Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

How ought we live?

UsafRevenged
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:09:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, I believe Morality was set mainly through religion. Such as in the bible the ten commandments set the main rules of society practically. Then during the great enlightenment, we see that philosophers come up with new ideas on morals. So it really depends on the culture or religion of a group. Like, Buddhists eat dogs, But christians find it morally wrong to do so.
IM A 7!!!! HA! Take that society!

Unlike ccstateisback who happens to be a 1.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 9:06:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:29:03 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The best approach to morality? Be practical.

Begging the question of what it is you want to practice.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 9:42:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:06:02 AM, shakti wrote:
How do we decide what is moral? What is the best approach to morality?
freedomainradio.com/free
Second book, "Universally Preferable Behavior". Free in PDF.

That's how I decide what's moral.
And I think it's the best approach to morality.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
asiansarentnerdy
Posts: 124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 10:49:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:06:02 AM, shakti wrote:
How do we decide what is moral? What is the best approach to morality?

Everyone's sense of right and wrong is different. For example, I might think that punching someone is okay, but the Pope might think differently.
I'm asian.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 11:07:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the 'best' morality, or at least one that can be agreed upon by the most rational agents is to do the most foreseeable good and the least foreseeable harm as possible.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
KRFournier
Posts: 690
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 2:03:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 11:07:21 AM, ToastOfDestiny wrote:
I think the 'best' morality, or at least one that can be agreed upon by the most rational agents is to do the most foreseeable good and the least foreseeable harm as possible.

Lol. So, what's good? You didn't answer the question, just moved it.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:06:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Being moral is going by the rules which society has set. Its true and get used to it.

Every different society has a different moral code.

Piracy, rape, pillaging. All good moral conduct in somalia!
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:38:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:06:25 PM, Nik wrote:
Being moral is going by the rules which society has set. Its true and get used to it.

Every different society has a different moral code.

Piracy, rape, pillaging. All good moral conduct in somalia!

You obviously have no clue what's going on in Somalia.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:44:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:09:23 AM, UsafRevenged wrote:
Like, Buddhists eat dogs, But christians find it morally wrong to do so.

That isn't a religious distinction...
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 10:29:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:06:02 AM, shakti wrote:
How do we decide what is moral? What is the best approach to morality?

1. Most moral systems and most people following moral systems do not highly rate cruelty, cowardice or arrogant pride.
2. Most people act in their rational self interest, even if unknowingly.
3. Therefore, there is likely* a rational self interested cause behind a morality rejecting cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride.
4. The opposite of cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride is compassion, courage and humility.
5. The opposite of thing is best described as being contrary to that thing.
6. In morality, that which is contrary to evil is good (and vice versa).
7. Therefore if cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride are evil, then compassion, courage and humility are good.
8. Morality is irrelevant if it is not practiced in action(because it can only be distinguished by a call to or against action - self evident in that we do not call someone who only thinks about being a hero a hero anymore than that we would call someone who only thinks about doing good a good person).
9. Actions occur as part of a three step process of contemplation, motion and reflection in three phases of time (past - before the action occurs, you contemplate it, present- motion is needed to bring about the action, and future-after the action you must consider the ramifications of that action to see if you have accomplished your goals).
10. Compassion is evidenced in thought, courage in deed and humility in recognition of one's accomplishments.
11. Therefore a rational moral act likely can be qualified as one contemplated with compassion, undertaken with courage and reflected upon with humility.

*'likely' is not 'necessarily' of course, but it is better than merely 'possibly'
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:49:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. Most moral systems and most people following moral systems do not highly rate cruelty, cowardice or arrogant pride.
2. Most people act in their rational self interest, even if unknowingly.
3. Therefore, there is likely* a rational self interested cause behind a morality rejecting cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride.
Does not follow, unless you add an "Always" or "mostly" clause to 2, either of which would be silly. Besides, it's basically ad populum formalized to look good.

4. The opposite of cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride is compassion, courage and humility.
Water, in at least one sense, is the opposite of fire, but drowning is no better than burning. Why? Because they act toward the same end, death. Actions are taken to achieve a specific end, you go for the opposite of the evil end, not the intuitive "opposite" of the evil act.

10. Compassion is evidenced in thought, courage in deed and humility in recognition of one's accomplishments.
11. Therefore a rational moral act likely can be qualified as one contemplated with compassion, undertaken with courage and reflected upon with humility.
Humility is the OPPOSITE of recognizing one's accomplishments-- it is recognizing, validly or not, one's lack thereof. Pride, valid or not is the recognition of one's accomplishments. Incidentally, if the humility is valid, one is obviously not achieving one's interests plain and simple. If it isn't, either you aren't thinking enough (perhaps your thoughts have been muddled by compassion, i.e., dwelling on the pain of others?) or you don't have the courage to face up to the truth.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 11:07:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:49:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. Most moral systems and most people following moral systems do not highly rate cruelty, cowardice or arrogant pride.
2. Most people act in their rational self interest, even if unknowingly.
3. Therefore, there is likely* a rational self interested cause behind a morality rejecting cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride.
Does not follow, unless you add an "Always" or "mostly" clause to 2, either of which would be silly. Besides, it's basically ad populum formalized to look good.

Morality is only determined by consensus, though there is usually some rational cause for such consensus. For example, a society where individuals are willing to sacrifice for each other is a society where each individual is more likely assured the protection of the group. Also, note that I said likely, not necessarily, which is what always would imply.

4. The opposite of cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride is compassion, courage and humility.
Water, in at least one sense, is the opposite of fire, but drowning is no better than burning. Why? Because they act toward the same end, death. Actions are taken to achieve a specific end, you go for the opposite of the evil end, not the intuitive "opposite" of the evil act.

Thought informs action in this instance towards an implicit end in and of itself. Compassion has as its end to control one's actions out of concern for others. Cruelty has as its end freedom of action without regard for others. The consequences of those ends affect the coherency of the group an organism relies upon for survival. Comparing mental states to simple physical phenomena in this case makes for an imperfect metaphor.

10. Compassion is evidenced in thought, courage in deed and humility in recognition of one's accomplishments.
11. Therefore a rational moral act likely can be qualified as one contemplated with compassion, undertaken with courage and reflected upon with humility.
Humility is the OPPOSITE of recognizing one's accomplishments-- it is recognizing, validly or not, one's lack thereof. Pride, valid or not is the recognition of one's accomplishments. Incidentally, if the humility is valid, one is obviously not achieving one's interests plain and simple. If it isn't, either you aren't thinking enough (perhaps your thoughts have been muddled by compassion, i.e., dwelling on the pain of others?) or you don't have the courage to face up to the truth.

I see we have different definitions here -- which is something I tried to avoid by mentioning "arrogant pride." Perhaps I could have used the word "due humility" to better explain it. The idea is not that you focus only on how you have failed, but rather that you focus on what you have achieved and understand the consequences that may follow from that achievement, so that you can mitigate any harm to others derived therefrom.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 11:07:01 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/15/2009 1:49:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. Most moral systems and most people following moral systems do not highly rate cruelty, cowardice or arrogant pride.
2. Most people act in their rational self interest, even if unknowingly.
3. Therefore, there is likely* a rational self interested cause behind a morality rejecting cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride.
Does not follow, unless you add an "Always" or "mostly" clause to 2, either of which would be silly. Besides, it's basically ad populum formalized to look good.

Morality is only determined by consensus,
Ad populum formalized to look good. I find it quite immoral to obey consensuses just because they are consensuses.

For example, a society where individuals are willing to sacrifice for each other is a society where each individual is more likely assured the protection of the group.
If everyone sacrifices, NO ONE collects. The total amount of value available is lowered, per definition of sacrifice.
If everyone minus 1 sacrifices, that 1 individual is going to be very "protected," but it is absurd to expect that that will happen.

4. The opposite of cruelty, cowardice and arrogant pride is compassion, courage and humility.
Water, in at least one sense, is the opposite of fire, but drowning is no better than burning. Why? Because they act toward the same end, death. Actions are taken to achieve a specific end, you go for the opposite of the evil end, not the intuitive "opposite" of the evil act.

Thought informs action in this instance towards an implicit end in and of itself. Compassion has as its end to control one's actions out of concern for others. Cruelty has as its end freedom of action without regard for others.
I'll take "cruelty" for 200 then, unless by "regard for others" you refer to an intermediate, i.e., regard for others so as to avoid negative consequences to yourself or accrue positive, which can only apply to some others.

I see we have different definitions here -- which is something I tried to avoid by mentioning "arrogant pride." Perhaps I could have used the word "due humility" to better explain it. The idea is not that you focus only on how you have failed, but rather that you focus on what you have achieved and understand the consequences that may follow from that achievement, so that you can mitigate any harm to others derived therefrom.
The word for that is "responsibility." And it's only worthwhile if you're trying to make sure the harm doesn't bounce back to you :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:45:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 1:38:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Morality is only determined by consensus,
Ad populum formalized to look good. I find it quite immoral to obey consensuses just because they are consensuses.

I'm not saying that we should accept it just because most people do. I'm saying we should accept that most people have a reason for what decisions they make. In regards to morality, I have explained the rationale below:

For example, a society where individuals are willing to sacrifice for each other is a society where each individual is more likely assured the protection of the group.
If everyone sacrifices, NO ONE collects. The total amount of value available is lowered, per definition of sacrifice.
If everyone minus 1 sacrifices, that 1 individual is going to be very "protected," but it is absurd to expect that that will happen.

Wow, okay ... if everyone is willing to sacrifice for everyone else, then every single person has the protection of that sacrifice when that sacrifice matters. It's social insurance for each individual, and they payment is in like kind.

Thought informs action in this instance towards an implicit end in and of itself. Compassion has as its end to control one's actions out of concern for others. Cruelty has as its end freedom of action without regard for others.
I'll take "cruelty" for 200 then, unless by "regard for others" you refer to an intermediate, i.e., regard for others so as to avoid negative consequences to yourself or accrue positive, which can only apply to some others.

Regard for others to avoid negative consequences to others such that they form a lynch mob and hang you, or, more realistically, work against you.

The word for that is "responsibility." And it's only worthwhile if you're trying to make sure the harm doesn't bounce back to you :).

If people are your insurance against harm from other people, and you bring harm to them such that they are less likely or unable to defend yourself, the harm has already bounced back to you in the form of reduced protection.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
UsafRevenged
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 4:08:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, I believe Morality was set mainly through religion. Such as in the bible the ten commandments set the main rules of society practically. Then during the great enlightenment, we see that philosophers come up with new ideas on morals. So it really depends on the culture or religion of a group. Like, Buddhists eat dogs, But christians find it morally wrong to do so.
IM A 7!!!! HA! Take that society!

Unlike ccstateisback who happens to be a 1.
BigMac
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2009 4:37:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/18/2009 4:08:57 PM, UsafRevenged wrote:
Well, I believe Morality was set mainly through religion. Such as in the bible the ten commandments set the main rules of society practically. Then during the great enlightenment, we see that philosophers come up with new ideas on morals. So it really depends on the culture or religion of a group. Like, Buddhists eat dogs, But christians find it morally wrong to do so.

lol u just copied ur last post.
I'm back.