pleasant_darktwist

In a moral philosophy class I had once, years ago, the purpose of the class was to answer this question:

"An action (or inaction) is right if and only if:"

Now fill in the blank:

Examples:

if and only if no one is harmed.

It is found in a specific religious context.

it benefits more people than it harms.

people agree on it.

etc.

This question always sparks good discussions, and heavy thought.

I invite anybody to post, and anybody else to try to prove/disprove the theories posted here. Understand 'prove' does not mean that one in fact is right, rather that one has the argument that is most difficult to find fault in.

Let's begin.

Good luck and Peace.

Darktwist :notworthy

DRFseven

An action (or inaction) is right if and only if it feels right.

AdamWho

I believe that this is the wrong question.

1. It implies that morals are like laws, independent from the individual’s values. Some '-ism' is assumed by such a question, such as utilitarianism, hedonism or theism.

2. The best that this question can do is to create a list of "shoulds". However; it will be easy to find exception to any "should".

Whether an action is right or wrong depends on a individuals values. So a better question would be:

What action would maximize benefits based on my values?

A simple example:
Values
Money, comfort, safety, personal freedom

I have to balance my values, giving weight to the values in terms of importance. Such as: I value personal freedom much more that I value money.

Hence the moral action (which maximizes my values) is to work instead of stealing. However, in certain situations I might value eating over my personal freedom, and then stealing food would be reasonable.

The individual is the central figure in morals.

Alonzo Fyfe

"X is right (obligatory)" means "X is an act that a person with good desires would do."

"X is right (permissible)" means "X is an act that a person with good desires may choose to do or not do"

"X is wrong (prohibited)" means "X is an act which a person with good desires would not do."

"X is good" means that "There exists a desire that X" (End value) or "There exists a desire that Y and X is useful for bringing about Y" (Means value).

A desire is a propositional attitude.

A propositional attitude is a dispositional brain state. It is expressed in the form "Agent desires that X", where X is a proposition, and "desire" expresses the agent's mental attitude toward that proposition.

A proposition is the meaning component of a sentence. "Alonzo is writing this" and "I am writing this" are two different sentences, but they describe the same proposition (since, in this case, I = Alonzo).

There are two types of propositional attitudes, belief and desire.

A person with a "belief that X" has a mental attitude that the proposition X is true. Such a person is disposed to act as if X were true (even if X is not true).

A person with a "desire that X" has a mental attitude that proposition X should be made true or be made to remain true. Such an agent is disposed to make or keep X true to a degree proportional to the strength of the desire.

The more and the stronger the "desire that X", and the more and the stronger the "desire that Y" where X is useful in bringing about Y, the better X is.

A "good desire" is a desire that is itself desired (by oneself and others), and useful in bringing about that which is desired (by oneself and others). Again, the more and stronger the desires fulfilled by this desire, the better the desire is.

My most recent post in a thread on Subjective Morality describes this view in the context of the history of moral philosophy. Also, the series I am writing on Ethics Without God also describes how I came to this view -- or, it will by the time I get it done.

Eric H

Quote Alonzo Fyfe
A "good desire" is a desire that is itself desired (by oneself and others), and useful in bringing about that which is desired (by oneself and others). Again, the more and stronger the desires fulfilled by this desire, the better the desire is.
---------------------------------------------





I know this is not what you mean but, often when there are stronger desires by many it can involve power and greed.

In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England and divided the country up between his noblemen into great estates.

William and his noblemen had the law and justification of a victorious army to justify their actions.

What moral protection and desires did the conquered people have?

A thousand years later many of these estates are still owned by the ancestors of Williams invading army.

Ironically if a poor person was caught trying to steal from one of these wealthy people’s house today; they would be dealt with by the law.

It seems that the richer and more powerful a person becomes, the more they need the justification and the protection of the law.

The poorer a person is the less they have to loose and so they do not need the protection of the law so much.

Does wealth affect morality also?

peace

Eric

long winded fool

I've always assumed that an action is right if, and only if, it effectively accomplishes a goal in the fastest way possible without preventing the accomplishment of another goal. People do wrong things when they act ineffectively to achieve a goal, and by doing so, prevent or delay other goals from being achieved.

Now, I could say that my goal is to kill a child. But my goal is also to not go to jail. Here I must ask myself, why do I have these goals? In other words, what is my real goal here? What am I getting out of each of these desires? When I find out what it is about my emotional or intellectual state that is causing me to wish to kill a child and wish to retain freedom, I'll find out what my goal really is. Why do I want to kill a child? Why do I want to be free? Doing the right thing will enable me to get whatever it is that I expect to get by killing a child, while also getting whatever it is I expect to get by not being in jail. Put simply, I'll effectively get whatever it is I'm looking for, (power, revenge, etc.) in a way that will not prevent me from retaining something else that I desire (freedom, reputation, not being a criminal, etc.) This is the right thing to do, IMO. Therefore, the ability to critically analyze your own emotions and desires and reconcile them with other possibly conflicting desires and intellectual notions is what better enables you to tell right from wrong. Those who are not good at this, or are simply afraid to do it, are not going to be as good at telling the difference between right and wrong actions as those who are. This, incidentally, is my attempt at a rational explanation of the word "wisdom."

Obviously, though the 'right thing to do' would logically and technically be objective, since I am never in possession of all of the variables, I can never actually percieve the objective right thing to do. So I am never actually objectively right, I'm just aware of things that seem objectively wrong and I refuse to do these things. The more of these wrong things I'm aware of and avoid, the closer I am to being objectively right. (And happy.)

So, to ineffectively pursue a goal is an objectively wrong action. To effectively pursue it without preventing the effective accomplishment of another, is an objectively right action. How do we know for sure whether we are doing one or the other? We can't. We can just logically narrow the variables. If 2+2=4 100% of the time so far, we can assume that this is objectively true for the sake of argument. Do we know this absolutely? No. If we do find a variable that refutes this, we'll realize that we were engaging in a wrong action when we added two and two and got four.

pug846

This doesn't make any sense. Why does it mean to feel right? X is right if it feels right? It's completely circular because in order to define "feels right" you would have to define right, but you've defined right as feels right. So, X feels right if X feels right is a meaningless tautology.

DRFseven

If an individual feels that X is right, then X IS right (to that individual). Because that's what right is; a feeling.

AdamWho

long winded fool - I agree with your objectivist approach to morality, it is the only approach that makes sense to me.

pug846

But you haven't dealt with the problem I point out in my previous post - your answer is entirely circular. If you define right as "feeling right," which you have twice now, then you aren't saying anything meaningful.

Right is what feels right is like saying sad is what feels sad.