Valmorian

That's the point. As far as I can tell, "Wrong" is a word that is weighted with subjective morals. I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong. I don't believe in objective morals.

There is simply "amoral" actions. It is the values and judgements that people place on those actions that give them any moral weight.

tronvillain

Valmorian:
It really depends what you mean by "free will." I'd suggest reading Dennett's Elbow Room: On the Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.

The Other Michael

Since there seems to be a lack of examples of human societies that feel that murder can be a moral action, what about the Thuggee cultists in India (followers of Kali I believe, or possibly Durga)? My understanding is that for them the ritual strangulation of travelers was quite proper and served to glorify their goddess.

Of course, the strangulee might have begged to differ with them if they could have summoned the breath to do so.

But still, within their society murder (or perhaps ritual sacrifice) was quite the proper action, and in fact praiseworthy.

And I've NEVER seen a cat needlessly kill anything.

cheers,
Michael

99Percent

daemon: So, by what method does one rationally derive morals? It seems to me that this strongly depends on one's assumptions--if someone has different assumptions from myself, they may well rationally derive different morals.

We are talking about objective morals. Personal ethics are entirely different (though they are still hierchally bellow the directives of objective morals). In objective morals there are no assumptions. Everything is based on the absolute truth (absoluteness within the realm of human understanding of course, lets not get sidetracked either ).

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand how to parse the phrase "going against the truth is irrational." How do you determine this?

Of course its irrational! If you say its night when the sun is up I have to conclude you are being irrational. And irrationality is immoral because it is self-destructive. If you insist in constantly acting irrational you will die, as simple as that. I could list thousands of examples.

Furthermore, if that which is irrational is wrong, does this mean that people's emotions are wrong? Is a belief that the sky is simultaneously blue and not-blue morally wrong?

Emotions are not irrational unless they are not understood. That is why you have reason - to understand your senses and your emotions.

This seems like a very peculiar definition. What are "natural" and "non-natural" violence? How do you determine the rationality of them?

Non-natural violence is that coming from men with free will. Natural violence is that coming from nature itself, say when a shark attacks you, or an earthquake occurs.

Valmorian: All this exercise does is provide you a rationale for your own subjective beliefs. It says nothing about an objective "right" or "wrong". Ethics are goal based. That goal is not fixed, and so ethics cannot be fixed either.

There is no "belief" in objectivity, only truth and therfore knowledge. I already explained what the goal of objective morality is: life, truth, reason and free will.

The desire for life and death is certainly subjective. Not everyonce values the same things to the same degree. Some people value pleasure over long life.

There is nothing subjective about life and death. Without life there can be no morality to begin with, so any action that does not promote life is immoral. As to people valuing pleasure over long life, well they are acting irrationally and therefore immorally because without life there can be no pleasure.

As for free will, I'm not even convinced we HAVE free will.

Again, if you are going to deny you have free will, then you deny you have rationality - you self destruct.

Why are irrational things "wrong"? For that matter, the murder may be perfectly rational to the person initiating it. Perhaps the value they place on the perpetration of the act is greater than the penalty they will obtain if caught.

Murder of another human being cannot be rational if the person is initiating it, because he is going against the free will of another human being. The moment he does so he is creating a state of violence and any state of violence is irrational as the outcome cannot be objectively determined. It is creating random forces ie chaos. Any chaos is life threatening even to the person who initiated it.

It's a value judgement, and that person's values, ethics, morals, are subjective.

The value judgement pertaining to that person's values, ethics and morals are subjective. It is different when other person values, ethics and morals are involved. And I am not talking about "intersubjectivity" I am talking about the free will of others involved in your moral decisions.

put forth that it is not possible to know if one HAS free will or not.

If one does not have free will, then there is no morality involved. If that is so then why are you even talking about morality?

pug846

99percent, I’ve never understood your ethic. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you:

1) All humans have free will (I.e., the ability to choose between available options)
2) A rational person will recognize that others have free will

Therefore, a rational person will not go against the free will of another.

That makes little to no sense to me. Please fill in the missing premises.

Thanks.

99Percent

pug846: Hello, we meet again

99percent, I’ve never understood your ethic. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you:

First of all this is not my ethic. This is objective morality. It pertains to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Therefore, a rational person will not go against the free will of another.

Will not initiate violence purposely going against the free will of another - yes. Why doesn't it make sense?

pug846

99percent said:

I meant yours, as in what you hold the correct form of ethic to be. I realize you hold that it holds to everyone.

How does your conclusion follow from the premises? I don’t see any argument here. The two premises don’t lead to your conclusion. Other have the ability to make free choices – So what?

I mentioned to you this before, but you (and I think all Objectivists) have problems with what is the appropriate response to ‘violence.’ But, that's a whole other thread.

99Percent

I mentioned to you this before, but you (and I think all Objectivists) have problems with what is the appropriate response to ‘violence.’

I don't think any Objectivist has a problem to the appropiate response to violence - there isn't any except more violence.

The point is to realize who is the initiator of violence. This is the immoral agent that has to forcefully eliminated.

How does your conclusion follow from the premises?

I think the premise that you are missing is that violence is irrational. There can be no rational deducted result from violence, therefore it is irrational to initiate violence.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

tronvillain

Except that violence isn't irrational. If someone could come to your house, kill you, and steal everything you own, not get caught and not feel guilty about it, exactly how would they be irrational. Derive a contradiction.

shamon

&lt; Want exists,its an emotion, a desire,it exists in the same way that love or hate exists,it is innate.&gt;

Prove it. Prove that emotions like love, hate, or desire are innate.

See how annoying it is. I can’t be proven but we all know it’s there. We ALL know what need is.