Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    And would your assessment be right or wrong?
    I think you are making the same mistake Seer perpetually makes and cannot see. Perhaps you will have better luck seeing it. If your question is, "which one of you is objectively right/wrong," there is no answer to that question. It's like asking two people who disagree on the beauty of a sunset to determine which one of them is right or wrong. The sunset is objectively real, but it is not objectively beautiful. Beauty is a value judgement - and every person has their own basis for assessing it. That leaves "which one of you is subjectively right/wrong," to which I can only say. "the subjective world is not so binary."

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    What would be the basis of your assessment?
    The basis of my assessment is the moral framework I have developed over the 61+ years of my life. That moral framework has been influenced/informed by many sources, but it ultimately is mine and is the unique combination of all of those influences processed through my rational capabilities and experiences.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Agreed, morality is based on reason.
    You are agreeing with something I did not say. I said morality is a cognitive activity - it is a function of the human mind. I prefer to base my morality on reasoning, but not all people do so. Some people base their moral positions on feelings. Some simply align them with what a given book says. I think most people apply some amount of reasoning to it, but that varies widely from person to person.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Agreed. And the group can be right or wrong in the same way as an individual could be right or wrong.
    The morality of a group is just an "average." Virtually everyone in the U.S. agrees that "random or wanton killing is immoral." The consensus is not so broad on sexual activity between same-sex partners. when it comes to assessing whether a given society is right or wrong, it will be individuals doing that subjectively. I believe our society is moving in the right/moral direction by assessing same-sex unions as morally neutral or permissible. Seer believes our society is moving in the wrong direction and will see that as immoral. I assess society to be right in it's movement, and Seer assseses it to be morally wrong. There is no vantage point from which to make an objective assessment because you will ALWAYS end up at what the person making the assessment values. Seer values his god and believe his god requires him to have this opinion. My values do not include this notion.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I think that moralizing starts with individuals, but with individuals who are part of a society of individuals. Otherwise what would be the point of morals?
    It is not so simple. A child does not have any significant reasoning abilities, so it will quickly adopt the moral positions of the critical players in its life, including parents and other adults. As the child grows, their circle widens and they begin to encounter moralizing from more and more people and more and more groups. Eventually, hopefully, they begin reasoning through the various moral positions they are encountering and forming their own moral framework. This happens to varying degrees. Some forever hitch their wagon to the moral framework expressed by others. Some don't. Seer and many here are an example of the former. I am an example of the latter. That doesn't mean I am not influenced by these outside forces, but at the end of the day I am the arbiter of what I find to be moral, and no one can force a morality on me. If I think it is immoral to paint ones hair blue, I will think that regardless what society says. For someone to convince me otherwise would require them to either understand what I value and show me how that moral stance is not consistent with what I value, or convince me to value differently.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I think that what is best, when it comes to morals, is that which is best for the whole of which individuals are a part.
    I know that is what you think, but you cannot even express that without saying "I think." You cannot define "best" without having to define "best for whom?" And the individuals within a society will not all agree on "what is best" because they are making that assessment from a subjective point of view. You are trying to claim an objective basis in a vacuum, Jim. You have no way to logically assemble that argument.

    Chrawnus is correct in this. You didn't see it last time we chatted. Perhaps you will see it this time...?
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      You are agreeing with something I did not say. I said morality is a cognitive activity - it is a function of the human mind. I prefer to base my morality on reasoning, but not all people do so...
      Excuse me but...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        But Jim that is your subjective opinion, or what constitutes what is actually best for society is opinion. Your opinion would be much different than of the Stalinist.
        OR the tribalism of Moses and the tribal god made in his own image along with all the social values of the day attributed to him.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post


          Define evidence without begging the question.
          No. YOU define “universal moral truths” without begging the question
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            OR the tribalism of Moses and the tribal god made in his own image along with all the social values of the day attributed to him.
            So what is your point? It is not that Moses did anything wrong - just doing what animals do.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              No. YOU define “universal moral truths” without begging the question
              I asked first! You are the one constantly talking about evidence so again: Define evidence without begging the question.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Some forever hitch their wagon to the moral framework expressed by others. Some don't. Seer and many here are an example of the former. I am an example of the latter.
                What a load of crap Carp! First, did I hitch my wagon to Scripture for most of my life? No. Second, as we have seen from past discussions moral reasoning does not tell us a thing about what is actually right or wrong. It is no better for that exercise than instinct, moral intuition, or following a holy book. Such reasoning can just as well lead to the gulags. And in your case it is no more than mental masturbation.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  What a load of crap Carp! First, did I hitch my wagon to Scripture for most of my life? No. Second, as we have seen from past discussions moral reasoning does not tell us a thing about what is actually right or wrong. It is no better for that exercise than instinct, moral intuition, or following a holy book. Such reasoning can just as well lead to the gulags. And in your case it is no more than mental masturbation.
                  Thanks for sharing your opinions, Seer.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Thanks for sharing your opinions, Seer.
                    Good to see that you have no rational objections to my points. But be aware that if you bring me up in your posts, or repeat your tired unfounded claims I will respond.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Good to see that you have no rational objections to my points. But be aware that if you bring me up in your posts, or repeat your tired unfounded claims I will respond.
                      It's an open forum, Seer - you are always welcome to respond. I promise I will read all responses to anything I post.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I think you are making the same mistake Seer perpetually makes and cannot see. Perhaps you will have better luck seeing it. If your question is, "which one of you is objectively right/wrong," there is no answer to that question. It's like asking two people who disagree on the beauty of a sunset to determine which one of them is right or wrong. The sunset is objectively real, but it is not objectively beautiful. Beauty is a value judgement - and every person has their own basis for assessing it. That leaves "which one of you is subjectively right/wrong," to which I can only say. "the subjective world is not so binary."



                        The basis of my assessment is the moral framework I have developed over the 61+ years of my life. That moral framework has been influenced/informed by many sources, but it ultimately is mine and is the unique combination of all of those influences processed through my rational capabilities and experiences.



                        You are agreeing with something I did not say. I said morality is a cognitive activity - it is a function of the human mind. I prefer to base my morality on reasoning, but not all people do so. Some people base their moral positions on feelings. Some simply align them with what a given book says. I think most people apply some amount of reasoning to it, but that varies widely from person to person.



                        The morality of a group is just an "average." Virtually everyone in the U.S. agrees that "random or wanton killing is immoral." The consensus is not so broad on sexual activity between same-sex partners. when it comes to assessing whether a given society is right or wrong, it will be individuals doing that subjectively. I believe our society is moving in the right/moral direction by assessing same-sex unions as morally neutral or permissible. Seer believes our society is moving in the wrong direction and will see that as immoral. I assess society to be right in it's movement, and Seer assseses it to be morally wrong. There is no vantage point from which to make an objective assessment because you will ALWAYS end up at what the person making the assessment values. Seer values his god and believe his god requires him to have this opinion. My values do not include this notion.



                        It is not so simple. A child does not have any significant reasoning abilities, so it will quickly adopt the moral positions of the critical players in its life, including parents and other adults. As the child grows, their circle widens and they begin to encounter moralizing from more and more people and more and more groups. Eventually, hopefully, they begin reasoning through the various moral positions they are encountering and forming their own moral framework. This happens to varying degrees. Some forever hitch their wagon to the moral framework expressed by others. Some don't. Seer and many here are an example of the former. I am an example of the latter. That doesn't mean I am not influenced by these outside forces, but at the end of the day I am the arbiter of what I find to be moral, and no one can force a morality on me. If I think it is immoral to paint ones hair blue, I will think that regardless what society says. For someone to convince me otherwise would require them to either understand what I value and show me how that moral stance is not consistent with what I value, or convince me to value differently.



                        I know that is what you think, but you cannot even express that without saying "I think." You cannot define "best" without having to define "best for whom?" And the individuals within a society will not all agree on "what is best" because they are making that assessment from a subjective point of view. You are trying to claim an objective basis in a vacuum, Jim. You have no way to logically assemble that argument.

                        Chrawnus is correct in this. You didn't see it last time we chatted. Perhaps you will see it this time...?
                        I think that you are arguing for individual preference over facts when it comes to the best interests of society. I think that the reason we come to the moral conclusions we do concerning murder, theft, etc etc and codify them as laws is not simply because we prefer those things to be wrong, but we conclude that they are wrong because we understand that such behaviors are not in the best interests of individuals living together in a society. Not everybody has to agree with facts, or even know them to be facts, in order for them to be facts.
                        Last edited by JimL; 03-25-2020, 09:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          I think that you are arguing for individual preference over facts when it comes to the best interests of society.
                          Close. I am arguing that morality is rooted in personal preference (hopefully) informed by the facts.

                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          I think that the reason we come to the moral conclusions we do concerning murder, theft, etc etc and codify them as laws is not simply because we prefer those things to be wrong, but we conclude that they are wrong because we understand that such behaviors are not in the best interests of individuals living together in a society. Not everybody has to agree with facts, or even know them to be facts, in order for them to be facts.
                          You argument here sounds closely aligned with Seer's, at least with respect to the bolded part. The statement, taken by itself, is very true. How it is being applied to this situation is where your reasoning breaks down. This can be exposed by simply taking any moral principle and tracing it to its roots. Hopefully, along the way, we would agree on facts and we would be correctly applying reason. But I submit you cannot get to the root of any moral position without ultimately speaking about what you, the individual, value, which will always be a personal preference.

                          Your problem rests in the phrase "what is best for society." There is no objective basis for making this assessment. I know you are trying to claim there is - but you cannot actually make that case. If Person X believes that what is best for society is to remain small and self-contained, they could easily arrive at a moral code that permits them to kill any uninvited visitors and euthanize the oldest or youngest members when the population hits a particular level. There are many benefits to keeping a society small and personal. It will be hard for you to make an objective case that what you think is best for society would trump the views of Person X.

                          Fortunately, we share more in common as people than we have differences. As a consequence, there are some moral principles that are very widely held, to the point that they are seen as "universal." I believe (but cannot prove) that it is this phenomenon that has led so many for so long to hold to "universal, objective, moral truths." But the former does not logically necessitate the latter, and a bit of examination is enough to show that the existence of universal, objective moral truths can simply not be demonstrated. Indeed, the available evidence points in the completely opposite direction.

                          You clearly disagree - so I invite you to make the case for any moral position you hold without, at any point, resorting to a personal preference or opinion or subjective valuation. I don't think you will be able to.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Close. I am arguing that morality is rooted in personal preference (hopefully) informed by the facts.



                            You argument here sounds closely aligned with Seer's, at least with respect to the bolded part. The statement, taken by itself, is very true. How it is being applied to this situation is where your reasoning breaks down. This can be exposed by simply taking any moral principle and tracing it to its roots. Hopefully, along the way, we would agree on facts and we would be correctly applying reason. But I submit you cannot get to the root of any moral position without ultimately speaking about what you, the individual, value, which will always be a personal preference.

                            Your problem rests in the phrase "what is best for society." There is no objective basis for making this assessment. I know you are trying to claim there is - but you cannot actually make that case. If Person X believes that what is best for society is to remain small and self-contained, they could easily arrive at a moral code that permits them to kill any uninvited visitors and euthanize the oldest or youngest members when the population hits a particular level. There are many benefits to keeping a society small and personal. It will be hard for you to make an objective case that what you think is best for society would trump the views of Person X.

                            Fortunately, we share more in common as people than we have differences. As a consequence, there are some moral principles that are very widely held, to the point that they are seen as "universal." I believe (but cannot prove) that it is this phenomenon that has led so many for so long to hold to "universal, objective, moral truths." But the former does not logically necessitate the latter, and a bit of examination is enough to show that the existence of universal, objective moral truths can simply not be demonstrated. Indeed, the available evidence points in the completely opposite direction.

                            You clearly disagree - so I invite you to make the case for any moral position you hold without, at any point, resorting to a personal preference or opinion or subjective valuation. I don't think you will be able to.
                            Okay. Let's just take murder and theft for instance. Is it a fact, or is it just an opinion, that the moral against murder and theft, which I believe all societies have codified into law, is in the best interests of those societies as a whole or not?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Okay. Let's just take murder and theft for instance. Is it a fact, or is it just an opinion, that the moral against murder and theft, which I believe all societies have codified into law, is in the best interests of those societies as a whole or not?
                              We've had this discussion before Jim. Murder is not a good choice because it is a tautology. Murder is defined as "illicit (or wrongful) killing." So saying "murder is wrong" is the equivalent of saying "wrongful killing is wrong." The statement is true because it's a tautology. It's like saying "green is green." It's true - but it doesn't really say anything.

                              Theft is a better choice, so let's work with that. Theft is a very widely coded-for moral principle. As you note, most societies have moral (and legal) prohibitions against theft. This is because the vast majority of societies have subjectively defined something called "personal property." As soon as you decide "people can individually own things," theft becomes possible and a moral prohibition against it likely. After all, why define "personal property" if anyone can take anything at anytime from anyone? But there is no objective requirement for a society to decide to respect "personal property," and a society that does not define "personal property" won't have any moral prohibitions against theft. There are a small handful of aboriginal societies that function(ed) that way. I remember studying them in my college anthropology classes, though I could not hope to name one of them today. I do remember thinking it was an interesting way for a society to function: ultimate socialism.

                              So the prohibition against theft is rooted in a subjective basis: an individual or social decision to carve out "personal property." The fact that most societies and most individuals have subjectively decided to do this does not make it either absolute or universal. The best you can say is "in a society that subscribes to the concept of personal property, theft will most likely be defined as immoral/illegal."
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                We've had this discussion before Jim. Murder is not a good choice because it is a tautology. Murder is defined as "illicit (or wrongful) killing." So saying "murder is wrong" is the equivalent of saying "wrongful killing is wrong." The statement is true because it's a tautology. It's like saying "green is green." It's true - but it doesn't really say anything. The former is based on reason.
                                So, it could also be rephrased to say that immoral killing is immoral. So what makes it immoral/wrong? It's not just a preference, it's right reason based. It's true that unlike the fact that green is green because it is green, not because we say it is, murder is not factually immoral in that sense, but I think it is factually, or objectively true in the sense that murder, or wrongful killing, is objectively not in our best interests as a human society. We arrive at objective facts like that by reason.
                                Theft is a better choice, so let's work with that. Theft is a very widely coded-for moral principle. As you note, most societies have moral (and legal) prohibitions against theft. This is because the vast majority of societies have subjectively defined something called "personal property." As soon as you decide "people can individually own things," theft becomes possible and a moral prohibition against it likely. After all, why define "personal property" if anyone can take anything at anytime from anyone? But there is no objective requirement for a society to decide to respect "personal property," and a society that does not define "personal property" won't have any moral prohibitions against theft. There are a small handful of aboriginal societies that function(ed) that way. I remember studying them in my college anthropology classes, though I could not hope to name one of them today. I do remember thinking it was an interesting way for a society to function: ultimate socialism.
                                So the prohibition against theft is rooted in a subjective basis: an individual or social decision to carve out "personal property." The fact that most societies and most individuals have subjectively decided to do this does not make it either absolute or universal. The best you can say is "in a society that subscribes to the concept of personal property, theft will most likely be defined as immoral/illegal."
                                I think you are defining morality as those rules that are in the best interests of, or objectively right or wrong, with respect to human society. That's my point. I'm not arguing that, like mathematics, morals are objective in and of themselves, but I do believe that the most perfect societies would be so because of their correctly reasoned moral laws.
                                Last edited by JimL; 03-25-2020, 04:31 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X