Originally posted by inimalist
ok, innocent as in, you walk out your front door and there is a stranger on the street. You have no prior knowledge of this individual, they are doing nothing suspicious, and you have no reason to wish them ill will.you now kill this person. Without adding or taking away from this scenario, how do you justify, morally, the harm done to that individual?
Sorry for not responding sooner (was off in the real world doing real things).
Your little scenario is flawed. Why have I killed this person? How have I killed this person? Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?
There are too many variables left out in your scenario to make any sort of valid point.
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Why have I killed this person?
Obviously you don't have a reason. Giving a reason would involve "adding or taking away from [the] scenario".
Originally posted by MilitantDog
How have I killed this person?
How could that possibly matter?
Also that would involve "adding or taking away from [the] scenario".
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?
That would involve "adding or taking away from [the] scenario".
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Sorry for not responding sooner (was off in the real world doing real things).Your little scenario is flawed. Why have I killed this person? How have I killed this person? Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?
There are too many variables left out in your scenario to make any sort of valid point.
I am asking you 1 + 1
you are telling me that you can't answer because the X term and Z term have yet to be defined.
There is a very good reason I left those out 😉
however, your rhetoric does indicate you are looking for an out to the situation, meaning that you probably cannot justify killing the individual.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand what you are trying to do. However, separating how we treat each other and how we treat other nations is part of the reason we are in the trouble we are in today.
fair enough, there is just a large communication gap here, and it is likely me..
I say "morality" and suddenly we are talking about war, the crusades, etc. And while these are surely good points, I think these situations are far too complex to be used when trying to talk about morality in itself. To liken it to psychology, it would be akin to trying to describe personality characteristics by talking about the Israeli/Gaza conflict?
Like, I agree with you when you are talking about national narratives and characters, they are constructs of man for political gains. I hardly consider this morality though, as it is mostly unrelated to people and their everyday behaviour and interactions. The average person deals with life in a situation by situation basis, not based on some abstract moral code, though there are obvious exceptions. It is the consequences of these situations, and especially measurable moral harm, that I guess I am proposing as the core of how people should look at the "morality" of their actions.
Originally posted by backdoorman
I justified the murder of an innocent person, and I don't think I dismissed morality as a concept.
indeed, you gave an explanation for why you did it. I don't feel you have justified the harm done to the individual though.
why would personal enjoyment displace the harm to that individual.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Why don't you explain why you think certain actions have an absolute moral value.
I don't. I feel material consequences to actions have moral implications. And, that should harm be caused through intention, that action carries negative "morality".
Now, something like scolding a child, or putting someone in prison, they have moral justifications, they also have pragmatic justifications, so they might be somewhat immoral, but are clearly ambiguous because of the other variables. We don't scold children or imprison people for the sheer joy of it, we do so for the good of the child, for the safety of humanity, etc. This is why I found Shaky's example to be salient, because the murder of innocents had major implications outside of the act itself, in a way that might justify the harm.
Originally posted by backdoorman
The general consensus or the attitude most of us may adopt towards certain things (e.g. a repulsion towards what we deem to be unjustifiable murder) or even biological factors that influence our feelings towards those acts do not necessarily imply an objective moral code.
no, but they are quite indicative.
also, given that I don't believe in abstract morals, or divine morals, or god, or anything like that, human consensus is sort of the most credible thing I feel we as humans have.
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, you gave an explanation for why you did it. I don't feel you have justified the harm done to the individual though.why would personal enjoyment displace the harm to that individual.
I don't. I feel material consequences to actions have moral implications. And, that should harm be caused through intention, that action carries negative "morality".
Now, something like scolding a child, or putting someone in prison, they have moral justifications, they also have pragmatic justifications, so they might be somewhat immoral, but are clearly ambiguous because of the other variables. We don't scold children or imprison people for the sheer joy of it, we do so for the good of the child, for the safety of humanity, etc. This is why I found Shaky's example to be salient, because the murder of innocents had major implications outside of the act itself, in a way that might justify the harm.
That's fine but seeing as the safety of humanity and the good of the child have no absolute ethical value, they are still not "objectively positive" moral actions.
no, but they are quite indicative.also, given that I don't believe in abstract morals, or divine morals, or god, or anything like that, human consensus is sort of the most credible thing I feel we as humans have.
Nihilism is boring but it really seems to be the obvious answer to this argument.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Say, because my moral framework is based on self indulgence and the satisfying of my personal wishes is for me the highest goal of my existence.
ok, but that does not address the harm. Please try to understand, I am NOT talking about abstract moral codes of proper behaviour, but of identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs. It is an attempt to place morality in real things, and is antithetical to the idea of "codes" of behaviour.
This is largely because moral codes are, as shaky said, cultural propaganda. Not to mention that psychology has shown time and again that peoples' moral codes do not necessarily correlate to their actual behaviour.
like, I get what you are saying, but I don't feel you are addressing my point. You are hurting someone. Why is the pain they are experiencing ok. Not, why is it ok for you to do something, but why is it ok for you to afflict another. Personal pleasure does not satisfy this, because instead of addressing the harm, it simply says the harm is not a problem, hence why I feel you are simply dismissing the problem off hand.
Originally posted by backdoorman
That's fine but seeing as the safety of humanity and the good of the child have no absolute ethical value, they are still not "objectively positive" moral actions.
like I said, it isn't about the actions. I couldn't make a list of good and bad things to do. It is about material consequences to actions. Safety and the child have no moral value. The effects of action on these things can. The value is in the effects on people, not inherent to the action themselves, which I feel you think I am arguing.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Indicative of what? The swaying power organized society has? Mob mentality? Evolutionary factors that have influenced our social behavior?
many things. One being that people are able to identify things that are wrong. Remember, I am not proposing a mechanism, I'm not proposing a code, I'm not praising God or telling people what to do. I am asking for a moral reason why harming others for no reason is ok.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Nihilism is boring but it really seems to be the obvious answer to this argument.
nihilism is the off-hand dismissal of moral questions. This, to me, says that morals don't exist and fails to address the harm to an individual.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that does not address the harm. Please try to understand, I am [b]NOT talking about abstract moral codes of proper behaviour, but of identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs. It is an attempt to place morality in real things, and is antithetical to the idea of "codes" of behaviour.This is largely because moral codes are, as shaky said, cultural propaganda. Not to mention that psychology has shown time and again that peoples' moral codes do not necessarily correlate to their actual behaviour.
like, I get what you are saying, but I don't feel you are addressing my point. You are hurting someone. Why is the pain they are experiencing ok. Not, why is it ok for you to do something, but why is it ok for you to afflict another. Personal pleasure does not satisfy this, because instead of addressing the harm, it simply says the harm is not a problem, hence why I feel you are simply dismissing the problem off hand.[/b]
like I said, it isn't about the actions. I couldn't make a list of good and bad things to do. It is about material consequences to actions. Safety and the child have no moral value. The effects of action on these things can. The value is in the effects on people, not inherent to the action themselves, which I feel you think I am arguing.
many things. One being that people are able to identify things that are wrong. Remember, I am not proposing a mechanism, I'm not proposing a code, I'm not praising God or telling people what to do. I am asking for a moral reason why harming others for no reason is ok.
nihilism [b]is the off-hand dismissal of moral questions. This, to me, says that morals don't exist and fails to address the harm to an individual. [/B]
Originally posted by backdoorman
Just what about these identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs has any objectivity? You keep pointing out what is wrong in my arguments but you really haven't at all elaborated on yours.But why does someone dying as an effect of my randomly killing him have any absolute moral value?
Because their being injured or in pain or sad does not matter to me and it does not weigh negatively on my moral compass.
No. Nihilism says the harm done to people cannot be measured to absolute moral values.
I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.
Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.
But you have to start with the assumption that "causing harm" is the definition of immorality. So basically you're using circular logic: causing harm is immoral because immortality means causing harm.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you have to start with the assumption that "causing harm" is the definition of immorality. So basically you're using circular logic: causing harm is immoral because immortality means causing harm.
indeed, at some point, one has to decide that "we can't know anything about anything" isn't a suitable conclusion, and certain assumptions might be made.
like, ok, I get it, I'm not proposing a divine code of behaviour. I mean objective as in, there is something to measure. I feel fairly safe in saying intentional harm is a good measure of immorality, as, the definition and common usage of immorality is, pretty much that.
I would also like to point out there is a difference between debating what might constitute objective evidence of immorality and just outright claiming that it cannot be done. If the argument is that intentional harm cannot be immoral because there is no such thing as immorality, you are making the later argument. I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but I really don't see any reason outside of post modern cynicism to say that hurting people isn't immoral.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.
Originally posted by backdoorman
If I understand what you're saying, you are taking the feeling of pain, branding it not good and then building up your ideas of morality from there. However I still don't see the supposed absolute values of the consequences of our actions (i.e., pain in this case), you (or most people) feeling it and not liking it is all well but why does it have a place in the realm of objective truth?
objective as in measurable, not a universal moral absolute religious truth.
The point is to avoid these metaphysical considerations by rooting morality in things that are determinable.
Originally posted by inimalist
objective as in measurable, not a universal moral absolute religious truth.The point is to avoid these metaphysical considerations by rooting morality in things that are determinable.