Keeping it simple: Morality and values

[agnosticatheist]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

The best example is to find common ground to latch onto.

In this scenario, it would fall to Andrew to show that it is morally wrong to drink alcoholic beverages. We do not assume something to be wrong until proven otherwise, in point of fact we assume it to be morally neutral.

In other scenarios, pointing out contradictions and fallacies, as well as using analogies are what is most poignant in this kind of debate. Emotional appeals should be avoided at all times - ESPECIALLY in moral and ethical dilemma.

In some cases, there can simply be a complete disconnect of values. If you are not particularly keen, this is the kind of time when you should simply avoid conversation. Arguing over disconnected values is simply long and drawn out, with progress rarely made.

[agnosticatheist]

The best example is to find common ground to latch onto.

In this scenario, it would fall to Andrew to show that it is morally wrong to drink alcoholic beverages. We do not assume something to be wrong until proven otherwise, in point of fact we assume it to be morally neutral.

This works if the person you are trying to convince values not assuming something to be wrong until proven otherwise. What if they don't?

In some cases, there can simply be a complete disconnect of values. If you are not particularly keen, this is the kind of time when you should simply avoid conversation. Arguing over disconnected values is simply long and drawn out, with progress rarely made.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 3 by agnosticatheist]

Any number of examples can be given.
"Are you morally wrong for giving that response to this particular argument at this particular time? Will you be for future responses?"

You would literally need to come up with a reason for anything and everything. It'd be absurd.

[Wootah]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

Moderator Comment
I've moved the thread to the Philosophy section.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[instantc]

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

Same way as we convince each other about anything. First, there needs to be some commonly accepted starting premises, from which they can proceed by way of reasoning and see if the conclusion follows. Such premise could be, for example, that deliberately causing harm to the society for no morally compensatory reason is wrong.

If they cannot agree on any starting premises, then there can be no conversation. This seems to be the case in any field of knowledge. If, for example, Andrew thinks that evidence is not a good way of determining truth about biology, what evidence is Joe going to give Andrew to convince him that evidence should be valued? If, on the other hand, they can agree about the value of empirical evidence, then they can proceed by way of reasoning and convince each other about all kinds of things.

[bluethread]

If, on the other hand, they can agree about the value of empirical evidence, then they can proceed by way of reasoning and convince each other about all kinds of things.

Not if they do not agree on the principles of reason. If they agree on the method of discussion, ie reason, then if they agree about the value of anything, then they can proceed. Empiricism does not have a patent on rational discussions.

[Divine Insight]

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

I don't see why it would be necessary to convince other people to hold the same moral values that I hold.

So for me, the whole exercise is totally unimportant.

[1213]

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

...

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

By telling the reasons why it is wrong to drink alcohol. If Joe think the reasons are not good, then he should have right to keep his opinion.

[ThePainefulTruth]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

Alcohol, and a plethora of other issues of virtue, aren't moral issues. Morality should only deal with actions where the rights of an individual are violated by another. If you drink and drive and cause an accident, you are responsible for the results of driving impaired. If you drink yourself into a stupor at home, that's your business. Alcohol doesn't make you do anything, it let's you do what you really want to do. If you become drunk and shoot your spouse, alcohol isn't a mitigating circumstance.

Until we learn to control our passions with reason, we will always have problems with (a majority?) of people "thinking" with their emotions.