Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

There is no moral code in the New Testiment, if there were you wouldn't need intuition, and intuition isn't knowing.

But all you have is moral intuition, so I guess you know nothing about morality...

[carpedm9587]

Well, I don't think that morals have some kind of objective existence as if they exist out there on there own as laws of some sort, I just believe that there are certain human behaviors/actions that are objectively in the best interests of a human society and that their opposites would not be in the best interests of society. Objective existence and objective facts are, I think, two different things.

We've had this discussion before, Jim. The problem is "in the best interests." There is no objective measure for this. It will always be subjective to the person or group making the assessment. "Best interests" or "good" are value judgments. They depend on a valuer to assign them value, which is a subjective exercise..

[carpedm9587]

"The best interests of a human society" is largely subjective. What you think is in the best interest for society could very well be diametrically opposite to what someone else might think is in the best interest for society. So ultimately you're back to subjective opinion again, the only difference is you've shifted the subjectivity one step further away.

[carpedm9587]

And you could argue that, but unless you had objective values to ground your arguments in it would still ultimately just be your subjective opinion against theirs.

That is pretty much the core of it. As with any preference, a moral preference will always put one persons subjective moral preference against another's. It has always been thus.

But I think we've gone around this horn more than once, you and I, though I have to admit I have always enjoyed the discussions. You are one of the few people here who keeps your posts about the issues and the argument at hand, without sidetracking to personal insults or accusations of disingenuity (did I just make up a word?).

Nice to see you again.

[Tassman]

if there were no sentient beings in the universe to understand the laws of logic that would not bear on the idea of whether the laws of logic are valid or not.

The laws of logic do not exist in some abstract Platonic universe isolated and self-contained. They exist only insomuch as they are used to analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is valid or invalid.

Just as the moral law of God would exist even if we all ignored it.

There's no evidence of any “moral law of god” existing outside of the minds of our species.

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43477[/ATTACH]

Actually, as the great theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it when he said "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" ("It is not only not right, it is not even wrong") --or as Asimov's axiom describes it, wronger than wrong.

It's so far off that I have to wonder is little jimmy trolling or has he plumbed new depths of stupidity.

[seer]

The laws of logic do not exist in some abstract Platonic universe isolated and self-contained. They exist only insomuch as they are used to analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is valid or invalid.

So if there were no sentient beings then the law of contradiction for instance would not be valid?

There's no evidence of any “moral law of god” existing outside of the minds of our species.

Define evidence without begging the question.

[JimL]

We've had this discussion before, Jim. The problem is "in the best interests." There is no objective measure for this. It will always be subjective to the person or group making the assessment. "Best interests" or "good" are value judgments. They depend on a valuer to assign them value, which is a subjective exercise..

But I don't think that morality has to do with the individual, or what is in the best interest of an individual per se, but morality has to do with what is in the best interests of a society of individuals, so it isn't about any one persons subjective opinion. So it could be argued that subjectively, theft for instance, may subjectively be seen by the individual as being in his best interests, but wouldn't you agree that objectively it isn't in the best interest of both parties, or in other words, in the best interests of society as a whole?

[JimL]

Actually, as the great theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it when he said "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" ("It is not only not right, it is not even wrong") --or as Asimov's axiom describes it, wronger than wrong.

It's so far off that I have to wonder is little jimmy trolling or has he plumbed new depths of stupidity.

[seer]

...but morality has to do with what is in the best interests of a society of individuals...

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.

[JimL]

But all you have is moral intuition, so I guess you know nothing about morality...

No, we also have reason, seer. Intuition is not foolproof.

[seer]

No, we also have reason, seer. Intuition is not foolproof.

Jim I already showed why that can not be. Again, whose reason? Yours? The Maoists?

[carpedm9587]

But I don't think that morality has to do with the individual, or what is in the best interest of an individual per se, but morality has to do with what is in the best interests of a society of individuals, so it isn't about any one persons subjective opinion. So it could be argued that subjectively, theft for instance, may subjectively be seen by the individual as being in his best interests, but wouldn't you agree that objectively it isn't in the best interest of both parties, or in other words, in the best interests of society as a whole?

Jim - you cannot escape the reality that individuals moralize. I look at a situation and assess its morality. I am not bound by what my neighbor thinks. Indeed, if my neighbor thinks differently, I will likely assess them as immoral. Moralizing is a cognitive activity, and cognitive activities are inherently individual. They can be influenced by groups (among other things), but the morality of a society is nothing more or less than the collective moralizing of its constituent individuals. As more and more individuals begin to see "X" as moral, the society begins to adopt X as part of its moral character. There is a feedback loop there, but it does not start with the society - it starts with the individuals that make up that society. We see this demonstrated when we see a moral position originally held by only a few become the dominant moral position of a society.

And you are still stuck with "best interests." There is no way to objectively measure this. What is "best" to one, is not best to another. Yes, there are things most of us tend to agree on, but that doesn't make it objective - it simply makes it widely held. Most of us value our lives, so moral guidelines prohibiting the wanton taking of life are common to virtually all societies. But they are rooted in the subjective valuing of life, making the principles themselves subjective.

[JimL]

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.

True, it is my subjective opinion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't at the same time an objective fact. Opinions, just because the are only opinions, doesn't mean that they are wrong. You and I could differ in our beliefs in the morality, or immorality of theft for instance, but when it comes to our mutual benefit as a society, I believe that only one of us would be correct. Morals, afaics, only matter because of social interelations. What is immoral if you were the only person on earth?

[JimL]

Jim - you cannot escape the reality that individuals moralize. I look at a situation and assess its morality. I am not bound by what my neighbor thinks. Indeed, if my neighbor thinks differently, I will likely assess them as immoral.

And would your assessment be right or wrong? What would be the basis of your assessment?

Moralizing is a cognitive activity, and cognitive activities are inherently individual.

Agreed, morality is based on reason.

They can be influenced by groups (among other things), but the morality of a society is nothing more or less than the collective moralizing of its constituent individuals.

Agreed. And the group can be right or wrong in the same way as an individual could be right or wrong.

As more and more individuals begin to see "X" as moral, the society begins to adopt X as part of its moral character. There is a feedback loop there, but it does not start with the society - it starts with the individuals that make up that society. We see this demonstrated when we see a moral position originally held by only a few become the dominant moral position of a society.

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?

And you are still stuck with "best interests." There is no way to objectively measure this. What is "best" to one, is not best to another. Yes, there are things most of us tend to agree on, but that doesn't make it objective - it simply makes it widely held. Most of us value our lives, so moral guidelines prohibiting the wanton taking of life are common to virtually all societies. But they are rooted in the subjective valuing of life, making the principles themselves subjective.

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.