Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hans · 04-05-2002, 06:51 PM

MadMordigan

Quote:

There is no 'foundation'. Actions are moral or immoral depending on the subjective view of the participant/witness.

Those are the arguments I'm looking for. If I understand you correctly you would argue that it can not be shown to be wrong.

Wizardry · 04-05-2002, 07:05 PM

The Rule

I think it�s pretty obvious why we�ve developed laws and moral rules against these sort of actions. If a society accepted the rape and murder of children, it would soon die from lack of membership. It would also die from the distrust between its members because, by definition, nobody wants to be raped.

So somewhere along the line, somebody made a rule that said you couldn�t do those things to other people that you didn�t want done to yourself. It really was necessary for the integrity of the society.

Guilt

How do you make someone feel guilty about breaking these rules?

You can�t.

The feeling of guilt that results when a moral agent breaks a moral rule is not something that can be commanded or legislated. No moral system, not even a theistic one, can make someone feel guilty about it. Guilt results from the psychological connection between members of a society. We feel empathy for children, which is why we feel bad when one is brutalized.

Hope that answers the question.

Peace out.

MadMordigan · 04-05-2002, 07:09 PM

If I understand you correctly you would argue that it can not be shown to be wrong.

Thoughts are thoughts, and I do not believe that thoughts can be subject to moral imperatives. Since it is pretty much impossible to determine what another's thoughts are, all 'shoulds' are inapplicable. How could we determine if an actor has a prohibited thought? How could we determine if he had removed that thought from his mind? It makes far more sense to treat other minds as black boxes and forgo the unidetifiable and unenforcable 'shoulds'.

Hans · 04-05-2002, 07:32 PM

MadMordigan

I think I'm gettin it now.

Brad Messenger · 04-05-2002, 07:56 PM

What is the benefit of persuading this extremely small fringe group of people who take pleasure in the horrible suffering of others, rather than removing them from society?

Since almost all citizens will not tolerate behavior that kills a child, it will benefit the rapist/murderer more to try to persuade all of us why his actions were not wrong.

If he does not even attempt an argument showing why it is morally admissable, one can wonder whether he really believes it is not immoral. If he does attempt an argument, we'll be able to see what are his fundamental moral principles such as "inflicting harm unnecessarily is always wrong." If he denies these fundamental principles (by fundamental, I mean those moral values that I and most people would never allow for compromise) there is no way to persuade him that he is wrong.

Since the effort will be futile, the best remedy is to remove him from society and allow him, isolated in his cell, to contemplate his actions and the consequences and determine whether his actions were morally wrong and worthy of feeling guilty about.

The fact that he could commit the acts as the girl probably screamed and cried in pain and fear proves more than anything that nothing could demonstrate to his satisfaction that his acts were morally wrong. I bet no one would care what he felt was the moral weight of his actions because we would consider his moral opinions meaningless.

John Page · 04-05-2002, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans:
.....demonstrate how I (in the above hypothetical) have done anything wrong. Wrong as in I (in the above hypothetical) should feel guilty about it.

Why did you do it? (Hypothetically)

Tom Piper · 04-05-2002, 11:20 PM

Hans,

Do you want the wrongness of what you have done demonstrated, or do you want merely to be persuaded to a particular viewpoint?

Maybe you have implictly answered this already, but I would like to be clear about it.

Tom

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]

Jayhawker Soule · 04-06-2002, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans:
Wrong as in I ... should feel guilty about it.

Wrong ::= Hans 'should' feel guilty

Right ::= Hans 'should' feel proud

Doesn't this belong in some "Therapy Forum"?

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

shamon · 04-06-2002, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans:
Hypothetical, of course!!

I just brutally raped, sodomized, tortured, then burried alive a six year old child leaving the child in pure terror until the child dies of fright or sufficates.

End of hypothetical.

Your mission should you accept it (Mission Impossible music playing in the background), is to demonstrate how I (in the above hypothetical) have done anything wrong. Wrong as in I (in the above hypothetical) should feel guilty about it.

This tape will self destruct in five seconds.

Good luck!

Does this really need to be demonstrated? Are we so relativist that we don�t know basic right and wrong. You demonstrated the wrongness of your action by doing it. No one would think what you did wasn�t wrong regardless of their society.

It�s like female genital mutilation. It doesn�t matter WHO does it, it�s ALWAYS wrong and should be condemned. So should your actions.

That you came up with this hypothetical story at all tells me a lot about your personality.

Romza Dza Bza · 04-06-2002, 07:41 AM

Your question seems to be, "what is absolutely, objectively wrong or immoral about the above acts?" Although there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity, objectivity itself is subjective in a real sense. Objectivity assumes consciousness. Without consciousness, there can be no value judgments at all. An asteroid does not care what happens to a comet. But since there is consciousness, objectivity can exist. That fact makes objectivity subjective. So we should think of objectivity as conscious objectivity, and subjectivity as conscious subjectivity. (Since consciousness is a given, I will omit the word "conscious" from the terminology.)

Given the above, it must be true that what we think of as right and wrong can be viewed objectively. From an asteroid’s perspective, nothing is wrong with rape and murder. But to us, there is something wrong. If an act is universally considered immoral, then it's objectively immoral, even though the people who view it as immoral are thinking subjectively.

So if what we think is wrong with it can be seen as "objectively wrong," it’s objectively wrong within the consciousness framework I’ve tried to outline in the first paragraph.

So the question is, what makes something "objectively wrong?"

I believe in the existence of "natural morality." Objectively correct, universal principles of right and wrong drive our thinking. Maybe it’s God’s law. But you don’t have to believe in a god in order to accept natural morality.

The basic essence of the individual includes the desire to survive and thrive. No matter what, survival and thriving requires at the bare minimum that you do something for yourself, whether consciously or not. Therefore, it stands to reason that the ability to do for self should be seen as a basic right of any individual. Survival of the individual is necessary to the survival of the human species, and therefore of conscioousness itself. Since consciousness is necessary for morality to exist, survival and thriving of the individual can be seen as a virtue.

So those actions that directly deprive the individual of his right to govern his own fate, and his own ability to pursue his want-need intersect (more on that some other time), are objectively wrong. Your hypo easily fits the bill.

I realize that, in the interest of brevity and time, I’ve skipped some major analytical steps. As people respond to me, I’ll respond to specific questions or criticisms.

04-05-2002, 11:20 PM	#17
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	Hans, Do you want the wrongness of what you have done demonstrated, or do you want merely to be persuaded to a particular viewpoint? Maybe you have implictly answered this already, but I would like to be clear about it. Tom [ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2002, 07:05 PM	#12
Wizardry Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 363	The Rule I think it�s pretty obvious why we�ve developed laws and moral rules against these sort of actions. If a society accepted the rape and murder of children, it would soon die from lack of membership. It would also die from the distrust between its members because, by definition, nobody wants to be raped. So somewhere along the line, somebody made a rule that said you couldn�t do those things to other people that you didn�t want done to yourself. It really was necessary for the integrity of the society. Guilt How do you make someone feel guilty about breaking these rules? You can�t. The feeling of guilt that results when a moral agent breaks a moral rule is not something that can be commanded or legislated. No moral system, not even a theistic one, can make someone feel guilty about it. Guilt results from the psychological connection between members of a society. We feel empathy for children, which is why we feel bad when one is brutalized. Hope that answers the question. Peace out.

04-05-2002, 07:09 PM	#13
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	If I understand you correctly you would argue that it can not be shown to be wrong. Thoughts are thoughts, and I do not believe that thoughts can be subject to moral imperatives. Since it is pretty much impossible to determine what another's thoughts are, all 'shoulds' are inapplicable. How could we determine if an actor has a prohibited thought? How could we determine if he had removed that thought from his mind? It makes far more sense to treat other minds as black boxes and forgo the unidetifiable and unenforcable 'shoulds'.

04-05-2002, 07:32 PM	#14
Hans Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 247	MadMordigan I think I'm gettin it now.

04-05-2002, 07:56 PM	#15
Brad Messenger Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: New York,NY, USA Posts: 214	What is the benefit of persuading this extremely small fringe group of people who take pleasure in the horrible suffering of others, rather than removing them from society? Since almost all citizens will not tolerate behavior that kills a child, it will benefit the rapist/murderer more to try to persuade all of us why his actions were not wrong. If he does not even attempt an argument showing why it is morally admissable, one can wonder whether he really believes it is not immoral. If he does attempt an argument, we'll be able to see what are his fundamental moral principles such as "inflicting harm unnecessarily is always wrong." If he denies these fundamental principles (by fundamental, I mean those moral values that I and most people would never allow for compromise) there is no way to persuade him that he is wrong. Since the effort will be futile, the best remedy is to remove him from society and allow him, isolated in his cell, to contemplate his actions and the consequences and determine whether his actions were morally wrong and worthy of feeling guilty about. The fact that he could commit the acts as the girl probably screamed and cried in pain and fear proves more than anything that nothing could demonstrate to his satisfaction that his acts were morally wrong. I bet no one would care what he felt was the moral weight of his actions because we would consider his moral opinions meaningless.

04-06-2002, 07:41 AM	#20
Romza Dza Bza New Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: New jersey, USA Posts: 4	Your question seems to be, "what is absolutely, objectively wrong or immoral about the above acts?" Although there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity, objectivity itself is subjective in a real sense. Objectivity assumes consciousness. Without consciousness, there can be no value judgments at all. An asteroid does not care what happens to a comet. But since there is consciousness, objectivity can exist. That fact makes objectivity subjective. So we should think of objectivity as conscious objectivity, and subjectivity as conscious subjectivity. (Since consciousness is a given, I will omit the word "conscious" from the terminology.) Given the above, it must be true that what we think of as right and wrong can be viewed objectively. From an asteroid’s perspective, nothing is wrong with rape and murder. But to us, there is something wrong. If an act is universally considered immoral, then it's objectively immoral, even though the people who view it as immoral are thinking subjectively. So if what we think is wrong with it can be seen as "objectively wrong," it’s objectively wrong within the consciousness framework I’ve tried to outline in the first paragraph. So the question is, what makes something "objectively wrong?" I believe in the existence of "natural morality." Objectively correct, universal principles of right and wrong drive our thinking. Maybe it’s God’s law. But you don’t have to believe in a god in order to accept natural morality. The basic essence of the individual includes the desire to survive and thrive. No matter what, survival and thriving requires at the bare minimum that you do something for yourself, whether consciously or not. Therefore, it stands to reason that the ability to do for self should be seen as a basic right of any individual. Survival of the individual is necessary to the survival of the human species, and therefore of conscioousness itself. Since consciousness is necessary for morality to exist, survival and thriving of the individual can be seen as a virtue. So those actions that directly deprive the individual of his right to govern his own fate, and his own ability to pursue his want-need intersect (more on that some other time), are objectively wrong. Your hypo easily fits the bill. I realize that, in the interest of brevity and time, I’ve skipped some major analytical steps. As people respond to me, I’ll respond to specific questions or criticisms.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.