give away that a person knows what they're doing is harmful, in addition to being yet another vector of harm in and of itself.  That you have to ask suggests that your moral agency is......lacking.

So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out?  You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work.  It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis.  And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff.  I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.

You're now asking me why infidelity and deception are immoral, but you already know my answer.  Something doesn't suddenly become harmful the moment you're caught, you know......and getting away with some harmful thing doesn't change the harm that was done.  We all have ways of excusing ourselves for harm, you wouldn't be the first guy to imagine that this one had traction.

Why don't you go ask your significant other those questions? I'm sure it'll clear you right up. It doesn't.

[Mr.wizard]

Theocracies -do- base their moral systems on harm.  Can you suggest a harmless sin..not a sin that -you- would see as harmless, but one that -they- would?  The whole point of following a gods rules is to avoid harm to oneself, to whomever the harmful thing is supposed to hurt, to society, or even to god.

You think that they;re wrong about what causes harm, or to whom..and so do I, I would say objectively wrong..... but it's very clear that harm is fundamental to their theocratic morality.

---

So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out?  You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work.  It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis.  And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff.  I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.

You're now asking me why infidelity and deception are immoral, but you already know my answer.  Something doesn't suddenly become harmful the moment you're caught, you know......and getting away with some harmful thing doesn't change the harm that was done.  

Why don't you go ask your significant other those questions?  I'm sure it'll clear you right up.

Not really, for instance, death as a penalty for adultery in no way shows that reducing harm is the basis for morality. Also the idea that it is moral to have a system of eternal torture for finite sins also shows that harm is not the deciding factor on what is or isn't moral.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really, for instance, death as a penalty for adultery in no way shows that reducing harm is the basis for morality. Also the idea that it is moral to have a system of eternal torture for finite sins also shows that harm is not the deciding factor on what is or isn't moral.

You're still simply disagreeing with them on what is or isn't harmful, and what we should do about people who commit those purportedly harmful acts. There's no point in having that disagreement with me, as I consider their faiths to be objectively immoral.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1586822' dateline='1500233436']

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?

Yes, and he is keeping his wife from harm.   I'm not arguing that this is moral or not (though I do think it is wrong).  Just examining the claim that harm is the basis for morality.
In the area of epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong and is what we are talking about) I don't think it does make that big of a difference.  A Christian may point to the scriptures for insight, but I don't see that as a large inequality.  Many who don't believe will come to the same conclusion.
[/quote]

How is he keeping her from harm? by hiding the truth that he is increasing the risk of her catching a disease? or by the risk of her finding out somehow and the devastation that could bring to her life?
Or are you suggesting that by hiding the affair he is keeping her from harm when what he would seem to be doing to me is hiding his wrong doing and shielding himself from the concequences he would face.
What you imply is a bit like saying the cover up of fraud was to keep the company from harm.

[Mr.wizard]

Not really, for instance, death as a penalty for adultery in no way shows that reducing harm is the basis for morality. Also the idea that it is moral to have a system of eternal torture for finite sins also shows that harm is not the deciding factor on what is or isn't moral.

You're still simply disagreeing with them on what is or isn't harmful, and what we should do about people who commit those purportedly harmful acts.  There's no point in having that disagreement with me, as I consider their faiths to be objectively immoral.

No, I don't think I am, Their system is well aware that death is harmful and infinite torture is the most harmful, and yet they are both used as moral forms of punishment.

[RoadRunner79]

Theocracies -do- base their moral systems on harm.  Can you suggest a harmless sin..not a sin that -you- would see as harmless, but one that -they- would?  The whole point of following a gods rules is to avoid harm to oneself, to whomever the harmful thing is supposed to hurt, to society, or even to god.

You think that they;re wrong about what causes harm, or to whom..and so do I, I would say objectively wrong..... but it's very clear that harm is fundamental to their theocratic morality.

Why do you think it is the basis? 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.

---

So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out?  You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work.  It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis.  And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff.  I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.

You're now asking me why infidelity and deception are immoral, but you already know my answer.  Something doesn't suddenly become harmful the moment you're caught, you know......and getting away with some harmful thing doesn't change the harm that was done.  We all have ways of excusing ourselves for harm, you wouldn't be the first guy to imagine that this one had traction.

Why don't you go ask your significant other those questions?  I'm sure it'll clear you right up.  It doesn't.
[/quote]

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

---

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?

Yes, and he is keeping his wife from harm.   I'm not arguing that this is moral or not (though I do think it is wrong).  Just examining the claim that harm is the basis for morality.
In the area of epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong and is what we are talking about) I don't think it does make that big of a difference.  A Christian may point to the scriptures for insight, but I don't see that as a large inequality.  Many who don't believe will come to the same conclusion.

How is he keeping her from harm? by hiding the truth that he is increasing the risk of her catching a disease? or by the risk of her finding out somehow and the devastation that could bring to her life?
Or are you suggesting that by hiding the affair he is keeping her from harm when what he would seem to be doing to me is hiding his wrong doing and shielding himself from the consequences he would face.
What you imply is a  bit like saying the cover up of fraud was to keep the company from harm.

So is increasing the potential for harm is immoral (by itself)?  Like, getting into my vehicle and cruising down the highway (aren't I increasing the potential for harm here)? 

I could see where he could be hiding it, for selfish reasons (avoiding the consequences).  But it seems equally valid, that he could be hiding it, not to cause unnecessary harm to his wife (as stated).   I don't think this makes it less immoral.  Adding deceit makes it more so.

Are you saying, that doing the moral thing, can sometimes increase harm?   I would agree .  Take your example of fraud in a company.  Now simply using harm as a basis, one might justify their lying about it in court, on the basis of not doing so, would cause more harm to the company, and it's workers.  I would disagree with this reasoning;  would you?