Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

If a behavior doesn't effect others in an adverse way, then it has nothing to do with morality. Again, in my opinion morality has nothing to do with personal opinion, homosexual behavior good vs homosexual behavior bad, it has to do with the effects of behavior on society as a whole.

But you are left with a metric you cannot assess - so you cannot arrive at moral norms individually OR collectively.

[DesertBerean]

Hmm, more likely "you are rightly not able, or unwilling to answer, so pretend not to be able to apprehend.

Do you even know the context for Babbage's quote? He had been asked a nonsense question.

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/c...babbage_141832

[Sparko]

Happiness is only one of many things we value that drive our moral codes - and it is not necessarily the most important. And since my position is that the individual's moral code has primacy, I am not locked to a social "best" that cannot be determined or quantified.

You are just as wishy washy as JimL is. Your "moral code" is nothing but a subjective code that you think would be best. Just like JimL. JimL's standard is what he thinks is "best for society" but that is completely subjective. You have more nebulous standards that keep shifting the more I try to pin you down. First it was Happiness, then some "social contract" and now "one of many things that drive our moral codes" and you are "not locked into a social 'best'".



To me objective morals means that some action is morally good or bad intrinsically. It doesn't matter if society thinks it is good because one society might think it is good and another evil (homosexuality for instance, or abortion)

If the entire world thought that Arianism was great and getting rid of jews was good, and it made everyone happy (except for the jews) then according to your code, it would be objectively moral? Or are you just saying that objective morality is something that doesn't even exist?

[Sparko]

There is no "objective moral truth" according to Carpe's criteria. That's the whole point. A subjective/relative framework cannot have an objective/universal outcome.

Ah. then ignore my question above. I thought you were arguing that there is objective moral truth.

OK then, So you are a moral relativist.

If the whole world did believe in Arianism and went about destroying Jews and non-arians and everyone loved it and was happy, then you would indeed think that was morally good because it was good for that society.

And in the USA during the 1700's when slavery was prevalent in the south and Society thought it was perfectly moral to keep and use slaves, that was morally good too, because that society benefited from it and was happy and prospered.

Great criteria.

[carpedm9587]

You are just as wishy washy as JimL is. Your "moral code" is nothing but a subjective code that you think would be best.

Yes, it is. Not sure that makes it "wishy washy." It has seldom changed.

Just like JimL. JimL's standard is what he thinks is "best for society" but that is completely subjective. You have more nebulous standards that keep shifting the more I try to pin you down. First it was Happiness, then some "social contract" and now "one of many things that drive our moral codes" and you are "not locked into a social 'best'".

Umm... no. The social contract is how we adjust our moral code in light of living in society. If we lived in isolation, it would not exist and our moral code would be dirven solely by our own relationship to our underlying value structure. And I have never said "happiness" is the only thing we value. I have (several times) said the things that most of us value include life, liberty, trust, prosperity, happiness, and so forth. It is not one thing. If you want ot have a discussion about specifically what I value, we can do that, and we can explore how my moral frameowrk unfolds from there.

To me objective morals means that some action is morally good or bad intrinsically. It doesn't matter if society thinks it is good because one society might think it is good and another evil (homosexuality for instance, or abortion)

I understand that. I just disagree that anything is "intrinsically" moral or immoral. an act is moral or immoral with respect to the values we hold that the act protects or compromises.

If the entire world thought that Arianism was great and getting rid of jews was good, and it made everyone happy (except for the jews) then according to your code, it would be objectively moral?

No. It would be objectively true that most of the world thinks it is moral. Nothing is "objectively moral" in a subjective/realtive moral framework.

Or are you just saying that objective morality is something that doesn't even exist?

In the way most people use the term - it does not exist.

[carpedm9587]

Ah. then ignore my question above. I thought you were arguing that there is objective moral truth.

Now you tell me!

OK then, So you are a moral relativist.

Yes.

If the whole world did believe in Arianism and went about destroying Jews and non-arians and everyone loved it and was happy, then you would indeed think that was morally good because it was good for that society.

No.

And in the USA during the 1700's when slavery was prevalent in the south and Society thought it was perfectly moral to keep and use slaves, that was morally good too, because that society benefited from it and was happy and prospered.

No.

Great criteria.

[37818]

Actually - I can think of several instances when a lie is the morally correct thing to do.

Yes. There is other good, where giving the truth would harm that good. Evil being against the good.

Truth versus the lie was used to illustrate.

Lie needs truth. Evil needs good, such as truth.

[Sparko]

Now you tell me!



Yes.



No.



No.

You have no basis to judge another society's moral actions if you are a moral relativist. You can't say that slavery was wrong, or that killing the jews was wrong. At best you can say "according to my moral beliefs it was wrong" and then someone else can say "who gives a flying fart about your moral beliefs?"

[seer]

If one culture says "pot is illegal" and another says "pot it legal," no one seems to complain of a rational problem. But when we change the word to moral, suddenly we have a problem? Why? Both are about actions, what ought and ought not be done. So why is one irrational and the other rational?

Right, in your world there are no right answers to moral questions, in mine there is.

Second, yes - there are possible logical/rational ways to critique another culture's (or person's) moral practices. If the culture values the same basic things (e.g., life, liberty, happiness, etc.), then it is possible to show now the moral code they have arrrived at is not consistent with the underlying values. Second, if they do NOT value the same things, it is logically possible to make a case for why these things can/should be valued by appealing to the benefits such valuing brings. There will be cases, however, where neither of those approaches works. You still have not explained why that is a problem. We have avenues for handling such moral disconnects.

But it all goes back to underlying values, if a culture, like Communist China, slaughters millions of dissents to promote political and social cohesion, then that is a moral good. But you are correct - in your world, that is not a problem.

[carpedm9587]

Yes. There is other good, where giving the truth would harm that good. Evil being against the good.

Truth versus the lie was used to illustrate.

Lie needs truth. Evil needs good, such as truth.

I'm not following any of that...

[carpedm9587]

Right, in your world there are no right answers to moral questions, in mine there is.

And you managed to not answer the question...

But it all goes back to underlying values, if a culture, like Communist China, slaughters millions of dissents to promote political and social cohesion, then that is a moral good to them. But you are correct - in your world, that is not a problem.

I added the missing words. And your conclusion is not correct. At no point did I say that was not a problem.

[seer]

I added the missing words. And your conclusion is not correct. At no point did I say that was not a problem.

Well why would killing millions dissenters be a problem given their goals?

[carpedm9587]

Well why would killing millions dissenters be a problem given their goals?

It would not be a problem...for them. It would be a problem for me...and for most other people on this planet (as far as I know).

You are, again, trying to measure a subjective/relative system by objective/absolute standards, Seer. You keep coming back to the same response, over and over and over again: subjective/relative moral frameworks are irrational/problematic/unworkable/unviable because they are not objective/absolute/universal/eternal. You still have not seen that all you are doing is repeating a definition. You're not actually making an argument.

As I have noted before - I have never encountered anyone who can make the case for moral objectivity/absoluteness that DOESN'T reduce to that objection (except the arguments from ridicule or outrage, of course). The objection is: "but there is no way to absolutely/objectively determine who is right." To which I can only nod and say, yes... that's true. That's what it means to be subjective/relative.


And you still did not answer that other question about what is legal vs. what is moral.

[seer]

It would not be a problem...for them. It would be a problem for me...and for most other people on this planet (as far as I know).

But that is merely your preference, or the preference of a majority. You think it is a problem, they don't. So when you say you have a problem with those acts, it is no more meaningful than them not having a problem. How could it be?

And you still did not answer that other question about what is legal vs. what is moral.

I have no idea what your point is, most laws are based on morality. We find things like murder, rape, stealing, etc... to be wrong (a moral judgement) so we make laws against them (legal).

[carpedm9587]

But that is merely your preference, or the preference of a majority. You think it is a problem, they don't. So when you say you have a problem with those acts, it is no more meaningful than them not having a problem. How could it be?

Ahhh... there's that "diminishing/ridiculing" word again - your other strategy (of three). Yes, it is my preference, but not "merely" a preference. It is a preference based on core values, not favorite flavors of pizza, though you would seem to want to paint those as equivalent.

And then there's the "more meaningful" thing - as if there is a need to assess this against a universal/absolute. You just cannot seem to stop yourself going back to that same well, over and over again. Seer - a subjective/relative moral framework is subjective - and relative. It really is not much of an argument to keep reminding everyone that it is subjective and relative.

I have no idea what your point is, most laws are based on morality. We find things like murder, rape, stealing, etc... to be wrong (a moral judgement) so we make laws against them (legal).

So my question was:

If one culture says "pot is illegal" and another says "pot it legal," no one seems to complain of a rational problem. But when we change the word to moral, suddenly we have a problem? Why? Both are about actions, what ought and ought not be done. So why is one irrational and the other rational?

Some laws are based in morality. Some are not. All laws are subjective/relative to the group/country/society writing them. Many laws derived by differing groups contradict each other (i.e., the pot laws above). There is no "universal" or "objective" norm to appeal to. Yet I have never seen anyone suggest any of this is irrational. But when "law" is replaced with "moral code," and the same is suggested - relative and subjective - suddenly it is "irrational."

Both deal with actions. Both deal with identifying ought/ought not. So what makes one irrational and the other not?