The Other Michael

Sorry, I left the sarcasm emoticon off the comment about cats.

But I do like cats - they're so very undoglike.

cheers,
Michael

99Percent

dk, I basically agree with what you are saying, but if objective morality comes from reason then why would we require scripture from a "higher authority" to follow it blindly?

daemon

I'm not certain that I buy the idea that anything can be rationally derived without assumptions. I've certainly never seen any form of logic that didn't include assumptions.
Untrue. I could be using figurative language, or attempting to fool you for some reason. Thus, I could certainly have rational reasons to lie.
If you act perfectly rational, you'll die too, so I don't really see how that backs up your claim.
I would hesitate to agree that you can say we have reason for such a specific purpose, personally.
Why are people not a part of nature? Again, how are you deriving the rational status of any form of violence?

dk

That’s a plausible explanation, but then why do domestic female cats heroically protect their den from all tomcats. This puts your explanation at odds with itself. It’s also plausible that the Tomcat is completely void of maternal instincts, therefore slaughters the kittens to bring the queens into uterus, out of sexual frustration of being rejected by a female or their hunting instincts simply kicked in around small quick moving small mammals. Whatever explanation you prefer doesn’t really matter, cats are driven by instinct not reason. Any discussion of morality assumes the subject species has the capacity of reason.

99Percent

daemon: I'm not certain that I buy the idea that anything can be rationally derived without assumptions. I've certainly never seen any form of logic that didn't include assumptions.

There is a difference between logic and reason. Reason is reality based, it is based on truth. Logic does require assumptions, because it is a process.

Untrue. I could be using figurative language, or attempting to fool you for some reason. Thus, I could certainly have rational reasons to lie.

You can have personal reasons to lie, but objectively speaking you are being untruthful. The intention to fool me is what makes it objectively wrong, because it is going against the objective truth.

If you act perfectly rational, you'll die too, so I don't really see how that backs up your claim.

You know what I mean, but in case you didn't let me make it clearer: If you act rationally you will live longer. If you act irrationally you will die quickly.

Why are people not a part of nature? Again, how are you deriving the rational status of any form of violence?

People are part of nature, yes. People's purposeful actions are not. Why would that be so difficult to understand?

The initiation of violence is irrational, and therefore objectively immoral. See my response to tronvillain.

dk

I suspect we basically agree because we started from the same premises, though we probably differ on form and some defintiions. I would roughly define “free will” as a person’s natural inclination to participate in their destiny; then define morality as a reasonable construction of “good” & “evil” (right & wrong, or sacred & vulgar…) necessity to actualize free will. A person who abdicates their free will behaves immorally, meaning they renounce their potential, inspiration and purpose for personal ambition, immediate gratification or creature comforts. As to whether morality is objective according the Scripture, Romans 2: “14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,” Knowing the right thing to do, and doing the right thing when the time comes (temptation presents itself) are two different things. Absent from this whole discussion is forgiveness, contrition and restoration. I would contend people intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong, therefore but for the grace of God fall short.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

daemon

Okay, could you please explain the process by which one determines the objective moral status of an action, then? Is it simply innate--there is no process? Furthermore, how does one determine what is real without logic?
Okay, but what about the case where I am attempting to use figurative language? If I were to say, "It's night out here," during the daytime while the sky is heavily overcast, would this be morally wrong?

Also, why is it always immoral to fool someone? If said someone were going to do something immoral if they knew something, is it still wrong to lie?
I'm sorry, but this seems like a very broad brush you're using. If, for example, someone were to have the irrational belief that the sky was, say, orange--the same color as the fruit--when clear during midday, but no other notable irrational behaviors, I cannot see their irrationality having any effect whatsoever on the length of their life. Thus, it seems to me that it would be incorrect to say that irrationality always reduces lifespan.

Furthermore, this stance (that things are immoral because they are self-destructive) calls into question several fairly common morals. Under this moral system, it is immoral to believe that one would rather die than be enslaved, or to be willing to risk one's life in the defense of others. Do you honestly believe that to be the case?
It isn't that it is difficult to understand, but it appears very arbitrary.
Okay. I'm having a hard time understanding your train of thought here. You indicate that, killing someone, for example, is a "win/lose" proposition. You then have an analogy to a gambler, saying that hypothetical feelings of greed result in a loss for the gambler even if they win. This doesn't fit your model at all, as far as I can tell--the result of the gambler's actions, should he succeed, is that he has won money, and the house has lost money. I assume you say it is wrong for the killer to kill because the victim loses something. I'm with you thus far, I think.

However, you then indicate that a win/win situation requires surety that noone will lose. This doesn't appear supportable. Under this system, it is immoral for a person to take a job, becasue they may be unable to sufficiently reimburse the hirer for the wages paid! In fact, capitalism itself is immoral under this system; monetary value is somewhat arbitrary, so one cannot be assured of a true win/win situation. Investing in a business is immoral, because it might fail. I can think of any number of situations in which surety is impossible that seem quite moral, or at least amoral. How do you reconcile this?

Ginseng

I did not say “kill” I said murder. All human beings consider murder wrong—not just you and me—every human being who is not insane knows murder is wrong.

So societally held morality exists, but not objective morality? How did social ethics come about if people have absolutely no sense of objective right and wrong (according to you)? What a paradox! Ethics would not exist if human beings did not understand that there is objective right and wrong.

Why do you find rape unethical? Do you not think it odd that virtually everybody on the planet (EXCEPT those who are mentally ill) also finds rape unethical? Is it a coincidence?

I am not a subjectivist, in case you hadn’t noticed.

It is possible—especially when one considers that there are people in this country who have no clue that stoning someone to death is objectively wrong.

Why WOULD your parents say slavery is wrong? Did your parents have to tell you that murder is wrong too? I would be interested in hearing why you believe slavery is wrong. Is slavery wrong for everybody, or just for you?

I didn’t ask you what you would not say—I asked you what you WOULD say. You didn’t answer the question. Just because your parents said it was wrong is not an answer either—unless you can tell me WHY they think it is wrong.

If you believe that morality is purely subjective then it is impossible for you to argue anything is wrong—murder, rape, slavery, mugging. You have already said that slavery and stoning are not inherently wrong. What is the point in arguing in support of your own self-defined subjectivity? Just because you think it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong (according to you), so why argue for or against anything?

Agree with them? I want to know what YOU think. I wonder how this major world organization came up with the idea of human rights. If subjectivity is the rule, how did this organization (which is comprised of people) come to their conclusions? It wasn’t by chance, I can assure you.

It does not matter whether the mugger thinks it is okay. It doesn’t even matter whether the mugger is “punished” or not. Mugging is wrong, and it is ridiculous to imply that it is only wrong for some people (in this case the victim). And I am not discussing law, I am discussing objective morality. They are not the same thing!

99Percent

daemon: Okay, could you please explain the process by which one determines the objective moral status of an action, then? Is it simply innate--there is no process? Furthermore, how does one determine what is real without logic?

You determine the objective morality of an action through reason. You determine what is real because of what your senses tell you it is. You can derive indirect reality through logic yes, but the senses give you the initial premises.

Okay, but what about the case where I am attempting to use figurative language? If I were to say, "It's night out here," during the daytime while the sky is heavily overcast, would this be morally wrong?

Well, you can say whatever you want, but if you were to say something with the intention of deceiving me then it would be morally wrong.

Also, why is it always immoral to fool someone?

I already said so. It is immoral because it is going against the truth.

If said someone were going to do something immoral if they knew something, is it still wrong to lie?

I don't understand this question. Example?

I'm sorry, but this seems like a very broad brush you're using. If, for example, someone were to have the irrational belief that the sky was, say, orange--the same color as the fruit--when clear during midday, but no other notable irrational behaviors, I cannot see their irrationality having any effect whatsoever on the length of their life. Thus, it seems to me that it would be incorrect to say that irrationality always reduces lifespan.

Irrational beliefs or irrationality by itself does not reduce lifespan. Irrational acts or behavior certainly does. It is self-evident. Thats the whole point of morality no?

Okay. I'm having a hard time understanding your train of thought here. You indicate that, killing someone, for example, is a "win/lose" proposition. You then have an analogy to a gambler, saying that hypothetical feelings of greed result in a loss for the gambler even if they win. This doesn't fit your model at all, as far as I can tell--the result of the gambler's actions, should he succeed, is that he has won money, and the house has lost money. I assume you say it is wrong for the killer to kill because the victim loses something. I'm with you thus far, I think.

The gambler and the killer eventually lose if they continue doing their same action, and they will. Greed or feelings have nothing to do. A gambler could act out of impulse, same with the killer.

doesn't appear supportable. Under this system, it is immoral for a person to take a job, becasue they may be unable to sufficiently reimburse the hirer for the wages paid!

But the hirer would in fact notice this and if the trade of labor for wages is not acceptable to either party then it should be voluntarily stopped.

In fact, capitalism itself is immoral under this system; monetary value is somewhat arbitrary, so one cannot be assured of a true win/win situation.

Monetary value is far from arbitrary, in fact it is concrete and visible. When you see $100 dollars you know what it is worth.

Investing in a business is immoral, because it might fail.

No, it is the opposite, because you are postponing immediate pleasure for a tangible future gain since the business' intent is to produce, which is the whole point of morality. The gambler's risk is irrational because he pretends to gain out of a non-productive action.

Capitalism is the best economic/political system for objective morality, because the win/win situation arises out of the actual productivity of men.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

tronvillain

99Percent:

Oh look, another unsupported assertion: Entering into a win/lose proposition is irrational. As far as I can recall from decision theory, it would only be irrational if one valued the expected probability of "win" less than the expected probability of "lose."

While that might be the rational decision, one might easily value a win/lose proposition more than a win/win proposition, making the win/win proposition the irrational decision.

Are you claiming that it is always irrational to gamble? First, gambling is not a win/lose proposition not a lose/lose proposition. Second, even if in the long run one is likely to lose money (not true of every gamble), it is not necessarily irrational. It might be irrational if one used expected monetary value as one's guide to rationality, but it appears to only be a rough approximation of human decision making.

You accused me of assuming a positive outcome, and now I will accuse you of assuming a negative outcome.

It is possible for the outcome of a win/lose situation to be just as certain as the outcome of a win/win situation. After all, "win/lose" only implies that there is a winner and a loser, not that both individuals have a chance of being the winner. You assert that this is not the case when it comes to human violence, but you do not support this assertion.

Still, I think I may see the problem: you have not considered that what is "rational" can be quite subjective. You apparently value certainty far more than most other people.

No, you're not.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>