Gurdur

A subjective, arbitrary choice of value.
IOW, your whole dogma is based on an abitrarily chosen subjective value.

A subjective, arbitrary choice of value.
IOW, your whole dogma is based on an abitrarily chosen subjective value.

Equating morality with reason - which is what you are doing when you claim to 'derive' morality from reason - is a subjective, arbitrary choice of value.
IOW, your whole dogma is based on an abitrarily chosen subjective value.

Rubbish.
The diseases that the Spainards imported with them had far more to do with it.
But don't worry, 99perecnt; we know you prefer the absolutist, dogmatic, revealed relevation to any empirical approach.

Which only goes to prove Daemon's point. You're trying to make apples out of oranges.

Thank Darwin for small mercies.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

daemon

Wait a second--now it's wrong because you're not doing what they want you to do? Is it reasonable to always do what other people want you to? If not, where do you draw the line?
Okay, I didn't follow that at all. Why does valuing a person's free will have anything to do with doing something they don't want you to?
Again: it is not self-evident. The fact that I do not believe this (morality arises out of the use of reason) negates the possibility of it being self-evident.
What?! This contradicts everything I've read about Aztec history--where did you get your information from? The Aztec people believed the sun would not come up if the sacrifices failed to occur. What made the Aztec culture crumble is the conquistadors' killing and diseases.
When viewed over a very short amount of time, perhaps, but over the course of 10, 5, or even a single year, prices fluctuate due to changing technology, avenues of distribution, availability, and further factors. It is a gross oversimplification to say that prices are stable. We have a sense of monetary stability primarily due to our locale, both in space and time.

This probably isn't relevant to the discussion, however.
You stated the result must be certain, not probable.

I don't think this is going anywhere, as I don't seem to be able to get you to commit to any set of reasons to determine the moral status of an action. So far, in regards to lying, you've stated that it is wrong because it "goes against the truth," which is wrong because it entails an intent to deceive, which is wrong because it goes aginst the person's will, and I find that last reason so incredibly irrational as to make the idea that it came from reason laughable! Can you at least show me some sort of logical chain from one assertedly objective moral to its roots in reality? Take theft, for example. Why is theft objectively wrong?

[Edited to spell "conquistadors" properly]

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

99Percent

Daemon: Wait a second--now it's wrong because you're not doing what they want you to do? Is it reasonable to always do what other people want you to? If not, where do you draw the line?

You are twisting what I am saying. I said it is wrong to go against the will of others ("will" of others being an objective fact) and being false. Its the combination of these two factors that compromise the immorality of cheating and lying. A clear example of this is infidelity. When a husband is going out with another woman without telling his wife he is portraying a false image of himself to his wife, because his wife thinks he is being faithful as it was a vow of marriage. The wife choses to remain with his husband thinking that he is supposedly being faithful (love being a continous act of choosing). By the husband intentionally deceiving his wife he is being immoral. And this objectively true because the husband is going against the truth and the will of his wife. Similarly in any game where the rules have been established before hand, cheating becomes immoral because you are not being truthful to the other players. Say if I take a shortcut in a marathon, or evade taxes, or steal (because the "rule" of property had been established).

The fact that I do not believe this (morality arises out of the use of reason) negates the possibility of it being self-evident.

Well you can believe anything of course. But if you aren't going to accept that morality comes from reason then where does it come from?

What?! This contradicts everything I've read about Aztec history--where did you get your information from? The Aztec people believed the sun would not come up if the sacrifices failed to occur. What made the Aztec culture crumble is the conquistadors' killing and diseases.

I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of what caused the fall of the Aztecs. But the fact that they didn't value human life as much as the Spaniards certainly contributed to their demise. And this would happen in any two morally different cultures that would clash. The point is that a culture that has developed morality more will be stronger, because in fact objective morality exists. For example the Taliban which didn't respect human rights as much as the rest quickly crumbled when they were invaded.

I don't think this is going anywhere, as I don't seem to be able to get you to commit to any set of reasons to determine the moral status of an action.

The set of some factors that determine the status of objective moral actions are as follows: <ol type="1">[*]Truth (since without truth you can't have reason)[*]Free will (since without free will you can't have morality)[*]Human life (since without human life you can't think)[*]Property, because humans produce their own well being.[*]Initiation of violence (since willed violence is irrational as it puts human life at risk)[/list=a]

I kinda went through this thesis in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000091" target="_blank">this thread.</a>

daemon

I'm sorry, but it was not intentional--you were unclear.
Just as a sidenote, your exposure to games must be somewhat limited. I have several that advocate cheating, quite clearly. In fact, one states that if you cheat and weren't caught until after the fact, you can't be called on it.
Wait a minute--this comment made me realize something. While I generally do believe a thinking person's morality does derive from their reason, I also believe that reason to be inherently subjective. You claim that morality, however, is objective, which is to say independent of subject. What form of reason can you employ that is independent of people? Sorry, this is obviously self-contradictory; in what way is this morality system objective? It appears inherently subjective from the start!
Argument from ignorance.
Actually, the point was that individuals who kill wind up being punished for killing because it is objectively wrong. I should assume that you no longer assert this, then, as I have shown this to be demonstrably false?

Furthermore, this contains a very vague assertion. How does one determine the strength of a culture?
Actually, from your argument, the Taliban never would have acheived any power, unless their only opposition was morally inferior to them. I see force of arms as being far more effective a determinant of the victor in such conflicts than the relative morality of the groups involved.
Sorry, I don't see this as a good reason for its morality. How much truth does one need to reason?
This implies that not having morality, however, is immoral. Therefore, would you agree that all animals are immoral?
I don't see how this is a moral argument--why is it objectively good to think?
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Many everyday things we do put human life at risk, so that quite clearly cannot be why the initiation of violence is wrong, unless you believe driving a car is wrong. Do you?

Also, what counts as the "initiation" of violence? This seems like an extraordinarily subjective criteria.
I haven't paid much attention to this forum before, so I'm very unfamiliar with any past postings in it.

However, by the second paragraph, you appear to deny the validity of objective morality, and instead espouse a form of intersubjective morality that you call objective. Is this truly what you are arguing for? Otherwise, I do not see at what point you show that these morals are independent of all subjects.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

DRFseven

]

Morality is acquired through emotional learning beginning very early in childhood with very little reasoning involved. Later, we use reasoning to modify our moral codes, though, typically, we end up much like our parents in our core values.

tronvillain

99Percent:
Specify a moral system and I'll tell you. Under mine, it's the rational decision.

99Percent

Gurdur: A subjective, arbitrary choice of value. IOW, your whole dogma is based on an abitrarily chosen subjective value.

I think you are confusing reason with dogma. I honestly don't think I am being dogmatic at all. I am trying to reason out objective morality in order to convince others through reason. If I were to be dogmatic then I would just be dictating my certainly subjective values. If I were wrong and did not admit to it and stuck vehemently with these values then yes I would have to say I am dogmatic. But the fact is that I am willing to admit that I am wrong and try to modify my arguments (see my response to tronvillain) in effect trying to honestly reason with all of you. Unfortunately I am starting to lose any respect on your part to reason by your pointless and trollish statements.

Equating morality with reason - which is what you are doing when you claim to 'derive' morality from reason - is a subjective, arbitrary choice of value.

Care to elaborate now? I find it difficult to believe that reason by itself is "arbitrary choice of value". I would rather think it is the opposite.

Rubbish.
The diseases that the Spainards imported with them had far more to do with it.

That is certainly debatable. The truth is that the Spanish mostly merged with indian biologically and genetically. There is nothing dogmatic and absolutist with this last statement - you only need to see for yourself the meztizo race.

But don't worry, 99perecnt; we know you prefer the absolutist, dogmatic, revealed relevation to any empirical approach.

Isn't that an absolutist dogmatic statement by itself?

Thank Darwin for small mercies.

So when I am being reasonable by trying to maintain the discussion at hand it is by the grace of whatever? That is certainly unfair, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

daemon: Just as a sidenote, your exposure to games must be somewhat limited.

Hmmm, if you only knew!

I have several that advocate cheating, quite clearly. In fact, one states that if you cheat and weren't caught until after the fact, you can't be called on it.

So the game itself is about who can cheat the most without getting caught. Interesting, care to name these games in question?

While I generally do believe a thinking person's morality does derive from their reason, I also believe that reason to be inherently subjective. You claim that morality, however, is objective, which is to say independent of subject. What form of reason can you employ that is independent of people? Sorry, this is obviously self-contradictory; in what way is this morality system objective? It appears inherently subjective from the start!

Ah, but reason cannot be inherently subjective because reason is based on perception and valuing of reality which is necessarily external to the mind. That people reason is an objective fact. Or are you going to even deny that? You would have to deny reality exists, and any further discussion becomes non-sensical.

Argument from ignorance.

Just for your information I am Mexican, I have studied Mexican culture and history quite extensively.

How does one determine the strength of a culture?

By its moral integrity. A culture that is not objectively morally strong will either die by itself or be destroyed by another more morally stronger culture. I think history has shown this fact to be true.

Sorry, I don't see this as a good reason for its morality. How much truth does one need to reason?

A reasonable amount

This implies that not having morality, however, is immoral. Therefore, would you agree that all animals are immoral?

No, animals are amoral, not immoral.

I don't see how this is a moral argument--why is it objectively good to think?

I mean without human life you can't have morality to begin with since morality needs human life. It is objectively good to think, because without thinking you die as a human being. It is your moral imperative to think.

Many everyday things we do put human life at risk, so that quite clearly cannot be why the initiation of violence is wrong, unless you believe driving a car is wrong. Do you?

If you drive a car with the intent of killing then yes it would be wrong to drive a car.

Also, what counts as the "initiation" of violence? This seems like an extraordinarily subjective criteria.

It isn't at all if you use reason. Lets explore this with concrete examples.

DRFseven: Morality is acquired through emotional learning beginning very early in childhood with very little reasoning involved. Later, we use reasoning to modify our moral codes, though, typically, we end up much like our parents in our core values.

You do agree that morality stems from reason but the early "morality" acquired is certainly social conditioning, but would you really call that morality?

tronvillain: Specify a moral system and I'll tell you. Under mine, it's the rational decision.

No. You are falsely rationalizing your decision because true reason would actually involve the consideration of the moral agents involved in your decision. In this case you are shutting of a moral agent (the victim) from any reason from your part, unless you asked his willing consent from him to kill him beforehand.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

daemon

Primarily <a href="http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/" target="_blank">Illuminati</a>, though a handful of other games I have also advise cheating, usually on a selective basis, of course. I'd have to flip through the rules to find the specific ones.
The fact that humans reason, in general, does not make reason objective, however. It is true that all humans have opinions and values, as well, does this mean they are objective? No. Likewise, reason, as an act, may be objective, but the results of reason are inherently subjective. The process of discovering your objective morality relies on the results of reason, not on its objective existence.
That's fine, but it does not make your argument factual or true.
Historically, all cultures die off; this gives us no grounds for comparison, and thus the first part is unfalsifiable. Further, moral strength does not appear to be a factor in any combat; were the Bolsheviks morally stronger than the royalists of Russia? How about the Huns?
So, in other words, one does not need all of the truth in order to reason, and it is possible to reason from falsehood. Therefore, truth is not necessary to reason.
Well, then, why is having free will morally good if not having it is simply amoral, not immoral?
I fail to see how any system that depends upon humanity can be considered anything other than subjective.
This is avoiding the argument. You said that "willed violence is irrational as it puts human life at risk." I believe you have established that that which is irrational is wrong. If this is the case, then driving a car is wrong, regardless of intent, because it always puts human life at risk, which is irrational.
Okay. Since you're a Mexican, you probably know that pointing at a Mexican with your index finger is a bad idea. In fact, it could be considered, by said Mexican, to incite violence. Whether someone has "incited violence" or not depends strongly upon the subject. In other words, it is subjective.

99Percent

Primarily Illuminati, though a handful of other games I have also advise cheating, usually on a selective basis, of course. I'd have to flip through the rules to find the specific ones.

I've played the CCG version of Illuminati and I think I know what you are talking about. I would hardly say that this game advocates cheating, rather that it is the players responsibility to be extra vigilant about the rules since they are quite complex, and many people could inadvertantly break the rules. Sort of like in Monopoly that you must claim your rents and $200 everytime you pass Go. You can't accuse someone of cheating if he "forgets" to pay you the rent when he lands in your property, or accuse the bank if he is a player of "forgetting" to give you your $200 everytime you pass Go. Anyway, lets here more about games where cheating are openly advocated.

So, in other words, one does not need all of the truth in order to reason, and it is possible to reason from falsehood. Therefore, truth is not necessary to reason.

You reason with the truth that is available to you. But you can't reason by knowingly going against the truth, ie with falsehood. You need some truth to reason, in other words, you need a grasp of objective reality in order to reason. That you can't know all of objective reality doesn't mean you can't reason at all. Reason also allows for honest mistakes because you know that you don't know everything. However reason does not allow for intentional falsehood. Denying the right of existence of another moral agent is to commit intentional falsehood because you are shutting him up of his own knowledge and reason. For example, take tronvillain's scenario where he claims it is rational for him to kill another person for a billion dollars. However what if that person holds the secret to the whereabouts of tronvillain's lost daughter, or the cure for cancer? You really can't know what he knows, but then you again can't know everything. However, and this is important I think, by intentionally shutting of the source of knowledge of the moral agents (by killing him or lying to him) in your moral decisions you are unable to commit the correct moral act and therefore become immoral and objectively so.

Well, then, why is having free will morally good if not having it is simply amoral, not immoral?

The fact of having free will is not a moral question. It is the valueing of free will itself that is important. You either have free will or not that is not to choose. But you can value this free will in you or others in your moral decisions. Rationally speaking you must take into consideration this value in the absolute sense in order to make the correct moral decisions, because if you deny the value of free will of others then you deny free will in its entirely and therefore you undermine your own moral liberty. Its like accepting the value of logic itself in order to use logic. If you deny the value of logic then you can't reasonably expect to be able to use logic. This reasoning also applies to the other factors involved in morality: reason itself, human life and truth.

This is avoiding the argument. You said that "willed violence is irrational as it puts human life at risk." I believe you have established that that which is irrational is wrong. If this is the case, then driving a car is wrong, regardless of intent, because it always puts human life at risk, which is irrational.

No, I think I made it pretty clear when I said "willed violence is irrational". Notice emphasis. Driving a car by itself is not an intent to kill as you say, so it is not irrational violence. However you can objectively see when a person hops in a car and starts driving with an intent to kill, likewise you can reasonably objectively determine when a person ran over another by sheer accident or by reckless driving (though there was no intent).

Okay. Since you're a Mexican, you probably know that pointing at a Mexican with your index finger is a bad idea. In fact, it could be considered, by said Mexican, to incite violence. Whether someone has "incited violence" or not depends strongly upon the subject. In other words, it is subjective.

What a bizarre example, and I say this as Mexican too. Reason requires language, and by communicating you avoid this type of subjectivity. If it is the custom of a country that when somebody points a finger to somebody else being the mode of communicating to someone else that he wants to kill you in effect inciting violence then you can say that there is no subjectivity, and yes it is objectively wrong because he is initiating violence. If however there is a misunderstanding then it would not be a morally reprehensive act. For the record in Mexico finger pointing is not an incite to violence though it might be considered rude, like it is in the U.S. too. I wouldn't want to risk being rude in a country were I didn't have full command of the language. That is why you really say that if you go to Mexico it would be a bad idea to finger point, no?

daemon

I'm talking about the standard edition, though the CCG's separate book had some "optional rules" regarding cheating. It openly suggests looking at other players' hands if they leave the room, intentionally "forgetting" modifiers to dice rolls, etc.

Beyond that, I've read a lot about the metagame concepts involved with cheating and encouraging it. If you get caught cheating too much, people won't trust you, while if you don't cheat, you risk losing to the people who do and aren't getting caught. Developing a reputation for scupulous behavior also has plusses and minusses; people will trust you more, but the people who do cheat would probably prefer to cheat you, since they know you won't backstab them.
This appears to be an equivocation--you can know something which is false without it being intentionally so, so you can reason from falsehoods without any intent of doing so.
You keep telling me about what reason allows here--how does it allow for anything which is not derived from reality via the process of logic? Is it more than just that? Frankly, it sounds like you think of reason as some sort of agency external to humanity.
What?
While I disagree with tronvillain's assessment of the rationality of killing for money, I don't think your counterargument makes any sense.
Perhaps it is important, but it can't be morally important; animals do not value free will, yet they are not immoral, they are amoral.
I don't see how this follows, and I'm not sure what you mean by "denying" free will.
I still don't see how this follows.
This contradicts what you said! You indicated that it was irrational because it puts human life at risk. It appears that you are saying here that it is irrational because it involves an intent to kill. Which is it?

If you're trying to say that intentional violence is wrong because it intentionally puts human life at risk... this is circular.
So, in other words, it is not merely the initiation of violence which is wrong, but the intentional initiation of violence which is wrong, correct?
My apologies, but I was informed by a Mexican friend that pointing at a Mexican is a good way to get your head handed to you; if you must point, use your chin, I was told. However, pointing with a finger is not considered rude in the US, at the very least in Washington.
By attempting to communicate with anyone from a different culture, you risk being rude, so not wanting to risk being rude is a poor decision, in my opinion; you either wind up being unable/unwilling to communicate with others, or with the possibly incorrect assumption that you aren't being rude.

I'm still missing here, however, where you have established this morality's objective nature.