Miss USA: Health Care Is a Privilege, Not a Right...

[JimL]

Yes, you do good things to be a better person. derp.



Being a better person is it's own reward, both for yourself and those around you.

Exactly my point, morality is relative to the good of humanity, not arbitrary laws come from above, thank you.

[seer]

"Peaceably with your fellow man," well there you go, morals are relative to, and serve the purpose of, maintaining a peaceful society for both you and your nieghbors.

Well yes Jim, that is OUR OPINION.

[Joel]

Thats a circular argument Sparko, better, good, moral are synonomous terms. The question is what effect, what purpose, if any, does being a better person, a moral person, serve in your own life and that of society as a whole?

No more circular than your saying that morality is doing what's good for society.

[Sparko]

Exactly my point, morality is relative to the good of humanity, not arbitrary laws come from above, thank you.

No it benefits humanity by making us better people. I never said it "came from above" I said it starts with the individual.

I believe the VALUES we believe are good come from God. But the actions we do to achieve what we think of as "good" is what morality is about. It is doing good things to be a better person. That is the simplest definition of morality.

[JimL]

No it benefits humanity by making us better people.

Again, you are just making my point for me. Morals are relative to the best interests of human society, ergo to the best interests of human beings.

I never said it "came from above" I said it starts with the individual.

No argument there.

I believe the VALUES we believe are good come from God. But the actions we do to achieve what we think of as "good" is what morality is about. It is doing good things to be a better person. That is the simplest definition of morality.

The point is that morals are relative to the good of human society, ergo to human beings, and need not be grounded in some arbitrary external source, which is the argument that theists like seer is always making.

[JimL]

No more circular than your saying that morality is doing what's good for society.

"The best interests of society." Not circular, unless you want to argue that amoral individuals would be in the best interests of society.

[seer]

The point is that morals are relative to the good of human society, ergo to human beings, and need not be grounded in some arbitrary external source, which is the argument that theists like seer is always making.

Again Jim, it is merely your opinion that morals or laws exist to serve the greater good, and that opinion is no more valid or correct than the opinion of the powerful elite that ethics and law should serve their purposes.

[Joel]

"The best interests of society." Not circular, unless you want to argue that amoral individuals would be in the best interests of society.

You were just saying that "better, good, moral are synonomous terms". I would think "best interests" is likewise synonymous.

As for "of society", I think there much disagreement on that. You seem to be making society the end-in-itself. While I think Sparko is saying that good individuals is the end-in-itself, in which case society is good only insofar it is a means to producing good individuals (and could be something to be avoided insofar as it is a hindrance to that end). Also, for millennia moral philosophy centered around the four cardinal virtues, and only one of the four (justice) pertained to human interaction. The other three had to do with right relations within an individual. And even Plato (in the Republic) analyzed justice in terms of relations of parts within an individual.

[Carrikature]

Yet Carrikature other men pursue goals that require not treating men well and encroaching on their freedom. And that seem to be their fundamental goal - personal power and wealth, at the expense of others. If you say that such men also desire freedom and good treatment what difference does that make in their quest for power and control?

"Treat me well" and "let me be free" are the goals behind personal power and wealth. Nothing about those goals dictates how to treat others, though. That part comes next. The first part is the realization that those two goals are common to everyone. It sounds like you think you're contradicting me here, but you're not. I'm smart enough to have thought about all this and taken it into account.

Again, best for whom? Best defined by whom?

This is moving the goalposts. You asked what defines right/wrong. Asking who decides which is the best formula is something else altogether.

[Carrikature]

I dunno about that, JimL.
That sounds like a theist argument.

Part of the problem would be: How do you objectively evaluate a moral code?

For example:
Obviously, objectively the BESTEST moral code is monogamous lifetime sexual relationships. I'd maintain that is the BESTEST based on the fact that such an arrangement would completely eliminate many sexual diseases within a couple of generations. (STDs often kill or render a person sterile) This alone would save BILLIONS in healthcare costs, human suffering, and death. The advantages to that sort of moral code are numerous, easily quantified, and apparent... unless you're 18, feeling 'anxious', and alone with a really hot chick. At about that point the YOLO moral code becomes objectively the best code.

If your objective is subjectively determined you get what we have now.

Your example doesn't make sense to me. It seems more accurate to say that the YOLO isn't a moral code on its own, or even an attempt at following one. YOLO would be intentionally disregarding the code. I also don't understand how it suddenly becomes objectively the best in your example.

[Carrikature]

So you're saying an ultimate 'best moral system' exists out there regardless of the existence of a god?

I'll throw an objection your way just to get your thoughts.
I'm going to disagree with that because without a purpose there really can be no best moral system.

If your purpose is to save human life then the morality of donating blood is clear.
If your purpose is to destroy human life (to save the planet, for example) then the donating of blood would not be so clear.
Our evaluation of the best in that case would be dependent upon our purpose.

I know the example is weak, try to roll with it.

I just think a universe without an underlying purpose couldn't possibly suggest a best moral code because with no goal/purpose in sight there really wouldn't be a means to evaluate an action. We could do it on a personal level, sure, but then it would no longer be objective.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how your assumption of purpose means there is an underlying purpose, and how a moral code can only function if said purpose exists. I feel like you're equivocating goal with purpose, and it's evident in this last bit here.

I fully agree that "how best to achieve X" completely changes based on X. For the most part, though, I don't think X is broad enough to invalidate a good moral code. I think there are two or three basic principles which can extrapolate pretty well to every situation.

[Carrikature]

You've expressed the design/purpose that people are to cooperate with one another.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You stated that moral behavior is people cooperating with one another.
The behavior serves a purpose (survival) which would be a human purpose (bears don't consider human survival to be moral) and quite subjective.
So yes, your subjective morality does have a purpose or design behind it.

JimL was writing about an objective morality but I think he's stuck with either subjective morality or none whatsoever.

You've conflated "serves a purpose" with "is the purpose". Cooperation serves the purpose of survival, yes. Cooperation is not the purpose itself.


You're the first person I've heard suggest that a moral system can only be objective if it applies to all living creatures. That's not how anyone else treats it.

[seer]

"Treat me well" and "let me be free" are the goals behind personal power and wealth. Nothing about those goals dictates how to treat others, though.

Good because I thought you were jumping from is to ought.

The first part is the realization that those two goals are common to everyone. It sounds like you think you're contradicting me here, but you're not. I'm smart enough to have thought about all this and taken it into account.

I have no problem with this. Even an animal wants to be free and treated well (if it could articulate preferences). That "is" a fact. But again that tells us nothing about how we "ought" to treat the animal.

This is moving the goalposts. You asked what defines right/wrong. Asking who decides which is the best formula is something else altogether.

OK, then go with that - what defines right/wrong...

[Carrikature]

Jim, my wealth and security could still be threatened whether I treated my fellow man well or not. Many a cruel man has lived to a ripe old age, and many a good man have been cut down before their time. You are not making sense. And you keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that moral codes should serve the greater good. They could just as well serve the greedy majority or a powerful minority.

While it's certainly true that one needn't follow a particular code to achieve wealth and power, it's certainly evident that 1) such cases are outliers by far, and 2) fear remains a motivating factor behind maintaining these (see Stalin). It's pretty easy to see how there could be a method that is more viable for the general population, or (even better) eliminates the driving concern altogether.

But Jim, that is really not the world we live in. Wealth and security is one of the best ways to protect you and yours. Whether you treat others well or not.

This underscores my point about wealth and power being derivatives of "treat me well" and "let me be free".

In most of human history ethical systems and law primarily served the powerful elite. As they still do in a good portion of the world. So I will ask again Jim, why is your opinion of what a legal or moral system should accomplish more correct or valid than that of the powerful elite?

You're still conflating legal systems with moral codes. They aren't the same thing and never have been. It doesn't matter who the laws primarily serve. That's a political discussion, not a moral one.

[Carrikature]

Good because I thought you were jumping from is to ought.

Give me a little credit.

I have no problem with this. Even an animal wants to be free and treated well (if it could articulate preferences). That "is" a fact. But again that tells us nothing about how we "ought" to treat the animal.

Right. It doesn't tell us 'ought', but it's an important aspect of establishing 'ought'. So, too, is the realization that any action I take that infringes on your ability to achieve these goals will result in a pushback from you (and vice versa). It's trivial to say that such pushback would infringe on my own ability. The question, then, is how to we act in such a way as to realize our goals without having them infringed by others.