As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

You're Bad People

12357

Posts

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    But if money makes me happy, how does me giving my money away to someone else to make them happy make any sense? Why arent they doing something to give me more money to make me more happy?

    Marginal returns.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    But if money makes me happy, how does me giving my money away to someone else to make them happy make any sense? Why arent they doing something to give me more money to make me more happy?

    Marginal returns.

    So dont bother donating loose change, since it has marginal returns. Ahh, but in aggregate it has significant returns, so does a large number of poor people giving me whatever money they scrounge up. (lol slumlords)

    I think I'm going to stop posting for awhile until someone responds to Not Sarastro's post.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I've got no problem with the idea of charitable works giving you a moral high ground. However, it's pretty tough to gracefully take advantage of that high ground yourself without forfeiting it - i.e. revealing that your selfish reasons for giving to the charity (you're right, they're always there) outweighed the generous reasons.

    It reminds me of a scene in the movie "I <3 Huckabees" where the main characters are arguing with a fundamentalist Christian family who brought a Sudanese refugee over to live with them. They get angrier and angrier at the accusations getting thrown around until the mother yells out "How dare you?! We brought a Sudanese refugee into our house!" (the guy was sitting right there) So long moral high ground.

    I think the only real way to gracefully take advantage of that sort of high ground would be to use your charitable accomplishments as a means of convincing others to follow suit, or something to that extent.

    The thing about Moral ground, as you pointed out, is that it's an unspoken status. It can lose it merit if you point out your entitlement to it, but I think that really depends on the context.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    1. You need to answer this: Do you accept that it is the consequences of your action, not the intent, that defines whether it is an objective good?

    I'd say intent is at least 90%, if not all, of the basis for ascribing notions of morality to someone. Imagine I dedicate a day to working in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless. I serve soup to people all day, selflessly working away. Later on it's discovered that someone spiked the soup with poison, and everyone I served is now dead. The consequences of my actions are identical to if I'd gone and personally murdered each of those people. Does that mean that what I did was evil? Fuck no, because my intent was to help.

    Now, people can certainly be culpable for their actions, regardless of intent, in cases of gross negligence. If I try to perform brain surgery on my wife as an act of kindness, I'll probably kill her, and I should be punished for that, because holy fuck was that dumb. My intent was good, and so my actions were morally good. They were just criminally stupid, and it's in society's best interest to punish egregious acts of stupid in order to make people act more carefully.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Goatmon wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I've got no problem with the idea of charitable works giving you a moral high ground. However, it's pretty tough to gracefully take advantage of that high ground yourself without forfeiting it - i.e. revealing that your selfish reasons for giving to the charity (you're right, they're always there) outweighed the generous reasons.

    It reminds me of a scene in the movie "I <3 Huckabees" where the main characters are arguing with a fundamentalist Christian family who brought a Sudanese refugee over to live with them. They get angrier and angrier at the accusations getting thrown around until the mother yells out "How dare you?! We brought a Sudanese refugee into our house!" (the guy was sitting right there) So long moral high ground.

    I think the only real way to gracefully take advantage of that sort of high ground would be to use your charitable accomplishments as a means of convincing others to follow suit, or something to that extent.

    The thing about Moral ground, as you pointed out, is that it's an unspoken status. It can lose it merit if you point out your entitlement to it, but I think that really depends on the context.

    Agreeing with this. Of course you attain some type of moral high ground from charitable actions, the question is how much and does anybody care or should you shut the fuck up about it? (not directed at the quoted posters obviously just as a general sort of statement)

    electricitylikesme on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    I would say if you're bringing up your charitable actions in order to bludgeon your moral high groundedness into lesser people, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

    I don't think this really applies to the OP, btw, since the purpose of the thread wasn't just to brag about being charitable.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    A few other things I wanted to reply to.
    Hachface wrote: »
    To me, it looks like relativism arising from an appeal to ignorance: We can never tell for sure absolute certainty if something is moral, so therefore we shouldn't try. That's ridiculous.

    No. We can never tell for sure if something is moral because differing systems of morality never agree. Absolutely certainty is systemically impossible, so we shouldn't try via moral systems. Instead, we try to do things based on other systems - logic, science, politics, knowledge, experience, astrology, luck, and more.

    Again, relativism can be used to advocate nihilism, but not necessarily. Smart people argue relativism to question the utility of making choices based on morality, not the utility of making choices at all.

    But that's a topic for another thread.
    ElJeffe wrote:
    There is a definite subset of charitable causes that any reasonable person would agree are virtuous. I mean, giving food to starving homeless people is a good cause by any non-stupid definition.

    This is precisely the problem. Your definition of 'non-stupid' is someone else's definition of 'morality'. I think halting stem cell research, denying evolution, and so on are pretty fucking stupid. I agree most people, and most moral systems think giving food to starving people is good thing, but bet I can find you some who don't - offhand, hardcore 'not helping them to help themselves' types or those who deny any social responsibility at all would fit the bill.

    Objective means objective. It means absolute good, better than everything else. Moral systems are subjective. Trying to attain an objective goal by subjective methods is doomed to fail. Some might accidentally hit the mark, but that does not make it a rational system for determining objective action.

    If you must talk in absolutes, you don't get to have caveats like 'by any non-stupid definition'.
    By "relative" do you mean "contextual" or "subjective"? We've already covered the former, and the latter is false.

    Interesting to hear it's false that morality is subjective. Clearly you have proved objective moral truth - mind showing us your working?

    Or an easier one, let's assume there is an objective, absolute morality. Since there are still obviously opposing moral opinions, how do you objectively choose which one is correct? Not much use in having absolute morality if you don't know what it is.

    I see you have already tried here:
    You, as a conscious being, have some experiences that are pleasant, and others that are unpleasant. If there are other conscious beings, they will also have some experiences that are pleasant and others that are unpleasant. Since, by definition, nobody likes unpleasant experiences and everybody likes pleasant experiences, unpleasant experiences are bad and pleasant experiences are good. You would like good things and not like bad things to happen to you, other conscious beings - if they exist - would like good things and not like bad things done to them, and nobody has any claim to greater importance than any other conscious being. Therefore, you must not interfere with another conscious being's preferences towards good things and against bad things, and they mustn't interfere with yours (at the very least, you should probably actively support the perferences towards good things of other conscious beings).
    You're welcome to challenge any of these arguments I've already made.[/QUOTE]

    1. Having a bullet dug out of you is fucking unpleasant. If I don't know much about modern medicine, it's also scary, unintelligible, not a good thing and I'll fight you off when you try to do it. Is a British battlefield medic digging a bullet out of a Bosnian kid to save his life immoral? It is by your definition. True story.

    2. Is a doctor saving the life of a Christian Scientist using modern medicine comitting an immoral act? Discuss.

    3. A hunter killing an animal to survive finds it unpleasant. The animal finds it an unpleasant experience. Is the hunter being moral or immoral? Or a modern hunter finds killing an animal a pleasurable experience. The animal still finds it unpleasant. Who is morally correct? Both objections are interfering with the others' pursuit of pleasure or right to avoid displeasure.

    Sorry, your attempt to define objective morality isn't much better than the thousands of people who have failed before you over the last few millenia.

    Not Sarastro on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    To your original point, you are strawmanning the opposing view. There may well be some people who take the 'every action is inherently selfish' position, but then they are simplistic, as is your argument against them. There are people, however, who argue that every action - particularly those with a moral intent - is inherently influenced by your self. I would call this a subset of psychological egoism, but I don't really care about the semantics - let's call it Bob.

    You've called this obvious before, and it is. But what it means is somewhat more complex, certainly a damn sight more so than your categorical and objective goods. Gnomus Interruptus & others have offered examples, but here are two more re: giving to charity.
    Can you really call a tautology a position? And how do either of your examples relate to Bob? Your first example shows how good intent gets sabotaged by unfortunate facts, which does not intrinsically reflect on the actor at all. Your second is a matter of complicated intent, and one might believe Evangelists are morally mistaken, but so what?

    Basically, I feel like you're arguing against a position MrMister doesn't really hold - namely, that the act of giving to charity is always a good thing - and ignoring the larger concern of whether any action can contribute to greater moral standing. The charity thing as I interpret it is only an example of this larger question. The charity thing seems to me self-evidently stupid.

    EDIT:
    Again, relativism can be used to advocate nihilism, but not necessarily. Smart people argue relativism to question the utility of making choices based on morality, not the utility of making choices at all.
    So do you mean that trying to make moral choices is futile, or that trying to make moral choices through moral systems is futile? What counts as a system?
    No. We can never tell for sure if something is moral because differing systems of morality never agree.
    We should have a name for this if there isn't one yet. Call it the fallacy of appeal to controversy.
    Adrien wrote:
    Mathematics being nothing more than a shared assumption, there is nothing inherently wrong with the statement that 1+1=red. For that matter none of those symbols have any inherent meaning. If I reject the consensus, am I wrong?
    This isn't the thread to deal with this, but I would like to register the fact that I object strongly to this in so many different ways it would take pages to unravel.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    1. You need to answer this: Do you accept that it is the consequences of your action, not the intent, that defines whether it is an objective good?

    I'd say intent is at least 90%, if not all, of the basis for ascribing notions of morality to someone. Imagine I dedicate a day to working in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless. I serve soup to people all day, selflessly working away. Later on it's discovered that someone spiked the soup with poison, and everyone I served is now dead. The consequences of my actions are identical to if I'd gone and personally murdered each of those people. Does that mean that what I did was evil? Fuck no, because my intent was to help.

    Now, people can certainly be culpable for their actions, regardless of intent, in cases of gross negligence. If I try to perform brain surgery on my wife as an act of kindness, I'll probably kill her, and I should be punished for that, because holy fuck was that dumb. My intent was good, and so my actions were morally good. They were just criminally stupid, and it's in society's best interest to punish egregious acts of stupid in order to make people act more carefully.

    But that is an argument for assigning blame or reward based on your intent, which is fine. And yes, it is a good argument for arguing ethics & principle. My point is the starving Bangladeshi's that MrMister mentioned don't give a fuck about your intent. They care that their soup was poisoned, and their mates are dead.

    Morality is fine for what you were talking about - it is not a great way to ensure 'objective good' in practical action. Giving to charity is a practical action. It has a practical effect, which may or may not be objectively good. I consider that more important than your moral conscience.

    All of which leads back to the first post:
    MrMister wrote:
    Cowboy up and learn to live with the fact that your actions have significance.

    I don't give a toss about significance. Cowboy up and learn to live with the fact that your actions have consequences.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The closest thing I think that I've seen to an absolute moral truth was the "Do NOT do unto others as you would have others NOT do unto you."

    Since that even applies to the S&M crowd as far as I understand it. Though it leaves something to be desired as a policy decision since its based on inaction as opposed to active interference that so many moral objectivists seem to be advocates of.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Can you really call a tautology a position? And how do either of your examples relate to Bob?
    Your first example shows how good intent gets sabotaged by unfortunate facts, which does not intrinsically reflect on the actor at all. Your second is a matter of complicated intent, and one might believe Evangelists are morally mistaken, but so what?

    The point is the practical effect of the tautology is different to the theoretical/moral/ethical effect. Both show people acting in accordance to their moral system. They get a tick according to MrMister's argument. But both also show practical damage that this can do.

    As I said above, my argument is that practical effects trump moral intent.
    Basically, I feel like you're arguing against a position MrMister doesn't really hold - namely, that the act of giving to charity is always a good thing - and ignoring the larger concern of whether any action can contribute to greater moral standing. The charity thing as I interpret it is only an example of this larger question. The charity thing seems to me self-evidently stupid.

    Well, if that isn't his position, he should avoid words like 'objective' and 'categorical'. Like I said to ElJeffe, if you argue absolutes, you should expect to be judged by them.

    Not Sarastro on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    There is a definite subset of charitable causes that any reasonable person would agree are virtuous. I mean, giving food to starving homeless people is a good cause by any non-stupid definition.

    This is precisely the problem. Your definition of 'non-stupid' is someone else's definition of 'morality'. I think halting stem cell research, denying evolution, and so on are pretty fucking stupid. I agree most people, and most moral systems think giving food to starving people is good thing, but bet I can find you some who don't - offhand, hardcore 'not helping them to help themselves' types or those who deny any social responsibility at all would fit the bill.

    Objective means objective. It means absolute good, better than everything else. Moral systems are subjective. Trying to attain an objective goal by subjective methods is doomed to fail. Some might accidentally hit the mark, but that does not make it a rational system for determining objective action.

    If you must talk in absolutes, you don't get to have caveats like 'by any non-stupid definition'.

    I was mostly trying to avoid having to argue the specific point of feeding the starving, because it would descend into the kind of minutae that misses the forest for the trees and winds up derailing topics. I agree you can make an argument that giving food to hungry people is not always a strictly good action. Giving food to a hungry guy who is perfectly capable of getting up and making a sandwich but is too lazy isn't really all that good. You'd need, then, to whittle your parameters down a bit. I still maintain that there is a set of people such that giving them food is an objectively good action. I also submit that people who disagree on this point do not simply have a different moral system, they have a wrong moral system.

    That's sort of what objective morality means. It means you're welcome to disagree with it, but you're just plain wrong. You can't disprove objective morality by finding someone who disagrees any more than you can disprove that 2+2 = 4 by finding someone who thinks that 2+2 = 5.

    I suppose if you want, you could move to a different situation that's even more black and white: You're walking home to do nothing of any import, and you stumble across the victim of a hit-and-run. Left alone, he will die, and it's unlikely anyone else will run across him. Do you help him by, for example, calling an ambulance? Or do you say fuck it and go home to do nothing of import? Again, I submit that there is a single right answer to this question. If you disagree, you are wrong.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    That's sort of what objective morality means. It means you're welcome to disagree with it, but you're just plain wrong. You can't disprove objective morality by finding someone who disagrees any more than you can disprove that 2+2 = 4 by finding someone who thinks that 2+2 = 5.

    I suppose if you want, you could move to a different situation that's even more black and white: You're walking home to do nothing of any import, and you stumble across the victim of a hit-and-run. Left alone, he will die, and it's unlikely anyone else will run across him. Do you help him by, for example, calling an ambulance? Or do you say fuck it and go home to do nothing of import? Again, I submit that there is a single right answer to this question. If you disagree, you are wrong.

    I disagree. Demonstrate that I am wrong.

    Alternatively, demonstrate that you are right.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I was mostly trying to avoid having to argue the specific point of feeding the starving, because it would descend into the kind of minutae that misses the forest for the trees and winds up derailing topics. I agree you can make an argument that giving food to hungry people is not always a strictly good action. Giving food to a hungry guy who is perfectly capable of getting up and making a sandwich but is too lazy isn't really all that good. You'd need, then, to whittle your parameters down a bit. I still maintain that there is a set of people such that giving them food is an objectively good action. I also submit that people who disagree on this point do not simply have a different moral system, they have a wrong moral system.

    That's sort of what objective morality means. It means you're welcome to disagree with it, but you're just plain wrong. You can't disprove objective morality by finding someone who disagrees any more than you can disprove that 2+2 = 4 by finding someone who thinks that 2+2 = 5.

    I suppose if you want, you could move to a different situation that's even more black and white: You're walking home to do nothing of any import, and you stumble across the victim of a hit-and-run. Left alone, he will die, and it's unlikely anyone else will run across him. Do you help him by, for example, calling an ambulance? Or do you say fuck it and go home to do nothing of import? Again, I submit that there is a single right answer to this question. If you disagree, you are wrong.

    This is all fine, and becomes increasingly common-sensical when you argue it down to basics like that. But what happens when you argue it upwards? When claims of objective morality become about the examples I was using (stem cells etc). You are living in a country where this is a much more pertinent issue than here. It can have powerful negative effects too.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing against helping your hit-and-run victim. I do argue that there are plenty of other motivations that mean someone will act there (sociological; fear of consequences if they are seen ignoring him; natural impulse), which mean that most of the things you describe as objective goods will be done anyway. Similarly, I'm not arguing against giving to charity.

    I am saying that moral imperatives for doing all of this are simply a bad method; they often get the practical action wrong, they create moral hazard, and claiming moral objectivity as a really bad precedent, because people with obviously subjective moral opinions use it to enforce them on others.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    So do you mean that trying to make moral choices is futile, or that trying to make moral choices through moral systems is futile? What counts as a system?

    Not futile. You can perfectly well make moral choices because to a great extent you define your own morality. I was talking about utility. Remember, this is all within the OP's assumption that there are objective goods to be attained here, not just objective moral goods. I'm not so concerned with the objective moral good, I'm saying they are irrelevant compared to the practical good done (or not).
    No. We can never tell for sure if something is moral because differing systems of morality never agree.
    We should have a name for this if there isn't one yet. Call it the fallacy of appeal to controversy.

    Sure, call it that once you've demonstrated it's a fallacy. If it helps, you can alter my original statement to say, "We cannot currently tell for sure if something is moral etc", so I'm not claiming it will never happen in some distant future.

    It's hardly a new concept, so I'm sure it does have a name, and that might even be it if you were being ironical and stuff; buggered if I know what it is though, been a long time since I debated philosophy.

    Not Sarastro on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    This is all fine, and becomes increasingly common-sensical when you argue it down to basics like that. But what happens when you argue it upwards? When claims of objective morality become about the examples I was using (stem cells etc). You are living in a country where this is a much more pertinent issue than here. It can have powerful negative effects too.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing against helping your hit-and-run victim. I do argue that there are plenty of other motivations that mean someone will act there (sociological; fear of consequences if they are seen ignoring him; natural impulse), which mean that most of the things you describe as objective goods will be done anyway. Similarly, I'm not arguing against giving to charity.

    I am saying that moral imperatives for doing all of this are simply a bad method; they often get the practical action wrong, they create moral hazard, and claiming moral objectivity as a really bad precedent, because people with obviously subjective moral opinions use it to enforce them on others.

    If we accept that there a certain class, at least, of moral imperatives, that provides a foundation for a general system of moral objectivity. By looking at the base cases, we can assemble a more sophisticated system that covers more and more bases, with the caveat that contextuality will throw a wrench in the system. Just because we know that a situation has a right answer doesn't mean it's easy (or, perhaps, even possible) to find that answer.

    So what's the point? Well, the point is that it serves to motivate us towards finding that right answer. Under moral relativism, if two people disagree over the right course of action in a given situation, you just wave your hands and say, "Well, either of them might be right, whatever." Under moral objectivity, we know that at least one of them is wrong, and it tells us that we should more closely look at the issue.

    Look at some of the larger issues today - abortion, handling of terrorism, war, and so on. Under moral relativity, the abortion issue, for example, is just a bunch of people who disagree. Those who want to ban the practice are no more correct than those who want to allow it. The right answer is whichever one is in the majority. Those in the minority have less of a case in fighting it. If we accept that there's a single correct answer, though, it tells us that the correct side on that issue are justified in fighting for justice even if they're grossly outnumbered. They shouldn't just say, "Well, fuck, society disagree with us, guess we should throw in the towel." They have a moral obligation to bring people to the proper conclusion.

    The difference is really in how you approach the question of morality more than in what answers you reach.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    First off, I'm still of the opinion that "what answers you reach" are the point. Again, if I am the subject to any of these answers, I want the one that isn't going to poison my soup with all the right intentions. I would rather have an immoral bastard not poison my soup than a moral one kill me.

    If there is an objectively best or correct answer, that is the goal. Therefore, how you get there should be determined by what gets you there best. If there is an objectively best answer, there is presumably an objectively best, most efficient method to reach it. My argument has been that moral imperatives are demonstrably not the best method to reach the correct answer.

    Fundamental goal aside, I think we agree re: your above post. We do not agree with the following:
    Well, the point is that it serves to motivate us towards finding that right answer. Under moral relativism, if two people disagree over the right course of action in a given situation, you just wave your hands and say, "Well, either of them might be right, whatever." Under moral objectivity, we know that at least one of them is wrong, and it tells us that we should more closely look at the issue.

    One, as I outined earlier, moral relativism does not mean just chosing randomly in that situation. It means looking at other methods of making a decision.

    Two, we do not always know that one answer is wrong. Much, if not all of the time, these decisions benefit some, and harm others, even if by ommission. Standard allocation of scarce resources. Achieving one 'correct' answer is a practical fallacy; you tend to try for the least bad answer for everyone, or the one most sympathetic to you.
    Look at some of the larger issues today - abortion, handling of terrorism, war, and so on. Under moral relativity, the abortion issue, for example, is just a bunch of people who disagree. Those who want to ban the practice are no more correct than those who want to allow it. The right answer is whichever one is in the majority. Those in the minority have less of a case in fighting it. If we accept that there's a single correct answer, though, it tells us that the correct side on that issue are justified in fighting for justice even if they're grossly outnumbered. They shouldn't just say, "Well, fuck, society disagree with us, guess we should throw in the towel." They have a moral obligation to bring people to the proper conclusion.

    Of course, your abortion example also justifies terrorists. Minority fighting a majority, accepting there is a single correct answer, and believe they are the correct side on that issue. Essentially your moral system of choice argues terrorism is justified.

    I know sociologists and war theorists who might agree with you, but I suspect that wasn't your intent? Do you see where I have a problem with this use of morality?

    Not Sarastro on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So what's the point? Well, the point is that it serves to motivate us towards finding that right answer. Under moral relativism, if two people disagree over the right course of action in a given situation, you just wave your hands and say, "Well, either of them might be right, whatever." Under moral objectivity, we know that at least one of them is wrong, and it tells us that we should more closely look at the issue.

    I've always been a bit confused by this description of relativism. You wouldn't look at physical relativity and say, "Well, these two people disagree, so I guess there's no way we can ever really know the velocity of the train." The entire point of relativity is that both perspectives describe the universe accurately.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    Moral relativism is the proposition that moral rules do not exist outside of cultural boundaries. As such, whatever is the proper "moral code" is defined by whatever culture you happen to exist in. And for culture to define the "proper" moral stance on a particular issue, there must be some consensus. It's not inaccurate, then, to assert that the moral code for a particular culture, assuming moral relativism, is defined principally by majority opinion. If, tomorrow, everyone in the US decided that it was wrong to walk around in public without wearing a pink beanie, it would be, by definition of moral relativism. More importantly, it would be wrong precisely because the people said so.

    In a complex issue such as abortion, where the country is strongly at odds and roughly equally divided, it becomes very difficult to even figure out what the proper moral stance is. Complicating the matter is that, with opinion being in flux, the proper answer could change frequently. If we assume that it's in some measure wrong to strongly endorse an immoral position and work towards its realization, we wind up with a situation in which half the country could be morally correct one day, and morally incorrect the next.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So what's the point? Well, the point is that it serves to motivate us towards finding that right answer. Under moral relativism, if two people disagree over the right course of action in a given situation, you just wave your hands and say, "Well, either of them might be right, whatever." Under moral objectivity, we know that at least one of them is wrong, and it tells us that we should more closely look at the issue.

    I've always been a bit confused by this description of relativism. You wouldn't look at physical relativity and say, "Well, these two people disagree, so I guess there's no way we can ever really know the velocity of the train." The entire point of relativity is that both perspectives describe the universe accurately.

    That's complete and total equivocation. Moral relativism bears no resemblance to physical relativity.

    Hachface on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So what's the point? Well, the point is that it serves to motivate us towards finding that right answer. Under moral relativism, if two people disagree over the right course of action in a given situation, you just wave your hands and say, "Well, either of them might be right, whatever." Under moral objectivity, we know that at least one of them is wrong, and it tells us that we should more closely look at the issue.

    I've always been a bit confused by this description of relativism. You wouldn't look at physical relativity and say, "Well, these two people disagree, so I guess there's no way we can ever really know the velocity of the train." The entire point of relativity is that both perspectives describe the universe accurately.

    That's complete and total equivocation. Moral relativism bears no resemblance to physical relativity.

    It depends, if you have 4 people. One directly behind the train, one directly infront of the train, one to the side of the train, and another actually on the train.
    All will have differing views on how fast the train is moving.
    A) Its moving 45km/h away from me
    B) Its moving 45km/h towards me
    C) Its moving 5km/h towards me, transversally its moving 44km/h to my right.
    D) The train is not moving at all relative to me.

    Again, what the train is doing depends on where you stand. Just like any actions being judged moral or not must take into account other factors.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Still, justification for abortion in your model = justification for terrorism. You can use your argument it to justify whatever you feel is morally correct. This is not a good decision-making system. Comment?
    ElJeffe wrote:
    In a complex issue such as abortion, where the country is strongly at odds and roughly equally divided, it becomes very difficult to even figure out what the proper moral stance is. Complicating the matter is that, with opinion being in flux, the proper answer could change frequently. If we assume that it's in some measure wrong to strongly endorse an immoral position and work towards its realization, we wind up with a situation in which half the country could be morally correct one day, and morally incorrect the next.

    This is the third time you've ignored my point on practical action & moral relativism and asserted your own. I'm the one arguing a moral relativist standpoint, you are not - I think it is slightly incumbent on you to at least address my argument:

    You do not end up in a situation of moral flux. The entire point of moral relativism is that you accept there is a permenent state of moral flux. Thus instead of attempting to judge the 'correct' answer on moral grounds, you use other methods instead, whether legal, intellectual, etc etc. Moral imperatives are no longer part of that decision, because they are held to be indecisive.

    [Finally, for posterity: you incorrectly defined moral relativism; it is the proposition that there are no objective moral truths. How moral relativists explain moral systems (culture like you say, but also other examples) is fairly irrelevant to this discussion. The principle that one moral system doesn't objectively trump another is enough.]

    Could you please address my point about the goal of practical good & decision process to get there, rather than just making this another tired 'what is moral relativism' thread?

    Not Sarastro on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    You do not end up in a situation of moral flux. The entire point of moral relativism is that you accept there is a permenent state of moral flux. Thus instead of attempting to judge the 'correct' answer on moral grounds, you use other methods instead, whether legal, intellectual, etc etc. Moral imperatives are no longer part of that decision, because they are held to be indecisive.

    You're not in a state of moral flux because you're always in a state of moral flux? Buh?
    [Finally, for posterity: you incorrectly defined moral relativism; it is the proposition that there are no objective moral truths. How moral relativists explain moral systems (culture like you say, but also other examples) is fairly irrelevant to this discussion. The principle that one moral system doesn't objectively trump another is enough.]

    "Moral relativism is the proposition that moral rules do not exist outside of cultural boundaries" is a pretty close synonym for "there are no objective truths". Sorry I didn't directly quote the dictionary for you.
    Could you please address my point about the goal of practical good & decision process to get there, rather than just making this another tired 'what is moral relativism' thread?

    I already addressed what I felt were the practical advantages of moral absolutism as compared to moral relativism several posts ago.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    You're not in a state of moral flux because you're always in a state of moral flux? Buh?

    You do not end up in a state of moral flux - your decision does not end up stymied by it, because it is a constant assumption. Thus you use other decision-making methods when necessary.
    "Moral relativism is the proposition that moral rules do not exist outside of cultural boundaries" is a pretty close synonym for "there are no objective truths". Sorry I didn't directly quote the dictionary for you.

    No, it really isn't. It's miles away. Anyway, it's tangental to the argument.
    Could you please address my point about the goal of practical good & decision process to get there, rather than just making this another tired 'what is moral relativism' thread?

    I already addressed what I felt were the practical advantages of moral absolutism as compared to moral relativism several posts ago.[/QUOTE]

    You specifically have avoided addressing my counter-argument to that, which is that your system above justifies terrorism - which presumably you consider to be morally bad - as well as what you consider to be morally good. You haven't explained how my suggestion, the possibilty of removing the moral debate from these decisions, using factual, practical, scientific, and other methods instead, is worse at achieving the end goal - the objective practical good.

    Essentially, you haven't at all addressed my case that it is not necessary, efficient or 'good' to use morality as a basis for all decision-making.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    This is one of those cases where either extreme sucks. Complete moral relativism is just a big mess where nothing definite gets done, whereas complete moral absolutism is bound to be highly unfair in cases that aren't clear cut(or the law needs to be immensely complicated to cover nearly all conceivable situations, becoming convoluted to the point of uselessness).

    Middle ground seems the best. In my own experience though, I prefer those people who lean towards relativism, as they don't seem to be quite as adamant about forcing their values on me as those who believe in absolute morals. Their behaviour seems similar to fundies, as in their need to "convert" me, make me a good person by making me follow their "true" morals.

    Rhan9 on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    A) I don't disagree that it's not necessary, efficient, or good to use morality for all decision making. It's stupid to do so 99% of the time, because to the extent it's even possible to discover the objectively correct answer, it would take so long as to paralyze you with indecision, thus likely resulting in more harm than if you just employed some other method. Nobody sane uses morality to determine whether they want vanilla or chocolate, or to figure out which videogame they feel like playing, or to decide which restaurant to go to for dinner. I guess I didn't address your case because your case is so self-evident. That says pretty much zilch about anything we've been discussing, though.

    B) I avoided your counter argument because it was dumb. "Fighting against injustice" in no way requires, or even implies, physical fighting. I mean, a central tenet of Kant's categorical imperative is that you don't go around committing horrible sins for the prevention of lesser ones. Lie to prevent a murder, but don't murder to prevent a lie.

    C) Fine. You're always in a state of moral flux. Sort of irrelevant, since I was arguing that moral flux isn't really a great thing to begin with. At least with objective morality, once a question is settled, it's settled. We decided a long time ago that slavery was immoral. If someone broaches the question again, we can slap him and say, "Fuck you, we already settled that. GTFO." Under relativism, he can respond with, "Well, yeah, fifty years ago. Things change, man!"

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    This is one of those cases where either extreme sucks. Complete moral relativism is just a big mess where nothing definite gets done, whereas complete moral absolutism is bound to be highly unfair in cases that aren't clear cut(or the law needs to be immensely complicated to cover nearly all conceivable situations, becoming convoluted to the point of uselessness).

    Middle ground seems the best. In my own experience though, I prefer those people who lean towards relativism, as they don't seem to be quite as adamant about forcing their values on me as those who believe in absolute morals. Their behaviour seems similar to fundies, as in their need to "convert" me, make me a good person by making me follow their "true" morals.

    Your average moral relativist is just as likely to get his panties in a bunch when you do something he deems immoral as your average absolutist.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    This is one of those cases where either extreme sucks. Complete moral relativism is just a big mess where nothing definite gets done, whereas complete moral absolutism is bound to be highly unfair in cases that aren't clear cut(or the law needs to be immensely complicated to cover nearly all conceivable situations, becoming convoluted to the point of uselessness).

    Middle ground seems the best. In my own experience though, I prefer those people who lean towards relativism, as they don't seem to be quite as adamant about forcing their values on me as those who believe in absolute morals. Their behaviour seems similar to fundies, as in their need to "convert" me, make me a good person by making me follow their "true" morals.

    Your average moral relativist is just as likely to get his panties in a bunch when you do something he deems immoral as your average absolutist.

    True dat.

    Moral absolutism seems to work at a basic level(you know, murder being considered bad pretty much around the globe, and such), but fails when it comes to complex issues. If there is a moral absolute, nobody seems to have come up with it yet.

    Rhan9 on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    A) I don't disagree that it's not necessary, efficient, or good to use morality for all decision making. It's stupid to do so 99% of the time, because to the extent it's even possible to discover the objectively correct answer, it would take so long as to paralyze you with indecision, thus likely resulting in more harm than if you just employed some other method. Nobody sane uses morality to determine whether they want vanilla or chocolate, or to figure out which videogame they feel like playing, or to decide which restaurant to go to for dinner. I guess I didn't address your case because your case is so self-evident. That says pretty much zilch about anything we've been discussing, though.
    I think you're approaching the issue all wrong here. All of those examples you gave are moral questions. They're also completely trivial and utterly simple, but they're still moral questions. Any question that asks what one should do ("should I have chocolate or vanilla?" "should I play Zelda or Mario?" "should I have Italian or Chinese?") is a moral question. It just so happens that the answer is so easy that it hardly bears thinking about. The answer is just the answer to "what do I like more?" or "what will make me feel better?" I mean, sure, you could delve into the infinite possible consequences of your actions which may or may not be at all foreseeable, but really, all you need to determine is what choice will make you happier, because there's no good reason to think that choosing vanilla over chocolate will have any significant repercussions.

    Grid System on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    From reading the threads, it seems like the people who make intelligent responses are positive about life, saying things along the lines of "yes, there are always some outliers or situations when this doesn't work. Doesn't mean we should not do it." The people who are making boneheaded statements tend to say "well what if this crazy scenario where to happen? I don't want that to happen; therefore I shouldn't do it."

    Which was kinda predicted by Mr^2 in the op.

    Awesome.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    B) I avoided your counter argument because it was dumb. "Fighting against injustice" in no way requires, or even implies, physical fighting. I mean, a central tenet of Kant's categorical imperative is that you don't go around committing horrible sins for the prevention of lesser ones. Lie to prevent a murder, but don't murder to prevent a lie.

    Well that's swell if your moral system includes Kant. The Jihadi moral system includes the idea that it's okay to kill as part of holy war. You are still making assumptions from your own moral standpoint, but your given reasoning for doing so also allows

    C) Fine. You're always in a state of moral flux. Sort of irrelevant, since I was arguing that moral flux isn't really a great thing to begin with. At least with objective morality, once a question is settled, it's settled. We decided a long time ago that slavery was immoral. If someone broaches the question again, we can slap him and say, "Fuck you, we already settled that. GTFO." Under relativism, he can respond with, "Well, yeah, fifty years ago. Things change, man!"[/QUOTE]

    Wait, absolute morality only works one way? 2000 years before that, the sun was primary god-figure, and we were in hock to it. 400 years ago, the concept that the earth rotated the sun was immoral. Today, not so much.

    Things do change, and they also change back. Don't be so certain that in another 400 years, your objective morality will look the same, and the idea that these questions are 'settled' is not based in anything but an extraordinarily short-term view of history. Also, you completely ignore that had we been moral relativists during the height of the slave-trade, your nice strawman could have argued that it was immoral at the time. Only took several millenia for that to happen under absolute morality.


    I'll point to Grid System's post above to show why I thought it necessary to go into detail in this argument even though you think it self-evident - some people are more caught up in the theory than others.

    Still, the point we started at is that you and I still disagree on the 1%. I think abortion, charity, the examples we have used here, shouldn't be decided on morality. It seems that you do. The question is still: why is deciding those issues on moral grounds better than on rational and other grounds? I've shown some examples where rational decisions produce better results. Can you show the same for moral decisions?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well that's swell if your moral system includes Kant. The Jihadi moral system includes the idea that it's okay to kill as part of holy war.
    And both of those are objectively wrong. I don't see what the problem is. There are lots of moral systems out there, that's a fact about the world. There can only be one that is correct though (and it may not exist yet).
    Wait, absolute morality only works one way? 2000 years before that, the sun was primary god-figure, and we were in hock to it. 400 years ago, the concept that the earth rotated the sun was immoral. Today, not so much.

    Things do change, and they also change back. Don't be so certain that in another 400 years, your objective morality will look the same, and the idea that these questions are 'settled' is not based in anything but an extraordinarily short-term view of history. Also, you completely ignore that had we been moral relativists during the height of the slave-trade, your nice strawman could have argued that it was immoral at the time. Only took several millenia for that to happen under absolute morality.
    Someone who holds that morality is objective, and that their moral code is correct isn't magically incapable of saying, when faced with evidence to the contrary, "whoops, my bad". The project of discerning what is and is not moral is not something that can be done in a day or a week or even a century. Humans, as imperfect beings with imperfect knowledge and reasoning faculties will have a difficult time figuring out what is actually objectively right. That does not mean that there is no objective right at any given time. We may get things wrong, but we should try to get them right.
    I'll point to Grid System's post above to show why I thought it necessary to go into detail in this argument even though you think it self-evident - some people are more caught up in the theory than others.
    I wouldn't consider myself to be caught-up in theory. Just the opposite, in fact. When I'm presented with a personal moral choice, I don't go through any long, convoluted process that mobilized moral theory to make my decisions. I just say, "what is best for me?" and go on. But that's still a moral question and, sitting here at my desk I can see and ackowledge that.

    The people caught up in theory are the ones that try to make up completely bonkers scenarios to show that sometimes doing things that are normally good can actually wind up being bad, and vice versa, for example.
    Still, the point we started at is that you and I still disagree on the 1%. I think abortion, charity, the examples we have used here, shouldn't be decided on morality. It seems that you do. The question is still: why is deciding those issues on moral grounds better than on rational and other grounds? I've shown some examples where rational decisions produce better results. Can you show the same for moral decisions?
    An ostensibly moral decision that is not also rational is the wrong one. Morality and rationality are not only non-contradictory, they are related.

    Grid System on
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    From reading the threads, it seems like the people who make intelligent responses are positive about life, saying things along the lines of "yes, there are always some outliers or situations when this doesn't work. Doesn't mean we should not do it." The people who are making boneheaded statements tend to say "well what if this crazy scenario where to happen? I don't want that to happen; therefore I shouldn't do it."

    Ugh. Positive about life? Fuck me that doesn't bode well for your argument.

    Here's a wee tale. I've been working with/around a lot of NGO people lately. They tend to fall into two categories. 1. Base NGO people - those who work from the base in western countries, metropolitan liberal, usually young, quite idealistic. 2. Field NGO people - those who have been out and do the work on the ground, older, not at all idealistic, liberal but not in a remotely cosmopolitan way.

    Base NGO people make precisely the argument you are saying there. Let's make a difference. Be positive about life. Try hard, work well, do good, blah blah, blah. Base NGO people rarely have a fucking clue about how to do these things, or the practical effects of their operation on the ground, but often end up forming policy.

    Field NGO people say, "if you can't do it right, don't fucking do it at all". They know that western idiots swarming into a fucked up place and going off on the wrong tack make things worse than no action. They know these idiots take up resources that could be used properly. They know that the people in said fucked up place have no time for foreigners without a clue, and would rather they weren't there at all.
    "well what if this crazy scenario where to happen? I don't want that to happen; therefore I shouldn't do it."

    Those crazy scenarios do happen. They happen a lot more often than you would think. In the example of charity, internationally, they are more common than decent projects. Yes, I don't want that to happen, and so I don't do it, because I'm not a rampant fucking egotist who is more concerned about his own bloody moral conscience than the harm caused to the very fucking people I crow about helping.

    It is absolutely blinding to me that some of you have been harping on about precisely this fucking thing for years with our intervention in Iraq, but not have the faintest idea that you do the same fucking thing with your nice, cosmopolitan moral system of charity, NGO's and aid.

    Not Sarastro on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Does the exact method of giving to charity really fall within the parameters of this thread?

    It seems quite separate from the point MrMister was making.

    Shinto on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Those crazy scenarios do happen. They happen a lot more often than you would think. In the example of charity, internationally, they are more common than decent projects. Yes, I don't want that to happen, and so I don't do it, because I'm not a rampant fucking egotist who is more concerned about his own bloody moral conscience than the harm caused to the very fucking people I crow about helping.
    Guess what? It's possible to be critical and moral at the same time.

    I don't understand why you're so adamantly opposed to people suggesting that everyone do good things.

    Grid System on
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    @Grid System

    Jeffe was actually trying to engage with the explanation and justification of objective morality. Your are just claiming it is right; pretty much arguing that you are correct because your invisible friend says so. Since I can't see your invisible friend, I can't argue with him.

    I would be interested to hear why abortion and charity are bonkers scenarios though. Abortion not an issue in the US anymore? Everyone been sterilised perhaps? Despite various attempts to characterise these as "extreme" examples and irrelevant to debate, you (I'm getting into the flow here) are objectively wrong. Abortion is a huge issue. It affects millions of women. Charity and international aid is even larger.

    How are these extreme and irrelevant. If everything else is so self-evident that everyone generally agrees, then surely these are the only issues worth talking about?

    Not Sarastro on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    Wait, absolute morality only works one way? 2000 years before that, the sun was primary god-figure, and we were in hock to it. 400 years ago, the concept that the earth rotated the sun was immoral. Today, not so much.

    Well, no, 400 years ago, the concept that the Earth rotated about the sun wasn't immoral at all. People were just wrong about it. Slavery was never moral. Gay sex was never immoral. People were just wrong for assorted reasons.

    If objective morality keeps changing, guess what? It's not objective morality.
    Still, the point we started at is that you and I still disagree on the 1%. I think abortion, charity, the examples we have used here, shouldn't be decided on morality. It seems that you do. The question is still: why is deciding those issues on moral grounds better than on rational and other grounds? I've shown some examples where rational decisions produce better results. Can you show the same for moral decisions?

    No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe it. In other discussions, I've made it clear that laws should not be a summation of morality. Things that are immoral should often be legal, and things that are otherwise moral should often be illegal. Being a total cunt to someone is an example of the former, and jaywalking in the middle of the night on a deserted street is an example of the latter.

    On abortion, it's very possible to think that abortion is immoral, yet still support its legality under the rationale that banning it would result in a net harm to society.

    In short, deciding what is moral is at best simply a component of deciding how to structure society.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't understand why you're so adamantly opposed to people suggesting that everyone do good things.

    I said before, I'm not.

    I'm adamantly opposed to howpeople are suggesting everyone do good things, because they have bad results.
    Shinto wrote:
    Does the exact method of giving to charity really fall within the parameters of this thread?

    It seems quite separate from the point MrMister was making.

    Thought I was on ignore? MrMister argued that we should give to charity because it is moral. I pointed out that people who give to charity on moral grounds often do so badly. Christians to Christian charities; atheists avoiding christian charities; christmas appeals to buy goats, and so on.

    So yes, the method of giving to charity is applicable when we are told to do so for moral reasons.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Well, no, 400 years ago, the concept that the Earth rotated about the sun wasn't immoral at all. People were just wrong about it. Slavery was never moral. Gay sex was never immoral. People were just wrong for assorted reasons.

    If objective morality keeps changing, guess what? It's not objective morality.

    Well then we're talking about moral systems, instead of objective morality. Since the moral systems of those time did hold that these things were moral / immoral as I said, clearly those systems aren't objective. My argument is again that objective morality isn't much use unless you have an objective way to define it.

    You seem to be arguing that objective morality is good because, though we can't tell what it is in the present, in the future people will be able to look back and tell us we were wrong? This isn't useful.
    No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe it. In other discussions, I've made it clear that laws should not be a summation of morality. Things that are immoral should often be legal, and things that are otherwise moral should often be illegal. Being a total cunt to someone is an example of the former, and jaywalking in the middle of the night on a deserted street is an example of the latter.

    On abortion, it's very possible to think that abortion is immoral, yet still support its legality under the rationale that banning it would result in a net harm to society.

    In short, deciding what is moral is at best simply a component of deciding how to structure society.

    Ahh, sweet agreement. Fine. If you aren't arguing that we should be making these decisions on moral grounds, I'm good. I would personally say that means they aren't exactly moral decisions, but fuck the semantics.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    @Grid System

    Jeffe was actually trying to engage with the explanation and justification of objective morality. Your are just claiming it is right; pretty much arguing that you are correct because your invisible friend says so. Since I can't see your invisible friend, I can't argue with him.
    Well, no. You can argue with the position I put forward earlier though. I saw you tried, but it was a pretty weak effort and I didn't want to bother because there were a bunch of posts afterwards. I'll do it now though.

    1. Don't be stupid. Dying is worse than being in pain for a bit (even if it's a lot of pain). Given a choice between two bad things (pain and death) choose the least bad. Not that hard.

    2. No.

    3. In the case of killing for survival, something has to give. Ideally, both hunter and hunted could live, but we don't live in an ideal world. The best outcome is impossible, so we opt for the least bad one (see above). In the case of killing for sport, it's probably wrong.

    Did you think those would break a half-decent moral position? Did you really?
    I would be interested to hear why abortion and charity are bonkers scenarios though. Abortion not an issue in the US anymore? Everyone been sterilised perhaps? Despite various attempts to characterise these as "extreme" examples and irrelevant to debate, you (I'm getting into the flow here) are objectively wrong. Abortion is a huge issue. It affects millions of women. Charity and international aid is even larger.

    How are these extreme and irrelevant. If everything else is so self-evident that everyone generally agrees, then surely these are the only issues worth talking about?
    I didn't say that those things were bonkers or irrelevant. I was talking more about the "what if you do something normally good but in this case is actually bad?" questions that always seem to come up. Abortion is an issue, sure. But that's because most people adopt utterly preposterous moral codes.

    What's more, and I've said this already, just because we don't know the answers to all the questions doesn't mean there aren't answers. That's why people debate moral issues.

    Grid System on
Sign In or Register to comment.