Happy Atheist Forum

General => Philosophy => Topic started by: billy rubin on October 21, 2019, 11:41:33 PM

Title: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 21, 2019, 11:41:33 PM
I think we're on the same sheet.

If you want further reading, an old member, Stevil, always framed this idea in much better terms than I ever could.

Quote from: Stevil
To get the record straight, I don't believe in morality. I think it is a make believe human made concept. You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it. It is simply a way of categorising human actions into good (right), bad (wrong) and neutral. The thing is, when we start categorising, we all tend to have different lists. There certainly is no absolute standard of right and wrong, so when we categorise, we are using different standards to do this. Some people use the golden rule, others a perception of what humanism is, others use the teachings of the enlightenment of Buddha, others use the teachings of Mohammad, others the teachings of Jesus and others the teachings of the Old Testament, etc.

I guess, people by and large have a desire to be good. The problem is that there is no way of telling what is good from what is bad. I feel this is a driving force behind why people take up religion. They quickly learn that the definition of good differs from person to person hence they realise that they cannot trust themselves and hence they look to the wise. However the problem with the wise is that one wise person's morality differs from anothers. Human defined morality is a problem in that one person's morality is no better or no worse than another's. Thousands of years old religion that claims to know what is good, inspired by a perfect and all good deity becomes a compelling guide. If a person chooses to believe in the deity and believe in the specific religion then their problem of defining good goes away, thus they can now work towards being a good person.

An atheist doesn't have the deity option. An atheist looking for morality must either look for a principle, a wise person/organisation or must trust themselves.

The dangerous side to belief in morality is that morality doesn't stop at the self. Morality leads towards judgement of others, as people are now making bold claims as to whether others are acting morally or immorally. If a person stopped at only the self, they would be defining their own personal values rather than morality. Once people go down that dangerous path of moral judgement of others, they then look to enforce moral rules on others, so they put this into law.

Morality based law will result in oppression, which will result in conflict, which will result in danger for those living within that moral based society.
All religious wars are due to an insistence of pushing a flavour of morality onto others.

I am a strong proponent for defining a clear and specific goal for law. I would rather law act towards creating a stable and functional society rather than a moral one. With this goal in mind it would be hard to justify law against homosexuality, or polygomy, or pornography, or prostitution, or euthanasia, or against religious freedom. You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.

Banned for not taking the hint and taking this to another thread.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 21, 2019, 11:48:14 PM
i've read this bit from stevil several times, and it seems he has a blind spot or two. now, i've nevr met him or talked to him, so maybe i'm wrong, but here is my opinion.

basically, he makes two assertions that he thinks are reasonable.

Quote
I guess, people by and large have a desire to be good. The problem is that there is no way of telling what is good from what is bad.

and

Quote
You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.

these two ideas contradict each other. stevil wrote that there is no way to tell good from bad, but then states that it is not good to coerce others to a point of view they disagree with.

i'm with him up to that point, but we part company there. if there is no such thing as good, then it can't be bad to force people's behavior.

stevil declares morality absurd, then declares his own to be cardinal.

just a thought.

Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 22, 2019, 01:48:00 AM
I see no contradiction here.

The key premise of a fair society is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (a subtle but significant reworking of the Christian golden rule).

So, if you fuck with someone else's shit, that would give justification for them to fuck with your shit. Well, I don't want my shit fucked with so I leave theirs alone.
Nothing to do with morality or any objective good/bad judgement, just maintenance of free and fair co-existence. Any of your subjective good/bad judgements are irrelevant to me as long as we each respect the golden rule.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 22, 2019, 02:08:23 AM
I see no contradiction here.

The key premise of a fair society is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (a subtle but significant reworking of the Christian golden rule).

So, if you fuck with someone else's shit, that would give justification for them to fuck with your shit. Well, I don't want my shit fucked with so I leave theirs alone.
Nothing to do with morality or any objective good/bad judgement, just maintenance of free and fair co-existence. Any of your subjective good/bad judgements are irrelevant to me as long as we each respect the golden rule.

but you have just defined a moral society, siz, one created in your own image. according to your suggestion, society should be"free and fair." what makes a fair society something that i should pursue? maybe i want to oppress people instead, because i like it better than fairness.

if it is right to be fair, and wrong to deny fairness, you have just defined a system that establishes the ideas of right and wrong and also establishes that people have a right to a certain manner of treatment by others.

that's morality, isn't it? right, wrong, and human rights?

as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 22, 2019, 03:45:40 AM
I see no contradiction here.

The key premise of a fair society is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (a subtle but significant reworking of the Christian golden rule).

So, if you fuck with someone else's shit, that would give justification for them to fuck with your shit. Well, I don't want my shit fucked with so I leave theirs alone.
Nothing to do with morality or any objective good/bad judgement, just maintenance of free and fair co-existence. Any of your subjective good/bad judgements are irrelevant to me as long as we each respect the golden rule.

but you have just defined a moral society, siz, one created in your own image. according to your suggestion, society should be"free and fair." what makes a fair society something that i should pursue? maybe i want to oppress people instead, because i like it better than fairness.

if it is right to be fair, and wrong to deny fairness, you have just defined a system that establishes the ideas of right and wrong and also establishes that people have a right to a certain manner of treatment by others.

that's morality, isn't it? right, wrong, and human rights?

as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

Woah there BR, be careful with your paraphrasing.

"Should"??? I'd never use such a word without definite qualification. I certainly didn't say that society SHOULD be free and fair, because that would have been an unqualified value judgement. But I did suggest what WOULD make society free and fair. And it is my preference to live thus... because fairness suits me and unfairnes does not.

A moral society? I defined nothing of the sort. Do not confuse fair with moral. The reason i highlight 'fairnes' is because i believe it to be the closest measureable concept to the common perception of morality. And the concept most suited to achieving a society I'd like to be a part of. I'll readily call that 'good' with the understanding that it's a subjective 'good'.

As for you choosing to live outside of the golden rule - that is entirely your choice. I won't play with you though. And I might just slit your throat if you fuck with my shit. 😁
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: xSilverPhinx on October 22, 2019, 03:50:40 AM
as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0)

:grin:

Bad Penny makes them for us when we reach 1000 posts. But he has to be asked nicely.  ;D
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Magdalena on October 22, 2019, 04:15:51 AM
as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0)

:grin:

Bad Penny makes them for us when we reach 1000 posts. But he has to be asked nicely.  ;D

That one, or this one:
Looking for threads that used to be stickied in this board, and this one caught my eye. Here's a link to the other thread on the same topic (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9750.0), in the interest of historical continuity.   :studious:
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: xSilverPhinx on October 22, 2019, 04:17:22 AM
Thanks, Mags!  8)
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Magdalena on October 22, 2019, 05:20:07 AM
Thanks, Mags!  8)
Não há de quê.
No hay de que.
 :grin:
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 22, 2019, 02:43:03 PM
Woah there BR, be careful with your paraphrasing.

"Should"??? I'd never use such a word without definite qualification. I certainly didn't say that society SHOULD be free and fair, because that would have been an unqualified value judgement. But I did suggest what WOULD make society free and fair. And it is my preference to live thus... because fairness suits me and unfairnes does not.

A moral society? I defined nothing of the sort. Do not confuse fair with moral. The reason i highlight 'fairnes' is because i believe it to be the closest measureable concept to the common perception of morality. And the concept most suited to achieving a society I'd like to be a part of. I'll readily call that 'good' with the understanding that it's a subjective 'good'.

As for you choosing to live outside of the golden rule - that is entirely your choice. I won't play with you though. And I might just slit your throat if you fuck with my shit. 😁

well, that's okay, but remember that "should" is the idea that stevil advocated in his original post:

Quote
You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.

when stevil tells me that an action i might want to perform "isn't my place," then he is saying that i should follow some sort of code that he has introduced. so perhaps stevil wasn't the best choice with which to open this discussion.

personally, though, i agree with him that right and wrong are human constructs, from which we also derive good and evil. the natural world doesn't contain the idea. what could be right or wrong about leaves falling from a tree, or water flowing downhill?

or an asteroid impact wiping out all life on earth?

my own behavioural code is founded on absurdity. i behave as if morals exist, even though i couldn't justify any underlying reason for why they are normative. i follow this delusion pretty strictly, and so from the outside it appears that i am a moral person, even while i keep up the internal debate. a religious person would observe that i am following an ultimate moral code that is innate, and common to all peeople. but i don't see that in the real world, and have no evidence for the validity of religion.

why does fairness suit you? i've observed in my life that the best way to get ahead is to lie, cheat, and steal. there are examples all over human culture and biology. what is it about fairness that you find attractive?
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 22, 2019, 02:50:33 PM
as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0)

:grin:

Bad Penny makes them for us when we reach 1000 posts. But he has to be asked nicely.  ;D

one discovery generates the next mystery:

why tableware?

 :thoughtful:
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Tank on October 22, 2019, 05:13:07 PM
as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0)

:grin:

Bad Penny makes them for us when we reach 1000 posts. But he has to be asked nicely.  ;D

one discovery generates the next mystery:

why tableware?

 :thoughtful:

Ah! You find that our when you get one.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 22, 2019, 07:04:51 PM
Woah there BR, be careful with your paraphrasing.

"Should"??? I'd never use such a word without definite qualification. I certainly didn't say that society SHOULD be free and fair, because that would have been an unqualified value judgement. But I did suggest what WOULD make society free and fair. And it is my preference to live thus... because fairness suits me and unfairnes does not.

A moral society? I defined nothing of the sort. Do not confuse fair with moral. The reason i highlight 'fairnes' is because i believe it to be the closest measureable concept to the common perception of morality. And the concept most suited to achieving a society I'd like to be a part of. I'll readily call that 'good' with the understanding that it's a subjective 'good'.

As for you choosing to live outside of the golden rule - that is entirely your choice. I won't play with you though. And I might just slit your throat if you fuck with my shit. 😁

well, that's okay, but remember that "should" is the idea that stevil advocated in his original post:

Quote
You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.

when stevil tells me that an action i might want to perform "isn't my place," then he is saying that i should follow some sort of code that he has introduced. so perhaps stevil wasn't the best choice with which to open this discussion.

personally, though, i agree with him that right and wrong are human constructs, from which we also derive good and evil. the natural world doesn't contain the idea. what could be right or wrong about leaves falling from a tree, or water flowing downhill?

or an asteroid impact wiping out all life on earth?

my own behavioural code is founded on absurdity. i behave as if morals exist, even though i couldn't justify any underlying reason for why they are normative. i follow this delusion pretty strictly, and so from the outside it appears that i am a moral person, even while i keep up the internal debate. a religious person would observe that i am following an ultimate moral code that is innate, and common to all peeople. but i don't see that in the real world, and have no evidence for the validity of religion.

why does fairness suit you? i've observed in my life that the best way to get ahead is to lie, cheat, and steal. there are examples all over human culture and biology. what is it about fairness that you find attractive?

I guess it depends on what you place value on in the world doesn't it?! If what you value or aspire to can be achieved by lying, cheating and stealing then go for it. Many people do. But it's not a nice place to live if I can also be on the recieving end of such behaviour.

I don't see fairness as particularly attractive, per se - it's a rather dreary concept, of course. But it's superior (subjectively), on aggregate, than the alternative.

But don't think I'm a sell-out to the human good - I couldn't care less if we were all wiped out by an asteroid hit tomorrow. Probably for the best in the long run... I'm gonna call that 'good'!







Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 22, 2019, 09:41:50 PM
speaking of asteroids, theres a fantastic fossil site in north dakota that was recently identified as being laid down near the end of the cretaceous. and not only near, but preciseley at the K-T boundary. its a tsunami deposit a meter thick that recods a half-hour of deposition immediately following the impact.

torn up vegetation, fish ripped apart and skewered on debris, fascinating stuff. and its all in the turf of a palaeontologist who is more or less a fringe outcast. amazing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencenews.org/article/new-fossils-north-dakota-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-impact/amp

Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2019, 07:14:42 PM
I see no contradiction here.

The key premise of a fair society is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (a subtle but significant reworking of the Christian golden rule).

Hmmm.  So here is what Jesus is reported to have said (in King James English): Matthew 7:12 -"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them."  Not sure I see how you subtly reworked it, other than switching the phrases. 
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: No one on October 24, 2019, 10:47:53 PM
Morality is what I say is right.
Immorality is what I say is wrong!
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Bad Penny II on October 25, 2019, 12:59:41 AM
Morality is what I say is right.
Immorality is what I say is wrong!


I don't disagree.
And obscenity is him saying something is immoral because god says so and he knows what god says and you don't, or won't.
Shouldn't there be comma in there?
Na, RANT! mode.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 25, 2019, 01:24:19 AM
hmmm

so is there

or is there not

such a thing as right or wrong, in the absence of gods?

or is it all force?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DVkfpi2H8tOE&ved=2ahUKEwixjq28krblAhXkUN8KHaDKCLQQo7QBMAB6BAgAEAI&usg=AOvVaw0QqBn7l_lnjSoRjeR8LS3C
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: jumbojak on October 25, 2019, 02:22:18 AM
Force motivated by opinion.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Dark Lightning on October 25, 2019, 02:56:17 AM
as an aside, why do people here put pictures of spoons under their posts?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14281.0)

:grin:

Bad Penny makes them for us when we reach 1000 posts. But he has to be asked nicely.  ;D

one discovery generates the next mystery:

why tableware?

 :thoughtful:

Ah! You find that our when you get one.

Don't I rate at least a toothpick, by now?  :???:
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Bad Penny II on October 25, 2019, 06:40:51 AM

Don't I rate at least a toothpick, by now?  :???:

Let me see..... (https://i.imgur.com/SaGVTKp.jpg)

You qualify for the junior spoon, they're good for feeding unwilling young HAFians their gruel.
(https://i.imgur.com/ftlktRF.png)
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Recusant on October 25, 2019, 08:41:36 PM
It is so good to have a new example of the silversmith's art!

Even if it appears more a display of digital whittling than silversmithing.  ;)
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2019, 08:44:19 PM
Don't I rate at least a toothpick, by now?  :???:

:lol:
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2019, 08:45:15 PM
You qualify for the junior spoon, they're good for feeding unwilling young HAFians their gruel.
(https://i.imgur.com/ftlktRF.png)

That's pretty clever!  ;D  Would need a helping hand if it's going to fly, though. ;)
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 28, 2019, 03:15:42 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.

Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about. The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.

And then we have social contracts, which basically boil down to "treat others as you want to be treated." If you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, then you must agree that murdering people is wrong and at the same time agree to not murder other people. If you want to have private property, then you have to agree to not stealing things that belong to other people. It gets a little more complicated, because not everyone has the same values, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all in most cases.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?

Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?

The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.


Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 28, 2019, 06:26:04 PM
what about non-social codes of behavior? is it possible to behave immorally all alone on a desert island?

are there such things as non-social codes of behavior in the first place, let alone incorrect ones?
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 28, 2019, 08:28:08 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.

Quote from: Siz
Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.

Quote from: Siz
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 28, 2019, 08:32:12 PM
what about non-social codes of behavior? is it possible to behave immorally all alone on a desert island?

are there such things as non-social codes of behavior in the first place, let alone incorrect ones?
Codes of behavior is not the same thing as morality. Codes of behavior can harm people even with the best intentions, which means I would consider those that harm to be immoral.

On a desert island, if there is nothing to harm, I don't see why anyone would try to bring morality into it in the first place.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 28, 2019, 10:27:57 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.

Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.

Quote from: Siz
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 29, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere.

Quote from: Siz
Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Siz
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on October 29, 2019, 06:26:46 PM

And then we have social contracts, which basically boil down to "treat others as you want to be treated." If you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, then you must agree that murdering people is wrong and at the same time agree to not murder other people. If you want to have private property, then you have to agree to not stealing things that belong to other people. It gets a little more complicated, because not everyone has the same values, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all in most cases.

Agree with social contracts, but not wanting to be murdered does not necessarily mean that I think that "murder" in the abstract is wrong; I simply don't want to be murdered.  And I realize that if I murder it probably increases the probability that someone will want to do the same to me.  So morality can be rational for most, but someone else - a strongman, for example - can decide that he thinks that he doesn't run much chance of being murdered (like someone who can shoot someone on 5th Ave and not be convicted), so his "morality" may not include the axiom that you referenced. 
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 29, 2019, 06:50:33 PM

And then we have social contracts, which basically boil down to "treat others as you want to be treated." If you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, then you must agree that murdering people is wrong and at the same time agree to not murder other people. If you want to have private property, then you have to agree to not stealing things that belong to other people. It gets a little more complicated, because not everyone has the same values, but it doesn't have to be complicated at all in most cases.

Agree with social contracts, but not wanting to be murdered does not necessarily mean that I think that "murder" in the abstract is wrong; I simply don't want to be murdered.  And I realize that if I murder it probably increases the probability that someone will want to do the same to me.  So morality can be rational for most, but someone else - a strongman, for example - can decide that he thinks that he doesn't run much chance of being murdered (like someone who can shoot someone on 5th Ave and not be convicted), so his "morality" may not include the axiom that you referenced.
Does the big guy want to be murdered? If they guy doesn't want to be murdered but is willing to murder other people, then I don't think that's a problem with the system as you seem to be trying to imply, it clearly points to the guy being immoral by breaking the social contract.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 29, 2019, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: davin
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.

i think there's merit in your original definition.

what do you consider harm?

buddhists base a moral ystem on eight rightz: mindfulnesz, speech, livelihoid, and so on. is this sort of morality included in what you mean?
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 30, 2019, 02:03:26 AM
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.
A bit like politics, then?! How's that working out for you?
Not much like politics at all. For me? Great.
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere
Touché. I can't find your odd definition of morality anywhere either.

Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Harm and benefit can in most cases be objectively measured and expressed. This doesn't make morality in total objective morality, but there are solid foundations that rational people will not argue about.
What are the solid foundations of morality?
The answer to this question lies in what I've already said and what you've quoted here.
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said
I didn't ask you to expand on anything. Stop straw-manning me. I asked you to restate the bit where you told me what the solid foundations of morality are. You know, the ones that rational people will not argue about.

Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Siz
The subjective stuff comes mostly from deciding what actions and contexts result in the least harm and/or most benefit. When discussing morality, it doesn't make sense to try to reduce it to only subjective or only objective.
No, of course it doesn't make sense. Not much point in hanging arguments off objective morality if we can't rationalise it's existence. It is, therefore, by necessity that morality be reduced to the subjective.
"Reducing" morality to only the subjective is equally irrational.
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
The objective tie-ins you've brought to the table relate wholly to your bald pseudo-description of morality which 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. You introduced that concept into your description which, as hlighted earlier, doesn't feature in any other definition or description I can find. If that is your opinion on the meaning of morality, that's fine. But don't then try to deflect crticism by disingenuously suggesting that rational people don't argue.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Bad Penny II on October 30, 2019, 09:10:24 AM
I thought we held the funeral for objective morality years ago, no one mourned, we knew we'd do better without the weird old bastard.

The golden rule sounds good but the rule is more what you'd call a "guideline" than an actual rule.
A lot of this stuff though, it sounds like how to convince a sociopath that curbing their inclinations is to their benefit.
Does morality have to be internalised?
Bob likes goats in a nice way, he likes being nice to them.
Fred also likes goats but not in a nice way, he wants to have his wicked way with them but he doesn't, he's been told it isn't moral and it could get him in trouble.
Fred doesn't seem very moral to me, maybe he's lacking in mirror neurons.

Hurting things bad.
You like hurting things, you bad.
Thanks Grug, did a god tell you this?
No, I just know this, you not know this?
NO! NO! Grug, I know this! Club down!

I agree it is nice to be nice but...
The devil is in the qualification.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 30, 2019, 02:00:53 PM
Quote from: davin
Morality is something that concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits.

i think there's merit in your original definition.

what do you consider harm?
You don't know what harm means? Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...

Harm is most cases is fairly easy to determine, damaging a person and/or their things is a kind of harm, maybe we can start there.

Quote from: billy rubin
buddhists base a moral ystem on eight rightz: mindfulnesz, speech, livelihoid, and so on. is this sort of morality included in what you mean?
No consideration at all, and I don't care about it. If there are things that fit it is as unintentional as the things that don't.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 30, 2019, 02:18:47 PM
Politics also 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'. As does 'kindness', and 'fairness' and a number of other concepts. This description of morality falls short of distinctiveness - it doesn't help me understand what qualities morality has that set it apart from personal politics.
That's an odd definition of politics, I can't find that definition anywhere
Touché. I can't find your odd definition of morality anywhere either.
Really? I found it in a simple google search "morality definition":
(https://i.imgur.com/ikiQOzA.png)

It's not a direct copypasta, but I'm assuming that we're adults trying to have an honest conversation.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
Please clarify for me. I can't identify anything in your responses that solidly found much at all.
Without more information, I can't tell which parts you're not understanding. I'm not going to waste my time expanding on everything I've said
I didn't ask you to expand on anything. Stop straw-manning me.
That's not in any way a straw man. Here's another quick google search for "straw man fallacy":
(https://i.imgur.com/IRJZEWF.png)
You'll note some key differences that include me not refuting your argument as I can't seem to find it. I'm not representing your argument in any way here, let alone misrepresenting it.

Quote from: Siz
I asked you to restate the bit where you told me what the solid foundations of morality are. You know, the ones that rational people will not argue about.
I answered that. It was in the part of my post that you quoted.

Quote from: Siz
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Siz
I have provided the rationale for my argument. If you want to bring an objective element of morality to the table, I reasonably ask that you explain its provenance.
You're claiming that there is nothing objective in morality? Are you dropping to solipsism already? Does your rationale depend on not accepting that people are objectively demonstrable? How far back are getting here? Because if you are arguing solipsism, then I'm not interested. I already have explained the objective tie ins.
The objective tie-ins you've brought to the table relate wholly to your bald pseudo-description of morality which 'concerns trying to cause less harm and increase benefits'.
Oh, I see now. It might help to actually read what I wrote. The objective tie ins are that harm in most cases can be objectively measured. We can determine that a person has been cut, which is a harm. Whether that harm is good or not is the more subjective part which requires context, which can also be objectively determined in most cases.

Quote from: Siz
You introduced that concept into your description which, as hlighted earlier, doesn't feature in any other definition or description I can find.
I suggest trying google, it's actually pretty easy.

Quote from: Siz
If that is your opinion on the meaning of morality, that's fine. But don't then try to deflect crticism by disingenuously suggesting that rational people don't argue.
I would never say something so stupid and short sighted as "rational people don't argue." If you read what I wrote, I was referring to objective things that rational people do not argue against, like that there are a lot of harms against people that can be objectively measured. And if people argue against whether a person being stabbed is a harm or not, then they are not being rational.

It would do you better to drop your preconceived notions about what you think I'm saying or going to say, and spend the effort to actually read what I'm saying. Speaking of straw mans...
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Bad Penny II on October 30, 2019, 02:24:20 PM
Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...
Because you're so clever, much much cleverer than average, and those that reply to you are perhaps average but much much less clever than you are, so mere toddlers in comparison to you.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 30, 2019, 02:40:59 PM
Why do these "philosophical" discussions always end up making me feel like I'm talking to toddlers...
Because you're so clever, much much cleverer than average, and those that reply to you are perhaps average but much much less clever than you are, so mere toddlers in comparison to you.
That would only make sense if I were clever and the people responding were less so, which I doubt is true.

I think it's like talking to toddlers because I end having to answer the same questions toddlers ask. There is a different reason for that, and cleverness, I think, has no impact.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 30, 2019, 03:12:39 PM
davin, one of the most common mistakes people make when trying to discuss an argument is failing to identify their assumptions. so far you've expressed several conclusions without identifying your premises, and have become dismissive when i, for one, have asked you about them. true conclusions depend both upon valid structure and the truth of the premises. your definition of morality so far lacks a foundation.

just sayin.

at any rate, regarding harm, you assert that morality is strictly a function of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm.

much of the world disagrees with that.

so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Siz on October 30, 2019, 04:18:20 PM
Disingenuous, through and through, Davin.

Disappointing.

Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 30, 2019, 05:17:18 PM
Disingenuous, through and through, Davin.

Disappointing.
Whatever makes you feel better is fine with me. Might have helped to actually read what I wrote, that's where the genuineness is.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 30, 2019, 05:23:12 PM
davin, one of the most common mistakes people make when trying to discuss an argument is failing to identify their assumptions. so far you've expressed several conclusions without identifying your premises, and have become dismissive when i, for one, have asked you about them. true conclusions depend both upon valid structure and the truth of the premises. your definition of morality so far lacks a foundation.
In my experience, the biggest mistake people make during discussions is a lack of actually listening to the other person.

Quote from: billy rubin
at any rate, regarding harm, you assert that morality is strictly a function of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm.
I did not say that. Case in point from above. It doesn't help to add things in like "maximizing" and "minimizing" to things just because you feel like it. Maximizing and minimizing things takes way too much effort and is impossible to accomplish in reality.

Quote from: billy rubin
so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
I don't get why that matters. I don't care one way or the other or any way at all about Buddhism.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: billy rubin on October 30, 2019, 08:15:01 PM
Quote from: billy rubin
so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
I don't get why that matters. I don't care one way or the other or any way at all about Buddhism.

it matters because buddhist morality both exists and is not part of your understanding of the question, davin.

therefore your understanding is incomplete, as far as it goes, and wrong in the end. not caring about it isn't relevant, except as it serves to maintain your ignorance of the matter.

but you know what? this kind of conversation isn't why i'm here. so i'll leave it at that.

ciao.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Davin on October 31, 2019, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: billy rubin
so i'll ask again, what makes your definition true and that of buddhism false?
I don't get why that matters. I don't care one way or the other or any way at all about Buddhism.

it matters because buddhist morality both exists and is not part of your understanding of the question, davin.
That doesn't make sense. I don't give any fucks for it. There is no rational reason for me to care about it. I know it exists and I have knowledge about it, but I don't care about it. It's insane that you're trying to tie it in to this like it's important in any way.

Quote from: billy rubin
but you know what? this kind of conversation isn't why i'm here. so i'll leave it at that.

ciao.
Alright, have fun.
Title: Re: that morality thing
Post by: Old Seer on November 19, 2019, 08:17:48 PM
Morality is what's human. Immorality is what's not.