Why do conservatives want to blame Islam?

[Sparko]

If someone is sufficiently crazy to think up is down, black is white, and rape isn't harmful, then we usually just regard them as crazy and not morally responsible for their actions. Our laws regard insanity as a valid legal defense.

It's often worth considering two separate things: The intentions present in an act (whether they were positive or negative ones toward others) which make an act moral or immoral, and the consequences of the action (the extent of harms or benefits that actually resulted). Both things exist, and both are important in their own way. People can take a good action with the best of intentions that turns out to have dire consequences. Other times people take a terrible action which happens to turn out for the best. But we usually place moral blame on them, or praise them, based on their intentions, not what happened to be unforeseen consequences of their actions.

who are you to claim that it is crazy? The whole point is that "harm" is in the one acting, you said. Harm is just a subjective term in a world of subjective morality. There are societies, even today, where rape is not actually "rape" but a man's authority over a women, his right. He doesn't see himself as harming her, but taming her, making her submit to his authority. If morality is flexible, then who are you to say that is "harm"?

No matter how hard people try to claim morality is subjective, they always prove themselves wrong by appealing to an objective moral standard.

[Starlight]

my problem is that the very concept of "harm" is subjective if morality is subjective. He wants to have morals be subjective but define "harm" as something objective. It is nonsensical.

Sparko, let's imagine that only two conscious beings exist in the universe and nothing else. One of the fundamental things each of those beings can do is take a positive or negative attitude towards the other being. To say the same thing in different words: they can have ill-will or goodwill towards the other, they can wish that bad things happen to the other being or they can wish good things happen to it, they can wish it harm and suffering and death or they can wish it to thrive, they can love it or hate it.

So at a very basic level, whenever two beings exist and interact the question arises: Are the intentions behind the interactions positive or negative? Are the actions being taken out of a positive desire to benefit the other, or a negative desire to bring harm to the other?

Such positive or negative intentions are fundamental to interactions between conscious beings, and are naturally present whenever such beings interact. They objectively exist.

That is what I mean when I say "harm is objective". The intention of harm in the mind of the being intending to cause it, objectively exists. The action that being takes, was objectively speaking, taken with the intention of causing harm to another out of ill-will towards that other.

Humans, can of course, disagree until the cows come home about the harms/benefits of various actions and ask questions like "does physically disciplining a child benefit them in the long run even if it harms them in the present" and argue about it and different people will come to different conclusions as to whether it's an overall harm or benefit. But if the mother who smacks her child is doing it out of love for the child, and truly believes she is helping the child and that it is to the child's benefit, then objectively speaking she is taking the action out of love and not intending harm. Whereas if the drunk father who beats his child is taking out his rage on the child, and truly intends to make the child suffer pain for the sake of it, then objectively speaking he is taking the action with negative intentions.

For various social reasons, it's regularly important to us as humans to pay attention to interactions between other humans and pay attention to whether those interactions are being driven by positive or negative intentions. We all constantly evaluate any actions we see people take, looking for motive, and trying to determine whether the person is doing it out of positive or negative intentions.

A lot of people find it convenient to slap the label "morality" on this concept, and thus have "morality" simply be the measure of how positive vs negative the intentions behind the interaction were. The concept obviously still exists regardless of whether or not you slap that label on it. And that is one of the many reasons I would call it an "objective" morality... because even those who prefer to slap the label "morality" on something else, still actually spend a huge amount of their life focusing on the above concepts. And these concepts have universal applicability, in all times, in all places, in all cultures. Any time any human, angel, god, or alien takes an action that affects another being, and does so with some sort of intention, that intent exists and can be a positive one or a negative one. These are important ideas that we all use regularly, so you might as well call them something, and "morality" seems as good a word for them as any other.

Calling these ideas "morality" very naturally gives rise to how we use moral terms in everyday language: "Good" and "evil" corresponding to positive and negative intentions toward others, as do "right" and "wrong" etc. And it's waaaaaay less cumbersome than saying "the action was taken with the intention to cause negative effect and suffering to the other being due to the presence of ill-will toward the other on the part of the doer"... we just say "evil" instead.

[Sparko]

Sparko, let's imagine that only two conscious beings exist in the universe and nothing else. One of the fundamental things each of those beings can do is take a positive or negative attitude towards the other being. To say the same thing in different words: they can have ill-will or goodwill towards the other, they can wish that bad things happen to the other being or they can wish good things happen to it, they can wish it harm and suffering and death or they can wish it to thrive, they can love it or hate it.

So at a very basic level, whenever two beings exist and interact the question arises: Are the intentions behind the interactions positive or negative? Are the actions being taken out of a positive desire to benefit the other, or a negative desire to bring harm to the other?

Such positive or negative intentions are fundamental to interactions between conscious beings, and are naturally present whenever such beings interact. They objectively exist.

That is what I mean when I say "harm is objective". The intention of harm in the mind of the being intending to cause it, objectively exists. The action that being takes, was objectively speaking, taken with the intention of causing harm to another out of ill-will towards that other.

Humans, can of course, disagree until the cows come home about the harms/benefits of various actions and ask questions like "does physically disciplining a child benefit them in the long run even if it harms them in the present" and argue about it and different people will come to different conclusions as to whether it's an overall harm or benefit. But if the mother who smacks her child is doing it out of love for the child, and truly believes she is helping the child and that it is to the child's benefit, then objectively speaking she is taking the action out of love and not intending harm. Whereas if the drunk father who beats his child is taking out his rage on the child, and truly intends to make the child suffer pain for the sake of it, then objectively speaking he is taking the action with negative intentions.

For various social reasons, it's regularly important to us as humans to pay attention to interactions between other humans and pay attention to whether those interactions are being driven by positive or negative intentions. We all constantly evaluate any actions we see people take, looking for motive, and trying to determine whether the person is doing it out of positive or negative intentions.

A lot of people find it convenient to slap the label "morality" on this concept, and thus have "morality" simply be the measure of how positive vs negative the intentions behind the interaction were. The concept obviously still exists regardless of whether or not you slap that label on it. And that is one of the many reasons I would call it an "objective" morality... because even those who prefer to slap the label "morality" on something else, still actually spend a huge amount of their life focusing on the above concepts. And these concepts have universal applicability, in all times, in all places, in all cultures. Any time any human, angel, god, or alien takes an action that affects another being, and does so with some sort of intention, that intent exists and can be a positive one or a negative one. These are important ideas that we all use regularly, so you might as well call them something, and "morality" seems as good a word for them as any other.

Calling these ideas "morality" very naturally gives rise to how we use moral terms in everyday language: "Good" and "evil" corresponding to positive and negative intentions toward others, as do "right" and "wrong" etc. And it's waaaaaay less cumbersome than saying "the action was taken with the intention to cause negative effect and suffering to the other being due to the presence of ill-will toward the other on the part of the doer"... we just say "evil" instead.

either harm is an objective thing that everyone agrees on, or it is a subjective thing that can be disagreed on. Your argument above is useless. If I and you are the only two people in the world we might or might not agree on what is harm. I might do something to you that I feel is not harm, but you might think is harm. Did I do something immoral or not? I might think that I deserve your stuff and so I take it. You might think that harmed you. Did I harm you? Are you now saying that the morality of an action is determined by the person who was acted against instead of the intentions of the person making the action? And what if there were three people, and two of them agreed that taking your stuff was good. Does that overrule your feeling of harm?

You keep insisting that there is some objective standard we can use to measure what is "harm" and what is not "harm" and yet still insist that morals are subjective. If there is some objective standard to measure "right and wrong" against, then morals are not subjective at all. Make up your mind.

[MaxVel]

Well I would certainly fling it at you. The fact that you of all people are are defending him on this, is like a KKK member telling me that his friend in the white hood next to him totally has nothing at all against black people, and is damning in and of itself due to the source of the testimony.

I get that you don't like being called a homophobe, and get that you've gotten frustrated by the word after having been called it for decades. Racists tend to hate being called racist too. Here's a radical idea about how to make it stop: Stop giving people ample cause for using the label, by actually stopping being anti-gay.

Is this the part where I run away, scared that you're labelling me as a racist homophobic anti-gay?

You're proving my point: you can only discuss ideas that are offensive to other people. When it comes to your particular idols you get very 'protective'.


Let's see if you can back up your rhetoric:

Why me "of all people"?? What's so bad about me? Be specific.

When was I first called a homophobe, and by whom?

What specifically about me shows that I am "anti-gay"? What have I said (cite actual quotes), or done?

[Starlight]

There are societies, even today, where rape is not actually "rape" but a man's authority over a women, his right. He doesn't see himself as harming her, but taming her, making her submit to his authority.

In such a situation, I think we would all agree that:
1) A harm is being done
2) The man is not intending harm and does not perceive himself to be doing harm

Obviously the man has a poor understanding of the effects of his actions, and we feel that his understanding of the harms involved don't match well to the true harms involved. He didn't intend harm, but he is in reality actually doing harm. He has positive intentions toward the woman, but somehow ends up having "negative effects" on her.

Now this notion of "negative effects" or "doing harm" is a little bit vague and nebulous of a term. Intending harm is relatively easy to conceptualize as a malevolent action, and is what's relevant to morality IMO as I explained in my previous post. But the notion of what actually constitutes "harm" in the real world is complicated, and IMO not really relevant to morality. A useful definition might be along the lines of "something a benevolent 3rd party would not want to see happen to the person". In practice, we all basically tend judge harm based on thinking of ourselves in their place and asking the question "would I want that to happen to me if I were them?"

It's important to note that "intending harm" and "doing harm" are two very different types of things, and the harm is measured in different ways in each of them. "Intended harm", is something that happens purely in the mind of the intender and objectively exists. Whereas "doing harm" is something that happens in the real world and is usually judged by social consensus but is usually to some extent subjective.

either harm is an objective thing that everyone agrees on, or it is a subjective thing that can be disagreed on.

You're confusing intentions and results. Harm intended objectively exists, harm done is a subjective matter. Only the first really matters for morality IMO. If I think "I want to harm Sparko" then it's true that I really thought that. Whereas if I punch you, people could argue over what amount of harm I really did and discuss whether you learned a valuable lesson from it and whether that made it worth it, etc. So it would be objectively true that I intended harm, but there can be plenty of subjective debate about the level of harm I actually succeeded in causing and the extent to which it truly harmed you.

If I and you are the only two people in the world we might or might not agree on what is harm. I might do something to you that I feel is not harm, but you might think is harm. Did I do something immoral or not?

A worthwhile thought experiment. Your actions would not be immoral. But if I then informed you that I felt I was harmed by it, then assuming you had good will toward me you would presumably listen to my words and not repeat the action I said was harming me.

You keep insisting that there is some objective standard we can use to measure what is "harm" and what is not "harm" and yet still insist that morals are subjective. If there is some objective standard to measure "right and wrong" against, then morals are not subjective at all. Make up your mind.

I think morality is objective. I think I've been pretty clear and consistent on that. That is because the morality of the action lies in the intent and not the consequences. Consequences are very subjective things and people can argue over whether they feel they the complicated consequences of an action were overall good or overall bad or some sort of mix. Whereas intent definitively exists in the mind of the person who is taking the action: Something is really going through your mind as you take an action, and it is whether that is positive or negative with respect to other people that characterizes the morality of the action.

[seer]

I think morality is objective. I think I've been pretty clear and consistent on that.

This is what does not make sense. Yes, if I punch you and steal your money that is an objective act. But why would it be objectively wrong? That is a subjective consideration. You may think it is wrong that I took your money, I think it was a good thing to enrich myself. I don't see what is "objective" here.

[Adam]

Such a thing as a "sociopath" exists. I myself believe it is more than a term of psychological disorder. But that in itself is "objective", at least to the extent one believes in psychiatry. We define that as "objective", whether one (the sociopath himself, perhaps) regards it as "subjective".
(I'm a skeptic myself about the psychiatric profession, so I need to come up with a better argument, I guess. On the other hand, one of my doubts about the "profession" is its own back-sliding from labeling homosexuality as a personality disorder. I would hold it was originally objectively correct to name it as a disorder.)

[Sparko]

In such a situation, I think we would all agree that:
1) A harm is being done
2) The man is not intending harm and does not perceive himself to be doing harm

And your previous "definition" of immorality is "intentionally doing harm to others." So if he is not intending harm by raping her, then it is not immoral according to your previous definition. Yet you obviously disagree with your own definition because now you are appealing to some universal objective concept of "harm" - which means that morality is not subjective at all. Game over Starlight. Thanks for playing.

[snip - the rest of your post, trying to argue for an objective standard of "harm" while still claiming that morals are subjective ]

I think morality is objective. I think I've been pretty clear and consistent on that. That is because the morality of the action lies in the intent and not the consequences. Consequences are very subjective things and people can argue over whether they feel they the complicated consequences of an action were overall good or overall bad or some sort of mix. Whereas intent definitively exists in the mind of the person who is taking the action: Something is really going through your mind as you take an action, and it is whether that is positive or negative with respect to other people that characterizes the morality of the action.

And you see no inconsistency in that? Claiming that morality is objective, and subjectively in the intent of the action and not the consequences? You are arguing two opposite things. If morality is objective then even if you think that murdering someone is just great fun, it is still immoral.

[NorrinRadd]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Now honestly, if that kind of thing is against your constipated "rules," you really are a sad bunch of clowns.

[Carrikature]

The person acting. If they take an action with the intention of causing harm the action is, by definition, immoral.

Morality is about whether intentioned beings act positively or negatively towards conscious beings. The acting being is the one who's intentions matter for moral purposes: Are the intentions negative ones (ie the intention is to cause harm) or positive ones (ie the intention is to benefit others)?

The major issue here is that intentionality is not a dichotomy. The third option you've left out is intention without regard to others. To root morality/intentionality in terms of harm, however, one must necessarily consider the results.

To use the system you've setup, you need to define moral as 'acting with the intention to benefit others' and immoral as 'not acting with the intention to benefit others'.

[Carrikature]

And your previous "definition" of immorality is "intentionally doing harm to others." So if he is not intending harm by raping her, then it is not immoral according to your previous definition. Yet you obviously disagree with your own definition because now you are appealing to some universal objective concept of "harm" - which means that morality is not subjective at all. Game over Starlight. Thanks for playing.

I think there's a caveat where one could be unaware of the effect of one's actions. By Starlight's system, it would be immoral only if he understood the results and did it anyway. A similar concept is used in the 'age of accountability' line of reasoning.

[Sparko]

I think there's a caveat where one could be unaware of the effect of one's actions. By Starlight's system, it would be immoral only if he understood the results and did it anyway. A similar concept is used in the 'age of accountability' line of reasoning.

only if that person actually thinks that such an action is immoral and does it accidentally. Such as thinking murder is wrong, yet killing someone by accident. But that is not the same thing as "intention to do harm" as the standard for morality. Because if the person doesn't think that killing someone is immoral, then he could go around murdering people and not be doing anything wrong. Like Hitler. He thought is was good to go around killing millions of Jews. Does that make him moral? If not, then there is some objective standard of right and wrong that we hold everyone to, regardless of their intent or belief about what harm is.

[Carrikature]

only if that person actually thinks that such an action is immoral and does it accidentally. Such as thinking murder is wrong, yet killing someone by accident. But that is not the same thing as "intention to do harm" as the standard for morality. Because if the person doesn't think that killing someone is immoral, then he could go around murdering people and not be doing anything wrong. Like Hitler. He thought is was good to go around killing millions of Jews. Does that make him moral? If not, then there is some objective standard of right and wrong that we hold everyone to, regardless of their intent or belief about what harm is.

A person could think an action is immoral and do it accidentally, yes. A person could also not know that an action is immoral and do it intentionally. The latter case is what I was referring to.

There's a reasonable limit to "doesn't know any better", though. A kid isn't born knowing that hitting other people is wrong. They have to be taught. An adult should know better. We do account for intention and reasonable understanding of probable effect in our judicial system. Hitler has no room to wiggle in such a structure, since his killing of others was 100% intentional, and there's no reasonable excuse for him not knowing it's wrong.

One might argue that Hitler could have thought he was doing a net good by eliminating a blight. Such an argument would show why utilitarianism ultimately fails, imo.

[Sparko]

A person could think an action is immoral and do it accidentally, yes. A person could also not know that an action is immoral and do it intentionally. The latter case is what I was referring to.

There's a reasonable limit to "doesn't know any better", though. A kid isn't born knowing that hitting other people is wrong. They have to be taught. An adult should know better. We do account for intention and reasonable understanding of probable effect in our judicial system. Hitler has no room to wiggle in such a structure, since his killing of others was 100% intentional, and there's no reasonable excuse for him not knowing it's wrong.

One might argue that Hitler could have thought he was doing a net good by eliminating a blight. Such an argument would show why utilitarianism ultimately fails, imo.

and you too are appealing to some universal, objective sense of right and wrong.

whether someone has to be taught that or not, you are appealing to some moral standard that we ought to all agree to.

[Sea of red]

Seven and half billion people are not going to agree on some objective morality.

Ever.