Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 39 by Alueshen]

Strange, I didn't mean to post the above, I thought I saved it as a draft....Oh, well, the conversation definitely wasn't going anywhere, and Wiploc seemed determine to misquote me over and over, with the last misquote being entirely opposite what I actually said....

Oh well, thanks for you're response.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 39 by Alueshen]

Strange, I didn't mean to post the above, I thought I saved it as a draft....Oh, well, the conversation definitely wasn't going anywhere, and Wiploc seemed determine to misquote me over and over, with the last misquote being entirely opposite what I actually said....

Oh well, thanks for you're response.

[Alueshen]

Here are use an extreme example as it's is the easiest way to illustrate my point.

The statement, "it is immoral to steal".

Generally this is a true statement, but what if we had replicators that could literally replicate virtually anything that we possessed? If someone took something that belonged to me, if I could instantly replace it, would that change how I felt about stealing?

I could say something about this. If taking things had no consequences as in your above scenario, then I don't think we'd be talking about stealing anymore. In what sense would I be taking away your car, if you would still have it after I am done?

That elucidates my point perfectly. Stealing is not "objectively wrong" it's only wrong in light of the circumstances that exist at the time.

That being said, even in that scenario one could commit an immoral act of stealing, if he wasn't aware of the system being in place, wouldn't you agree?

Really not sure what you're asking me here and how it applies to my example.

Or would you argue that an attempted murder suddenly becomes a moral act, if it turns out that the perpetrator was unwittingly having a blank in the chamber the whole time? Moral nature of an act pertains to motive and not to consequences.

I agree. Intention is the key. If this is supposed to refute my argument, the point is that theft wouldn't have the the same negative moral "weight" (if you will) since most things could be easily replaced.

Think about this another way. If you lived in a city and your front yard wasn't fenced and adjacent to a sidewalk and you paid for your water, If you looked out the window and saw a teenage boy drinking from your garden hose (which was laying next to the sidewalk), would you call the police? Would you report a theft?

I mean, he was stealing strictly speaking. Water in most places has a cost associated with it, right? The point is that water is so readily available that the cost to drive a police car to your home would exceed the cost of what was stolen from you many times over. So even if the teenager intended to steal a mouthful of water, given how easy it is to replace and how little financially you suffered, would anyone think twice? Of course not. If he was parched and really needed a drink you would (I hope) welcome him to it without asking anything in return, even if he did it without permission and you caught him in the act. What was the teenagers "motivation" in this case?

So if everyday objects (as in my example) had little to no cost because they could be instantly replicated then someone taking something you can replace as easily as the water in your hose wouldn't have the same moral ramification.

Does that make sense?

[instantc]

Here are use an extreme example as it's is the easiest way to illustrate my point.

The statement, "it is immoral to steal".

Generally this is a true statement, but what if we had replicators that could literally replicate virtually anything that we possessed? If someone took something that belonged to me, if I could instantly replace it, would that change how I felt about stealing?

I could say something about this. If taking things had no consequences as in your above scenario, then I don't think we'd be talking about stealing anymore. In what sense would I be taking away your car, if you would still have it after I am done?

That elucidates my point perfectly. Stealing is not "objectively wrong" it's only wrong in light of the circumstances that exist at the time.

I think the confusion here comes from the use of the word objective. Objectivity of a rule does not require that it should apply in all circumstances. It requires that the rule and its rightful application in a given circumstance is not dependent on one's subjective opinion.

Theft isn't immoral if the victim isn't really losing anything. Killing isn't immoral, if the perpetrator acts in self-defense. Inflicting pain isn't immoral, when it's performed by a doctor in order to save a patient's life. None of this pertains to the objectivity or subjectivity of these moral rules.

Perhaps the word that you are looking for is absolute. Prohibition of theft and killing are not absolute moral rules, as they do not apply in all circumstances. Prohibition of torture is more often seen as an absolute moral rule.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 16 by Artie]Is suicide immoral?

Yes, it's objectively wrong. Which is why we stop people from committing suicide, say they are ill and try to cure them.

Aren't there numerous situations where the golden rule doesn't apply? Rape for instance?

Not enough detail to answer.

If survival is more moral, is risking your life to save another life immoral, given that you are more helpful than the one you're trying to save?

The moral instinct is "help others". The vast majority increase others and their own chances of survival by helping others. In certain situations helping others means risking your own life, but many instinctively do so because the survival of many outweighs the survival of one.

How is suicide objectively wrong?? Subjectively it is, but there are countries that have assisted suicide laws, which will let someone get a doctor's help to end their own life. There are circumstances where ending your own life is preferable to some people that trying to continue living.

[Artie]

How is suicide objectively wrong?? Subjectively it is, but there are countries that have assisted suicide laws, which will let someone get a doctor's help to end their own life. There are circumstances where ending your own life is preferable to some people that trying to continue living.

Let me explain it this way: We have a survival instinct which is the result of the objective process of evolution and natural selection. Since the survival instinct is a result of an objective process it must be objectively right for us as a species to have it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.

Helping each other increases all our chances of survival, hurting each other decreases all our chances of survival. Taking your own life reduces everybody's chances of survival including your own because first of course you yourself don't survive and secondly you can't help others survive either when you're six feet under. So we stop people who try to commit suicide and say they are objectively ill and try to cure them.

In special situations where people are suffering terribly because of incurable diseases or injuries and don't have much time to live left anyway, they may after a great deal of thought and deliberation decide to take their own lives or ask for assisted suicide. They know suicide is objectively wrong for the average person, but they reason that they can be of minimal help to anybody as long as they are ill and suffering, that this situation is not only detrimental to them but to their children and families and society as a whole, so everything considered in their cases suicide could be said to be objectively right.

[Artie]

Duplicate

[instantc]

How is suicide objectively wrong?? Subjectively it is, but there are countries that have assisted suicide laws, which will let someone get a doctor's help to end their own life. There are circumstances where ending your own life is preferable to some people that trying to continue living.

Let me explain it this way: We have a survival instinct which is the result of the objective process of evolution and natural selection. Since the survival instinct is a result of an objective process it must be objectively right for us as a species to have it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.

What about the instincts to cheat on our wives, to steal when nobody's looking, to lie in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation and so forth? Surely you are not suggesting that every instinct that's gone through natural selection is morally right, are you?

[Artie]

What about the instincts to cheat on our wives

There's no such instinct. That would be the instinct to reproduce kicking in. If we didn't have that we wouldn't be here. If the behavior cheating on our wives had become so widespread that it would have become detrimental to our survival it would have been selected out.

to steal when nobody's looking,

I am not aware of this one. I don't have this instinct. Can you find a list of instincts where this is mentioned?

to lie in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation and so forth?

That would be the survival instinct kicking in. Whether lying is morally right depends of course on the motivation and situation. Whether it's beneficial or detrimental to the people involved.

In general you can say that we call a behavior moral if on the average it is more beneficial than detrimental to survival and well being for as many as possible. That is why for example we say it's generally immoral to lie, even though in some circumstances it might be beneficial.

[Jashwell]

How is suicide objectively wrong?? Subjectively it is, but there are countries that have assisted suicide laws, which will let someone get a doctor's help to end their own life. There are circumstances where ending your own life is preferable to some people that trying to continue living.

Let me explain it this way: We have a survival instinct which is the result of the objective process of evolution and natural selection. Since the survival instinct is a result of an objective process it must be objectively right for us as a species to have it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.

Begging the question by assuming that surviving is good. (Iff surviving were good, then evolution would be a good means of ascertaining moral truth. In any other case, a non-sequitur)
Why ought we survive?

In fact, since evolution doesn't address an individual's survival but the continued permeation of a species (if not a gene as some evolutionary biologists believe), why is an individual's survival important?

More to the point, couldn't you say that the evolution of depression and suicidal thought (both ideologically and very literally) make suicide objectively right for some?


That aside, the shape of the beaches is the result of the objective processes of geology, and the side a coin lands on is a result of the objective process of basic kinematics.

Helping each other increases all our chances of survival, hurting each other decreases all our chances of survival. Taking your own life reduces everybody's chances of survival including your own because first of course you yourself don't survive and secondly you can't help others survive either when you're six feet under. So we stop people who try to commit suicide and say they are objectively ill and try to cure them.

You, not we. I don't think there are many who'd agree with you, at least in the UK.

In special situations where people are suffering terribly because of incurable diseases or injuries and don't have much time to live left anyway, they may after a great deal of thought and deliberation decide to take their own lives or ask for assisted suicide.

As may those who are suffering terribly because of life, despite their good physical health.

They know suicide is objectively wrong for the average person

I don't know anyone except you that thinks this. I don't understand how you could think anyone considering assisted suicide would think this.

but they reason that they can be of minimal help to anybody as long as they are ill and suffering, that this situation is not only detrimental to them but to their children and families and society as a whole, so everything considered in their cases suicide could be said to be objectively right.

This scenario you've imagined is infeasible, with regards to their thoughts.
This morality effectively reduces people to tools for the survival of others.