Strange, I find I do most things because either I want to or I have to.
I believe we were discussing charitable giving.
Wanting to give to charity not good enough for you? Because you personally (relativist) think it's a good idea? Not seeing the problem here.
And you can do all of that without any invisible man telling you that giving to charity is an absolute good. Whaddyaknow.
...and what's more, you are less likely to let your invisible friend skew how or why you give money to charity.
I fail to see a downside to telling the absolutists to fuck off here - actually, I see one - no longer can you dictate to others what they should be doing. But then, I don't see that as much of a downside, because I'm not an absolutist.
personal choice as a recourse is based in moral relativism
No it's not. Personal choice is considered necessary by authors as diverse as Mill and Kant, neither of which were relativists at all.
That isn't a proof, that's just comparing the ostensible positions of authors. Also, you don't have to be a moral relativist to think personal choice is necessary; you do have to be a moral relativist to think personal choice is a good thing.
If every decision is a moral decision as you argue, then if you are an absolutist, personal choice means allowing people to get things right or wrong. This might be necessary for a million and one reasons (accountability for one), but you can't argue that intentionally allowing people to do wrong, is right. If you are a relativist, the mere fact of allowing people to make their own choices can be right, because you accept that where there is no absolute right answer, what is right can be (not always) defined by the fact that it is a personal choice.
So fine, my wording was as lazy as yours - personal choice as a good is based in moral relativism - but personaly choice can still be considered necessary by absolutists.
While I disagree with your premise that we don't know the answer on abortion, even if we grant it, what we have left over is a moral argument about how to deal with uncertainty.
Not really. If you grant we don't know the answer, there is no practical or moral imperative to find one answer, so you allow multiple answers - ie, choice.
MrMister, you're still avoiding my central questions; in the question what should I do?, do being integral to should; moral hazard; achieving objective good by subjective means; how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists. You can find the detailed versions over the last many pages. You know, the hard questions. I know you are on more comfortable ground waxing lyrical about relativism, but it's getting dull.
Strange, I find I do most things because either I want to or I have to.
I believe we were discussing charitable giving.
Wanting to give to charity not good enough for you? Because you personally (relativist) think it's a good idea? Not seeing the problem here.
It seems to me you are making a distinction where there is none. What we want and what we hold as moral both proceed from our view of the world. I feel my view is correct and will argue for it and point out the error in other views.
Shinto on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Wanting to give to charity not good enough for you? Because you personally (relativist) think it's a good idea? Not seeing the problem here.
And you can do all of that without any invisible man telling you that giving to charity is an absolute good. Whaddyaknow.
...and what's more, you are less likely to let your invisible friend skew how or why you give money to charity.
I fail to see a downside to telling the absolutists to fuck off here - actually, I see one - no longer can you dictate to others what they should be doing. But then, I don't see that as much of a downside, because I'm not an absolutist.
You've gone off the deep end. Invisible friend? Whatever.
MrMister, you're still avoiding my central questions; in the question what should I do?, do being integral to should; moral hazard; achieving objective good by subjective means; how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists. You can find the detailed versions over the last many pages. You know, the hard questions. I know you are on more comfortable ground waxing lyrical about relativism, but it's getting dull.
No, u.
I find it funny that you accuse me of waxing lyrical about relativism at the expense of everything else, both because you insist on its correctness (and it's not, so what do you expect me to do), and also because I spent like for-fucking-ever going over why your other arguments about 'do' trumping 'should' are just a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Or, for instance, moral hazard. I just went over how I have faith in economists and aid workers to be able to sort out the good charitable strategies from the bad ones, to which you had no special reply. This is about the most misleading summary I've ever read--apparently you've only been listening to yourself.
Strange, I find I do most things because either I want to or I have to.
I believe we were discussing charitable giving.
Wanting to give to charity not good enough for you? Because you personally (relativist) think it's a good idea? Not seeing the problem here.
Why would I want to give to charity if I didn't think it was a moral thing to do?
Tax write-offs, public relations/appearances, because you support the agenda/goals of the particular charity you're donating to, to impress girls with how sensitive and altruistic you are, to enter a raffle for a new Mustang GT, etc. What kind of question is that?
Shit maybe you're just really nice.
Edit: Oh and I know a bunch of people who gave to charity to get broken down cars towed off their property for free or minimal charge.
It seems to me you are making a distinction where there is none. What we want and what we hold as moral both proceed from our view of the world. I feel my view is correct and will argue for it and point out the error in other views.
That original line of questioning refered to absolute morality. I was pointing out that relativist morality also works perfectly well to motivate people to give to charity. I also disagree that you require morality at all as a motivation - it is quite possible to make the same argument for giving to charity from a very rational, efficiency / distribution economic standpoint. Doubt it would sell as well though.
None of this disproves my point that browbeating or cajoling people to give to charity on purely moral grounds, because it makes them 'fancy', or a good Christian, or whatever, has demonstrably negative practical effects. How one appeals to charitable instincts without creating these effects is a perfectly legitimate debate (particularly among the better NGOs), and it's a bit bizarre that some people here seem to argue that 'being moral' by giving to charity works in a vacuum - it's not true, and any responsible mind will consider the consequences of action instead of just the 'significance'.
You've gone off the deep end. Invisible friend? Whatever.
I've gone off the deep end for reading the thread and using a previously mentioned metaphor? Read Ketherial's post, top of the page. :roll:
MrMister, you're still avoiding my central questions; in the question what should I do?, do being integral to should; moral hazard; achieving objective good by subjective means; how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists. You can find the detailed versions over the last many pages. You know, the hard questions. I know you are on more comfortable ground waxing lyrical about relativism, but it's getting dull.
No, u.
I find it funny that you accuse me of waxing lyrical about relativism at the expense of everything else, both because you insist on its correctness (and it's not, so what do you expect me to do), and also because I spent like for-fucking-ever going over why your other arguments about 'do' trumping 'should' are just a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Or, for instance, moral hazard. I just went over how I have faith in economists and aid workers to be able to sort out the good charitable strategies from the bad ones, to which you had no special reply. This is about the most misleading summary I've ever read--apparently you've only been listening to yourself.
Peace out.
...yet avoid my central accusation that your exhortation to people to act on moral grounds is part of the problem. Did you read my first post in this thread at all? The entire point of the moral hazard question is that by making the charity argument about absolute goods and other claptrap, you can negatively effect the result - moral hazard is about how you give to charity and react to it, not the system that disseminates your money, so I'm not sure how the economists or aid workers can deal with it except by raising the problem, as I'm doing here?
Here is how I've read your answers to my questions:
"What should I do?, do being integral to should" = it is irrelevant
"moral hazard" = I rely on someone else to fix my problem
"achieving objective good by subjective means" = no answer? unless you can show me otherwise?
"how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists?" = no answer? Jeffe tried, not seen yours?
Quite obviously I disagree that no1. is irrelevant, as my last reply to Shinto pointed out.
So far, the only consistent argument that I get from you is that the moral act of giving to charity is an absolute good so everyone should do it, but that this is completely seperate from the practical effect your charity has. Since you seem to think it is irrelevant that the belief that those two things are seperate, and the belief that it is an absolute moral good, are precisely what can cause negative practical effects, I can only conclude that you are more interested in Sunday School easy morality than real issues.
Posts
Wanting to give to charity not good enough for you? Because you personally (relativist) think it's a good idea? Not seeing the problem here.
And you can do all of that without any invisible man telling you that giving to charity is an absolute good. Whaddyaknow.
...and what's more, you are less likely to let your invisible friend skew how or why you give money to charity.
I fail to see a downside to telling the absolutists to fuck off here - actually, I see one - no longer can you dictate to others what they should be doing. But then, I don't see that as much of a downside, because I'm not an absolutist.
That isn't a proof, that's just comparing the ostensible positions of authors. Also, you don't have to be a moral relativist to think personal choice is necessary; you do have to be a moral relativist to think personal choice is a good thing.
If every decision is a moral decision as you argue, then if you are an absolutist, personal choice means allowing people to get things right or wrong. This might be necessary for a million and one reasons (accountability for one), but you can't argue that intentionally allowing people to do wrong, is right. If you are a relativist, the mere fact of allowing people to make their own choices can be right, because you accept that where there is no absolute right answer, what is right can be (not always) defined by the fact that it is a personal choice.
So fine, my wording was as lazy as yours - personal choice as a good is based in moral relativism - but personaly choice can still be considered necessary by absolutists.
Not really. If you grant we don't know the answer, there is no practical or moral imperative to find one answer, so you allow multiple answers - ie, choice.
MrMister, you're still avoiding my central questions; in the question what should I do?, do being integral to should; moral hazard; achieving objective good by subjective means; how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists. You can find the detailed versions over the last many pages. You know, the hard questions. I know you are on more comfortable ground waxing lyrical about relativism, but it's getting dull.
It seems to me you are making a distinction where there is none. What we want and what we hold as moral both proceed from our view of the world. I feel my view is correct and will argue for it and point out the error in other views.
You've gone off the deep end. Invisible friend? Whatever.
No, u.
I find it funny that you accuse me of waxing lyrical about relativism at the expense of everything else, both because you insist on its correctness (and it's not, so what do you expect me to do), and also because I spent like for-fucking-ever going over why your other arguments about 'do' trumping 'should' are just a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Or, for instance, moral hazard. I just went over how I have faith in economists and aid workers to be able to sort out the good charitable strategies from the bad ones, to which you had no special reply. This is about the most misleading summary I've ever read--apparently you've only been listening to yourself.
Peace out.
Why would I want to give to charity if I didn't think it was a moral thing to do?
Tax write-offs, public relations/appearances, because you support the agenda/goals of the particular charity you're donating to, to impress girls with how sensitive and altruistic you are, to enter a raffle for a new Mustang GT, etc. What kind of question is that?
Shit maybe you're just really nice.
Edit: Oh and I know a bunch of people who gave to charity to get broken down cars towed off their property for free or minimal charge.
Er, I included that it could be because you think it is moral. Not at all the same thing as it objectively being moral.
That original line of questioning refered to absolute morality. I was pointing out that relativist morality also works perfectly well to motivate people to give to charity. I also disagree that you require morality at all as a motivation - it is quite possible to make the same argument for giving to charity from a very rational, efficiency / distribution economic standpoint. Doubt it would sell as well though.
None of this disproves my point that browbeating or cajoling people to give to charity on purely moral grounds, because it makes them 'fancy', or a good Christian, or whatever, has demonstrably negative practical effects. How one appeals to charitable instincts without creating these effects is a perfectly legitimate debate (particularly among the better NGOs), and it's a bit bizarre that some people here seem to argue that 'being moral' by giving to charity works in a vacuum - it's not true, and any responsible mind will consider the consequences of action instead of just the 'significance'.
I've gone off the deep end for reading the thread and using a previously mentioned metaphor? Read Ketherial's post, top of the page. :roll:
...yet avoid my central accusation that your exhortation to people to act on moral grounds is part of the problem. Did you read my first post in this thread at all? The entire point of the moral hazard question is that by making the charity argument about absolute goods and other claptrap, you can negatively effect the result - moral hazard is about how you give to charity and react to it, not the system that disseminates your money, so I'm not sure how the economists or aid workers can deal with it except by raising the problem, as I'm doing here?
Here is how I've read your answers to my questions:
"What should I do?, do being integral to should" = it is irrelevant
"moral hazard" = I rely on someone else to fix my problem
"achieving objective good by subjective means" = no answer? unless you can show me otherwise?
"how we recognise & act on an objective moral good if we accept it exists?" = no answer? Jeffe tried, not seen yours?
Quite obviously I disagree that no1. is irrelevant, as my last reply to Shinto pointed out.
So far, the only consistent argument that I get from you is that the moral act of giving to charity is an absolute good so everyone should do it, but that this is completely seperate from the practical effect your charity has. Since you seem to think it is irrelevant that the belief that those two things are seperate, and the belief that it is an absolute moral good, are precisely what can cause negative practical effects, I can only conclude that you are more interested in Sunday School easy morality than real issues.