The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The various schools of secular ethical thought diverge on how to optimize and what should be optimized, but they are all founded on the idea that people should adhere to these concepts for some kind of benefit, rather than a threat of damnation or whatever.
That does not mean there isn't an optimum optimizer.
There is an objective optimum.
If it's objective, you should be able to come to a clear and logical conclusion as to why it is the objective optimum.
You should be able to illustrate, with clear examples, why it is the objective optimum and that standard should stand up to all scrutiny and all provided examples.
You should also be able to illustrate with this standard why the optimization it proposes is, in fact, objectively superior to a contrasting system that has a different focus of optimization.
For example, compare deontology to consequentialism. Both have very different goals and very different focused points of optimization, and if either one of them was truly an objective standard, it would be possible to illustrate this in every scenario poised to either system.
You mean if either were correct. Although I guess you could be right without knowing why too.
Maybe all the moral standards we have are bad. That does not mean there isn't a good one.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
The various schools of secular ethical thought diverge on how to optimize and what should be optimized, but they are all founded on the idea that people should adhere to these concepts for some kind of benefit, rather than a threat of damnation or whatever.
That does not mean there isn't an optimum optimizer.
There is an objective optimum.
Not if you can't agree on what is optimum. Which most people don't.
Don't be silly. Say there is a picture on the wall. I say it tilts a little to the left of parellel to the floor. You say it is a little to the right.
Both of us could be wrong. That does not mean there is not a point where it is parellel.
Just because some things can be objective does not mean that some other things have to be objective.
I do think that killing is immoral no matter what the situation.
This makes you a minority throughout time and space.
You realize this.
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
Again, minority.
Also, I hope you guys realize that any sentence that consists of "*** is immoral" followed by a period is not moral relativism. You have to qualify that murder is immoral within a given society, because morality is not a concept that exists outside the scope of humans saying it's so.
So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?
Yep, many christians believe that a universal law is the only possible source of right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't believe in such will simply do whatever they like regardless of morality.
So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?
Hell, those few that are truly scared of atheists are probably also scared of Jews, Hindus, and Muslims. I'd say that people that actually think like that are more xenophobic than anything.
You really have to understand restrictions on things like murder, and theft, as a kind of promise society makes to its members. The promise is that we (society) will not tolerate people trying to kill you or take your stuff. In return for this guarantee, you agree not to kill other people or take their stuff. And so the world goes 'round. It's for these reasons that restrictions on murder cease to apply when you're talking about things like capital punishment, or war, or euthanasia, or even abortion. It only becomes murder when it appears to threaten the society's guarantee that I won't be murdered.
This is the point I was trying to make to the folks like Edward who were tossing the word murder around for any willful ending of human life.
Murder has a specific linguistic (and legal!) definition and just because you think it is a more visceral word than killing doesn't mean you should be applying murder to every time a person ends another person's life.
I've honestly been using the two interchangeably. I do not think that murder is particularly more visceral. I do think that killing is immoral no matter what the situation. But this does not mean that justification can never exist for killing another person.
That's fine, I understand that is how you feel. Permit me, then, to follow that line of thought with a few questions.
A police officer responds to an emergency call. A man, clearly deranged and having killed several people already, is firing on innocent bystanders in a crowded shopping mall.
Let's assume, for the sake of this example, the officer has no recourse to resolve this situation except lethal force. He makes the choice to kill the man, his choice motivated primarily by the fact that if he does not do so, the man will continue to murder more people.
Now, by your definition, this is murder. The officer has made the conscious choice to murder another person.
Even though we can both agree the act can be justified, it nonetheless remains an immoral act in your mind.
That being the case, what should be the reprecussions for this immoral act? Should the officer be reprimanded, or charged with a crime equivalent to a perfect stranger simply drawing a gun and firing on a random person for no reason? Obviously, that would be absurd, as the officer was acting purely out of trying to protect human lives and had to make a necessary, albeit unfortunate, choice.
So then, what happens? Should the officer feel badly that he did this? Should he feel guilt or remorse for his actions? What is the acceptable level of personal grief or fault he should feel for what he chose to do?
If there are no professional or legal reprecussions for his actions, should there be cultural or societal ones? Should he be praised as a hero, or shunned as a murderous pariah? Should people be disgusted and horrified with what he did, or simply grimly acknowledge that, as unfortunate as it was, that was what needed to happen?
If the answer to all these questions essentially amount to "No." (he shouldn't be punished or shunned, shouldn't feel guilt or remorse, etc.) then a very important question is raised.
So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?
Yep, many christians believe that a universal law is the only possible source of right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't believe in such will simply do whatever they like regardless of morality.
So they dont think people naturally have empathy or a conscience?
bezerk bob on
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
The various schools of secular ethical thought diverge on how to optimize and what should be optimized, but they are all founded on the idea that people should adhere to these concepts for some kind of benefit, rather than a threat of damnation or whatever.
That does not mean there isn't an optimum optimizer.
There is an objective optimum.
If it's objective, you should be able to come to a clear and logical conclusion as to why it is the objective optimum.
You should be able to illustrate, with clear examples, why it is the objective optimum and that standard should stand up to all scrutiny and all provided examples.
You should also be able to illustrate with this standard why the optimization it proposes is, in fact, objectively superior to a contrasting system that has a different focus of optimization.
For example, compare deontology to consequentialism. Both have very different goals and very different focused points of optimization, and if either one of them was truly an objective standard, it would be possible to illustrate this in every scenario poised to either system.
You mean if either were correct. Although I guess you could be right without knowing why too.
Maybe all the moral standards we have are bad. That does not mean there isn't a good one.
And it's entirely possible that Roman Catholicism or Sunni Islam is 100% correct.
Arguing that the possibility exists for an objective moral standard is irrelevant if there's absolutely no way to identify it.
The various schools of secular ethical thought diverge on how to optimize and what should be optimized, but they are all founded on the idea that people should adhere to these concepts for some kind of benefit, rather than a threat of damnation or whatever.
That does not mean there isn't an optimum optimizer.
There is an objective optimum.
Not if you can't agree on what is optimum. Which most people don't.
Don't be silly. Say there is a picture on the wall. I say it tilts a little to the left of parellel to the floor. You say it is a little to the right.
Both of us could be wrong. That does not mean there is not a point where it is parellel.
In this scenario, you implicitly assume that it being parallel is the optimum angle it should be at. The persons saying it should go to the left or right are attempting to provide the system to determine the optimum, but they can only be shown to be correct as to whether it should go left or right more to be parallel if being parallel is the absolute best angle. Maybe the picture is thought to look best at a 45 degree angle by some people.
Likewise, a system of optimization has to face the question of "What is the optimum we strive for?" Is it population growth, happiness, production of copper wiring, what? Phoenix is pointing out that people don't agree on an ultimate goal for life, and so the Optimum optimizer cannot be objectively proven, due to the fact that not everyone agrees on what is optimum.
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
And again, you're a minority in that belief. I doubt that many people believe it's even possible to be both immoral and justified.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
DasUberEdward on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
Well, if Social Intuitionist Theory is on the right track, then wether you can objectively justify a moral judgement and that judgement "activating" intuitively aren't the same.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
Again, minority stance. Most people disagree with you. Buddhists and Jainists might not. For most people, an act is either moral, immoral, or amoral. However, they judge the morality of an act at a different point along the decision process than you do.
Ultimately this is completely irrelevant because by trying to claim that my religious beliefs or moral outlooks are objectively true, I'm putting the burden of proof on myself to substantiate them as such.
Which, of course, I can't do, so I don't try.
If you try to claim that any moral belief you hold is some kind of objective universal standard, you are putting the burden of proof on yourself to explain why this is the case.
So they dont think people naturally have empathy or a conscience?
It varies, but many people have to develop it, and some never do. It's not an automatic, innate characteristic.
See: Two year olds.
That said, they've never had to worry about developing empathy because they've always been taught through fear.
Thats what always gets me, if your only doing the right thing because there is a threat of punishment is it still a good thing or "as" good as doing a good thing on your own?
bezerk bob on
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
And again, you're a minority in that belief. I doubt that many people believe it's even possible to be both immoral and justified.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
But if that is the case, what continues to make the act immoral?
If an act, which at it's base you deem immoral (murder, for instance), is provided with sufficient justification and circumstance that it is not the subject of societal, cultural, legal, or psychological ramifications, why is it still considered immoral?
Just because?
At that point, of what value is the term "immoral" anyway?
You really have to understand restrictions on things like murder, and theft, as a kind of promise society makes to its members. The promise is that we (society) will not tolerate people trying to kill you or take your stuff. In return for this guarantee, you agree not to kill other people or take their stuff. And so the world goes 'round. It's for these reasons that restrictions on murder cease to apply when you're talking about things like capital punishment, or war, or euthanasia, or even abortion. It only becomes murder when it appears to threaten the society's guarantee that I won't be murdered.
This is the point I was trying to make to the folks like Edward who were tossing the word murder around for any willful ending of human life.
Murder has a specific linguistic (and legal!) definition and just because you think it is a more visceral word than killing doesn't mean you should be applying murder to every time a person ends another person's life.
I've honestly been using the two interchangeably. I do not think that murder is particularly more visceral. I do think that killing is immoral no matter what the situation. But this does not mean that justification can never exist for killing another person.
That's fine, I understand that is how you feel. Permit me, then, to follow that line of thought with a few questions.
A police officer responds to an emergency call. A man, clearly deranged and having killed several people already, is firing on innocent bystanders in a crowded shopping mall.
Let's assume, for the sake of this example, the officer has no recourse to resolve this situation except lethal force. He makes the choice to kill the man, his choice motivated primarily by the fact that if he does not do so, the man will continue to murder more people.
Now, by your definition, this is murder. The officer has made the conscious choice to murder another person.
Even though we can both agree the act can be justified, it nonetheless remains an immoral act in your mind.
That being the case, what should be the reprecussions for this immoral act? Should the officer be reprimanded, or charged with a crime equivalent to a perfect stranger simply drawing a gun and firing on a random person for no reason? Obviously, that would be absurd, as the officer was acting purely out of trying to protect human lives and had to make a necessary, albeit unfortunate, choice.
So then, what happens? Should the officer feel badly that he did this? Should he feel guilt or remorse for his actions? What is the acceptable level of personal grief or fault he should feel for what he chose to do?
If there are no professional or legal reprecussions for his actions, should there be cultural or societal ones? Should he be praised as a hero, or shunned as a murderous pariah? Should people be disgusted and horrified with what he did, or simply grimly acknowledge that, as unfortunate as it was, that was what needed to happen?
If the answer to all these questions essentially amount to "No." (he shouldn't be punished or shunned, shouldn't feel guilt or remorse, etc.) then a very important question is raised.
What makes the act immoral?
The act of killing. That's it very simply. Then we bring in all of the other factors that you mentioned to decide how we should view this particular immoral action. The officer committed and immoral act with good justification and that should be taken into consideration and it would ideally absolve him of any of the social or legal punishments.
The various schools of secular ethical thought diverge on how to optimize and what should be optimized, but they are all founded on the idea that people should adhere to these concepts for some kind of benefit, rather than a threat of damnation or whatever.
That does not mean there isn't an optimum optimizer.
There is an objective optimum.
Not if you can't agree on what is optimum. Which most people don't.
Don't be silly. Say there is a picture on the wall. I say it tilts a little to the left of parellel to the floor. You say it is a little to the right.
Both of us could be wrong. That does not mean there is not a point where it is parellel.
In this scenario, you implicitly assume that it being parallel is the optimum angle it should be at. The persons saying it should go to the left or right are attempting to provide the system to determine the optimum, but they can only be shown to be correct as to whether it should go left or right more to be parallel if being parallel is the absolute best angle. Maybe the picture is thought to look best at a 45 degree angle by some people.
Likewise, a system of optimization has to face the question of "What is the optimum we strive for?" Is it population growth, happiness, production of copper wiring, what? Phoenix is pointing out that people don't agree on an ultimate goal for life, and so the Optimum optimizer cannot be objectively proven, due to the fact that not everyone agrees on what is optimum.
Thats what always gets me, if your only doing the right thing because there is a threat of punishment is it still a good thing or "as" good as doing a good thing on your own?
Generally, being a Christian is not about being benevolent, it's about following laws.
The act of killing. That's it very simply. Then we bring in all of the other factors that you mentioned to decide how we should view this particular immoral action. The officer committed and immoral act with good justification and that should be taken into consideration and it would ideally absolve him of any of the social or legal punishments.
Still doesn't answer my question: If this is the case, is the act in this instance still considered immoral?
If so, why?
If not, then you can't really say that killing is objectively immoral, can you?
It seems very much to me at this point that your moral viewpoints tend to boil down to "just because!"
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
And again, you're a minority in that belief. I doubt that many people believe it's even possible to be both immoral and justified.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
But if that is the case, what continues to make the act immoral?
If an act, which at it's base you deem immoral (murder, for instance), is provided with sufficient justification and circumstance that it is not the subject of societal, cultural, legal, or psychological ramifications, why is it still considered immoral?
Just because?
At that point, of what value is the term "immoral" anyway?
On a very simplistic level it's something that infringes on the rights of another. Yes I realize that this now means that we need a threshold for what actually constitutes infringement but depriving someone of life clearly falls in that realm.
Yes I realize that this now means that we need a threshold for what actually constitutes infringement but depriving someone of life clearly falls in that realm.
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
And again, you're a minority in that belief. I doubt that many people believe it's even possible to be both immoral and justified.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
But if that is the case, what continues to make the act immoral?
If an act, which at it's base you deem immoral (murder, for instance), is provided with sufficient justification and circumstance that it is not the subject of societal, cultural, legal, or psychological ramifications, why is it still considered immoral?
Just because?
At that point, of what value is the term "immoral" anyway?
On a very simplistic level it's something that infringes on the rights of another. Yes I realize that this now means that we need a threshold for what actually constitutes infringement but depriving someone of life clearly falls in that realm.
I think you two are having differences in understanding of what "immoral" means. For me, "immoral" means that the perceived postive aspects of the action are outweighed by the perceived negative aspects of the action, and so the phrase "something can be immoral but justified" makes no sense, because the phrase "justified" implies to me that the positive outweighed the negative due to context.
So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?
In fact, this is one of the main arguments for the existence of God; those who take the affirmative position of God existing often posit that:
P1 Morality is Objective
P2 Morality would be subjective, or relative, if God did not exist
C3 Since morality isn't subjective, God exists
Of course, the entire argument then turns into an argument about premise 1, and the debaters often run out of time, .
I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.
That is, of course, a different aspect to disproving the argument. Read what JebusUD has been saying these last few pages and the responses when talking about moral objectivity without God.
Thats what always gets me, if your only doing the right thing because there is a threat of punishment is it still a good thing or "as" good as doing a good thing on your own?
Generally, being a Christian is not about being benevolent, it's about following laws.
But they would describe themselves and god as benevolent?
bezerk bob on
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.
Even then it still doesn't work, actually. I'm not aware of a situation where morals can be objective, because what makes the deity right?
--
Jebus: You must live an incredibly sheltered life, because many people are incredibly self-destructive, or aren't concerned with their own well-being for other reasons.
Posts
That's not at all true. Taking a life can be both immoral and justifiable.
You mean if either were correct. Although I guess you could be right without knowing why too.
Maybe all the moral standards we have are bad. That does not mean there isn't a good one.
but they're listening to every word I say
Just because some things can be objective does not mean that some other things have to be objective.
I hope you realize that the whole point of it being immoral is that it is not justifiable to the extent that it is the right thing to do.
And again, you're a minority in that belief. I doubt that many people believe it's even possible to be both immoral and justified.
Again, minority.
Also, I hope you guys realize that any sentence that consists of "*** is immoral" followed by a period is not moral relativism. You have to qualify that murder is immoral within a given society, because morality is not a concept that exists outside the scope of humans saying it's so.
Moreover, they assume that nihilists are rapicious monsters.
I'm a nihilist.
I'm also incredibly benevolent.
Yep, many christians believe that a universal law is the only possible source of right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't believe in such will simply do whatever they like regardless of morality.
Hell, those few that are truly scared of atheists are probably also scared of Jews, Hindus, and Muslims. I'd say that people that actually think like that are more xenophobic than anything.
That's fine, I understand that is how you feel. Permit me, then, to follow that line of thought with a few questions.
A police officer responds to an emergency call. A man, clearly deranged and having killed several people already, is firing on innocent bystanders in a crowded shopping mall.
Let's assume, for the sake of this example, the officer has no recourse to resolve this situation except lethal force. He makes the choice to kill the man, his choice motivated primarily by the fact that if he does not do so, the man will continue to murder more people.
Now, by your definition, this is murder. The officer has made the conscious choice to murder another person.
Even though we can both agree the act can be justified, it nonetheless remains an immoral act in your mind.
That being the case, what should be the reprecussions for this immoral act? Should the officer be reprimanded, or charged with a crime equivalent to a perfect stranger simply drawing a gun and firing on a random person for no reason? Obviously, that would be absurd, as the officer was acting purely out of trying to protect human lives and had to make a necessary, albeit unfortunate, choice.
So then, what happens? Should the officer feel badly that he did this? Should he feel guilt or remorse for his actions? What is the acceptable level of personal grief or fault he should feel for what he chose to do?
If there are no professional or legal reprecussions for his actions, should there be cultural or societal ones? Should he be praised as a hero, or shunned as a murderous pariah? Should people be disgusted and horrified with what he did, or simply grimly acknowledge that, as unfortunate as it was, that was what needed to happen?
If the answer to all these questions essentially amount to "No." (he shouldn't be punished or shunned, shouldn't feel guilt or remorse, etc.) then a very important question is raised.
What makes the act immoral?
So they dont think people naturally have empathy or a conscience?
And it's entirely possible that Roman Catholicism or Sunni Islam is 100% correct.
Arguing that the possibility exists for an objective moral standard is irrelevant if there's absolutely no way to identify it.
http://ohregina.com/drugsrbad.jpg ?
It varies, but many people have to develop it, and some never do. It's not an automatic, innate characteristic.
See: Two year olds.
That said, they've never had to worry about developing empathy because they've always been taught through fear.
In this scenario, you implicitly assume that it being parallel is the optimum angle it should be at. The persons saying it should go to the left or right are attempting to provide the system to determine the optimum, but they can only be shown to be correct as to whether it should go left or right more to be parallel if being parallel is the absolute best angle. Maybe the picture is thought to look best at a 45 degree angle by some people.
Likewise, a system of optimization has to face the question of "What is the optimum we strive for?" Is it population growth, happiness, production of copper wiring, what? Phoenix is pointing out that people don't agree on an ultimate goal for life, and so the Optimum optimizer cannot be objectively proven, due to the fact that not everyone agrees on what is optimum.
I don't think it has to be exclusive. The act can be at base immoral with varying levels of justification which may or may not exonerate the killer from social ramifications.
Again, minority stance. Most people disagree with you. Buddhists and Jainists might not. For most people, an act is either moral, immoral, or amoral. However, they judge the morality of an act at a different point along the decision process than you do.
My religion could be totally right, you guys!
It could!
You don't know, you couldn't prove that it isn't!
Ultimately this is completely irrelevant because by trying to claim that my religious beliefs or moral outlooks are objectively true, I'm putting the burden of proof on myself to substantiate them as such.
Which, of course, I can't do, so I don't try.
If you try to claim that any moral belief you hold is some kind of objective universal standard, you are putting the burden of proof on yourself to explain why this is the case.
Better be prepared to do so!
True, but there is a way to identify it.
What do people seek for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else?
but they're listening to every word I say
Thats what always gets me, if your only doing the right thing because there is a threat of punishment is it still a good thing or "as" good as doing a good thing on your own?
But if that is the case, what continues to make the act immoral?
If an act, which at it's base you deem immoral (murder, for instance), is provided with sufficient justification and circumstance that it is not the subject of societal, cultural, legal, or psychological ramifications, why is it still considered immoral?
Just because?
At that point, of what value is the term "immoral" anyway?
In fact, this is one of the main arguments for the existence of God; those who take the affirmative position of God existing often posit that:
P1 Morality is Objective
P2 Morality would be subjective, or relative, if God did not exist
C3 Since morality isn't subjective, God exists
Of course, the entire argument then turns into an argument about premise 1, and the debaters often run out of time,
Varies between people.
The act of killing. That's it very simply. Then we bring in all of the other factors that you mentioned to decide how we should view this particular immoral action. The officer committed and immoral act with good justification and that should be taken into consideration and it would ideally absolve him of any of the social or legal punishments.
What is the ultimate thing they seek?
but they're listening to every word I say
Generally, being a Christian is not about being benevolent, it's about following laws.
Still doesn't answer my question: If this is the case, is the act in this instance still considered immoral?
If so, why?
If not, then you can't really say that killing is objectively immoral, can you?
It seems very much to me at this point that your moral viewpoints tend to boil down to "just because!"
Which isn't objective.
It's obstinate.
On a very simplistic level it's something that infringes on the rights of another. Yes I realize that this now means that we need a threshold for what actually constitutes infringement but depriving someone of life clearly falls in that realm.
I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.
I am beginning to suspect you are either unable to or are willfully choosing not to, which is unfortunate in either case.
Not as clearly as you would think.
See: Euthenasia.
I think you two are having differences in understanding of what "immoral" means. For me, "immoral" means that the perceived postive aspects of the action are outweighed by the perceived negative aspects of the action, and so the phrase "something can be immoral but justified" makes no sense, because the phrase "justified" implies to me that the positive outweighed the negative due to context.
That is, of course, a different aspect to disproving the argument. Read what JebusUD has been saying these last few pages and the responses when talking about moral objectivity without God.
But they would describe themselves and god as benevolent?
No it does not. The thing that people seek for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else is happiness.
but they're listening to every word I say
Even then it still doesn't work, actually. I'm not aware of a situation where morals can be objective, because what makes the deity right?
--
Jebus: You must live an incredibly sheltered life, because many people are incredibly self-destructive, or aren't concerned with their own well-being for other reasons.
It isn't clear that necessarily makes it the objective moral standard.