Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A new word for Morality

Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:54:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was stuck (like millions of other philosophers) when I searched for the true definition of morality. Nothing seems to work universally, and perhaps the only concept I think MAY be the universal definition of morality is the Unconditional Positive Regards by Carl Rogers, but that never exists in real life. If you try to act moral by utilizing UPR, you - ironically - are conditionally being moral, which wouldn't be truly moral. The only other way would be by making a habit of UPR, but if you define that as moral, every robots programmed to serve the humans would be considered moral. Anyways, then I thought well maybe I just need to throw out this vague unscientific term full of useless connotations and come up with a new word - and I came up with Collective Self-Interest.
There are multiple Collective Self-Interests. In fact, similar to the notion of relativity, if there are two living objects you could have a collective self-interest. In other words, if you eliminate one of two objects, there wouldn't be an collective self-interest; if there were only two people on earth and one kills another with a "just" conviction, there are no other value to base his actions upon so his actions are inevitably "right." What's important about this idea is that everything is true, but the magnitude is different. I think it is very similar to the concept of schrodinger's cat, where if you put a 50/50 bomb and a cat in a box, the cat is dead and alive at the same time. Many would disagree, saying it's impossible for a cat to be both alive and dead, but that's how you think about collective self-interests. If 60% of people think A and 40% think B, then the answer is 60% A and 40%B. Obviously, this is not true when the cat is visible - so just because 10% of people believe in a lizard people running the government, that possibility obviously doesn't exist. Also,a lot of people might say "slavery" is clearly immoral, ect.. but on whose standard are we basing that decision on? We are biologically programmed to increase our population - to increase the chance of our survival - and being compassionate and sociable is just part of evolution. We instinctively fear and label harm, stress, death, and other negativity given to us or to whom we can sympathize with terms such as "bad," "wrong," and "immoral." And if we understand that, we could understand the opposite. Just like it is our instinct to avoid oppression, it is also our instinct to thrive and dominate. I'm not endorsing slavery, I just think maybe if we use the term collective self-interest, we could understand each other a lot better and not fight over the ONE true morality everybody thinks exist.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:41:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Agree. I normally defined morality as "any and all logical formation that is acceptable to be committed to me, and any and all logical of other where his/her involvement is related to my interest".

And so my morality is objective and collective, it is party what I feel comfortable to do so, and partly what other told and I feel comfortable to follow. Thus your Schrodinger cat theory make sense to me.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The view on how people ought to act?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Morality is how one ought to behave, or the code of conduct one ought to follow. So, tell us what that is.

Many people when they discard theistic morality (as we're coming out of a god hegemony of morality) fail to come up with a secular morality to base it on, and instead simply discuss and define how political behaviour works, as that has always been secular and easier.

Yet political behaviour is how to interact with other people without causing massive trauma. This is not, however, how one ought to behave. Consider everyone behaving in conformity to societal rules. The society would be stable, yes, but would that make it the most moral? Society says "not giving to charity is OK" and "giving to charity is laudable". It has implicit tensions - do we give to charity, or not? It also has implicit contradictions: society says "You will be punished for murder" and says "If you are not caught committing a crime, you cannot be punished", meaning "If you kill and it cannot be proven, you may not be punished for murder". Finally, it also internally explicitly disagrees: "Killing animals for personal enjoyment is wrong" and "Killing flies for any reason is fine" is generally true of society, in the sense that many will hold to both positions if only asked one of the questions. If people are primed, their moral views change. Society isn't stable enough to give us moral opinions.

Secondly, this contradicts politics. Any reform to politics is changing the rules of society. Therefore, any political act is inherently immoral if it is attempting to progress.

And finally, most importantly in my opinion, this view discards the exemplar and progress. The most morally correct person is the one who does nothing to harm society. The one who slugs away at work, does not question or criticise the rules imposed on him, and lives by all the rules society tells him to live by. Any challenges to the moral order - people like Jesus, Bentham, Burke, Moore, Locke, Luther, Calvin, Mohammed, Kant, Rousseau, Reagan, Thatcher - they could say anything, from ultra communism to ultra libertarianism, from totalitarianism to anarchism, from nationalism to internationalism and from feminism to patriarchy. All of this would be immoral inherently. Any improvements they seem to have made are actually resulting from changes and challenges. The removal of absolutist power of the monarch was immoral. The American Revolution was wrong. Industrialisation is abhorrent. The view that ethics is simply the "collective self-interest" means that at any time the minority opinions of these people were inherently morally wrong for the act of disagreement.

There are other problems to the argument you portrayed, but they are plausibly born from not fully understanding what you've meant at points. The most obvious is that you've said that we should discard any opinion which says "a lot of people might say "slavery" is clearly immoral, ect.. but on whose standard are we basing that decision on? We are biologically programmed to increase our population - to increase the chance of our survival - and being compassionate and sociable is just part of evolution." This either means that what is morally right is based on evolution, which isn't in the collective self-interest in any way, or these two ideas contradict: saying that 'those who claim something is clearly immoral is wrong' is correct, then saying 'it is clear that morality is based on evolution' would contradict.

Moreover, it claims that people cannot be wrong on what they think they ought to do, except by appealing to a common mass. Which means (ad hitlerum) take Hitler: if he had majority support, we would have to claim genocide of a race is not just justified but a moral imperative when he gained 50%+1 people supporting his idea if we want to be morally right. This reveals that there is no reason why this morality should bind people to act, the most important part of morality. Morality to be a definition necessarily, I would claim, must explain why we ought to do X over Y. And this definition fails to do so. If "X is morality", then I should not be able to rationally challenge that. For example, I cannot rationally challenge whether "an unmarried man is a bachelor", or "a male horse is a stallion". However, I can (and others have) rationally challenged your definition, so it fails on this litmus test.

With all this in mind, I cannot accept this definition of morality. Though all these points independently challenge your notion, I see each of them creating major question marks over this formation of the definition. That said, it's important to try and define morality: it's an incredibly important idea and concept in modern society. However, I feel you've simply regurgitated Bradley's understanding of morality and it doesn't hold for me.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:46:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?

Would it be true, then, to say that your suggestions here are erroneous?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 3:36:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Morality is how one ought to behave, or the code of conduct one ought to follow. So, tell us what that is.

I think you're missing my point. I am not saying if the majority believes in something, that must be "right," nor am I giving a definite guideline to reach a conclusive definition of morality. In fact, collective self-interest was a word intended to replace the word morality, and by definition I don't believe those who believe in collective self-interests are more "moral" than others. Also, if everyone believed in collective self-interest there wouldn't be any motivation for people to make a change - a motivation stems from your visceral desires and belief on what you think is "right." A notion of collective self-interest is an attempt to view this world as unbiased and as scientifically as possible, disregarding every possible shaky aspects of the "morality." You are right when you said people when they "discard theistic morality (as we're coming out of a god hegemony of morality) fail to come up with a secular morality to base it on," and if there was an absolutely infallible interpretation of morality that everyone in the world shared I would gladly accept it. For a person like me who hates getting things wrong, though, it is not in my best interest to use morality.
For example, if two kids were drowning and if one were your kid, and you could only save one, many people would say it's moral to save your kid because that feels "right" - a phenomena which could be explained by evolution. Some may say since the value of life is equal for all living beings, it is more moral to save the one who's the closest and is more likely to survive. Few may even say it is immoral to save the drowning kids because God must be punishing the kids for their misdeed (who knows?) - and according to where you grew up and how you were educated they are all technically moral.

That said, it's important to try and define morality: it's an incredibly important idea and concept in modern society.

I don't disagree. I am a spiritualist who believes in the growth in soul based on actions, and that it is moral to try to change the world, and feel myriad of emotions - misery, disgust, fear, joy, surprise, hope, love, and happiness - to grow; which you can't do with collective self-interest. Yet spirituality (or any other religion in the world) is not based on logic, and When I suppressed my spirituality and every other personal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong, I came up with collective self-interests.
I hope you understand what I mean and where I'm coming from.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:46:15 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?

Would it be true, then, to say that your suggestions here are erroneous?

It's like throwing God away and calling it atheism. It is an idea of a lack of idea, so I guess you could interpret it both ways
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:54:14 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:46:15 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?

Would it be true, then, to say that your suggestions here are erroneous?

It's like throwing God away and calling it atheism. It is an idea of a lack of idea, so I guess you could interpret it both ways

I guess it must be true if everything is true. But then it would also be true to say that it's false...oh god you've turned every statement into a liar paradox! The mark of a superior philosopher.

Hey, now that I'm done jesting around with you, may I ask: Have you read up on logics which discard the law of the excluded middle, as you appear to be doing? The structures which emerge are surprisingly rich.
Well, here are some sources, if you're curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:07:18 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:54:14 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:46:15 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?

Would it be true, then, to say that your suggestions here are erroneous?

It's like throwing God away and calling it atheism. It is an idea of a lack of idea, so I guess you could interpret it both ways

I guess it must be true if everything is true. But then it would also be true to say that it's false...oh god you've turned every statement into a liar paradox! The mark of a superior philosopher.

Hey, now that I'm done jesting around with you, may I ask: Have you read up on logics which discard the law of the excluded middle, as you appear to be doing? The structures which emerge are surprisingly rich.
Well, here are some sources, if you're curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe, everything just formed from nothingness, even logic, in which case pursuing logic basing it on nothingness can be literally unreasonable.. Well I still don't want to think God exist because some say it does, yet I need to have some basis to think upon. My head hurts.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:02:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:40:11 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:07:18 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:54:14 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:46:15 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/11/2013 2:09:40 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:20:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:39:29 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:20:26 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:58:57 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:17:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The view on how people ought to act?

No, just a practical derivative of common philosophy.

That's the definition? "Just a practical derivative of common philosophy"?

I view it as a derivative of philosophy because it's not really "philosophical" to say everything is true.

Who is saying that?

I am?

Would it be true, then, to say that your suggestions here are erroneous?

It's like throwing God away and calling it atheism. It is an idea of a lack of idea, so I guess you could interpret it both ways

I guess it must be true if everything is true. But then it would also be true to say that it's false...oh god you've turned every statement into a liar paradox! The mark of a superior philosopher.

Hey, now that I'm done jesting around with you, may I ask: Have you read up on logics which discard the law of the excluded middle, as you appear to be doing? The structures which emerge are surprisingly rich.
Well, here are some sources, if you're curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe, everything just formed from nothingness, even logic, in which case pursuing logic basing it on nothingness can be literally unreasonable.. Well I still don't want to think God exist because some say it does, yet I need to have some basis to think upon. My head hurts.

Well, I hope I don't further contribute to an aneurysm here, but "logic" exists plurally, not singly. Meaning, there are varieties of logic systems which may be incompatible (i.e. a theorem in one system may, in fact, be false in another system).

So speaking of a single, linear sequence of derivation, in which "logic" emerges as a unitary edifice of formality out of some antecedent non-logical condition may not be either helpful or accurate. After all, first-order predicate calculus was proved to be complete (in a certain Godelian sense), and thus not a "formal system" in the same way that arithmetic is.

This implies that logic systems may be inaugurated by a variety of different means, not all by some single, nebulous act of ex nihilo creation. So I would dissuade you from thinking that "pursuing" logic is ultimately "unreasonable", though it may be basically 'non-logical' in an informal sense.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:38:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think a better way to look at life is to achieve the desired results that impact the masses in a positive measurable and self sustaining way no matter how evil it sounds.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:19:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:38:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
I think a better way to look at life is to achieve the desired results that impact the masses in a positive measurable and self sustaining way no matter how evil it sounds.

I think you're talking about utilitarianism.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:06:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can't each person have their own definition of morality? Why should we care why anyone holds a particular view. Morality is an internal contract with oneself governing ones actions. We do however tend to assume that these internal values should be shared by those around us. I would argue this is because it makes it easier for us to function if we have a consistent set of rules. True consistency is impossible though.
To me this is the biggest error in human judgement, the assumption that just because we want our lives to be one way, that others should want their lives that way too. Rights are not universal, they are relative to what a person wants/needs (there is no useful distinction). Just so, punishments should be relative as well, based on what people don't want, otherwise we might end up rewarding people for bad behaviour. I'm not saying that equality isn't a nice ideal, but it isn't practical and it doesn't reflect the way people work. Everyone is different. This doesn't mean we should ostracise people or treat them unfairly, just that we have to recognise that what is fair for one person is not necessarily fair for another. Let's just all be civil, and discuss what impact our actions have. The better we understand the consequences of our actions and how people feel about them, the better we will be able to help each other.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:56:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:06:24 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Can't each person have their own definition of morality? Why should we care why anyone holds a particular view. Morality is an internal contract with oneself governing ones actions.

Well, can't I just reject this contention out of hand if you claim that "my" definition of morality is on equal footing to yours? Your own argument functions as its own counter-argument.

We do however tend to assume that these internal values should be shared by those around us. I would argue this is because it makes it easier for us to function if we have a consistent set of rules. True consistency is impossible though.
To me this is the biggest error in human judgement, the assumption that just because we want our lives to be one way, that others should want their lives that way too. Rights are not universal, they are relative to what a person wants/needs (there is no useful distinction). Just so, punishments should be relative as well, based on what people don't want, otherwise we might end up rewarding people for bad behaviour.

How can actual "bad" behavior really exist if differences between personal, internal values imply that every set of values is of equal moral legitimacy?
You also seem to be imposing your views about "punishment" on others in the manner which you just criticized in others.

I'm not saying that equality isn't a nice ideal, but it isn't practical and it doesn't reflect the way people work. Everyone is different. This doesn't mean we should ostracise people or treat them unfairly, just that we have to recognise that what is fair for one person is not necessarily fair for another. Let's just all be civil, and discuss what impact our actions have. The better we understand the consequences of our actions and how people feel about them, the better we will be able to help each other.

If one person's idea of "fairness" is just as good as any other's, then on what grounds do you also claim that certain behaviors are truly unfair?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:04:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:56:52 PM, Poetaster wrote:
Well, can't I just reject this contention out of hand if you claim that "my" definition of morality is on equal footing to yours? Your own argument functions as its own counter-argument.

Yes, you can, and no its not a counter-argument since I assume from the beginning that not everyone will agree with me. Also, my argument doesn't concern definitions, or facts, only morals, which are normative (as opposed to epistemic) in nature. Facts still have to be judged based on agreement between parties on the way the world actually is. Definitions, well, if you aren't happy with me defining morality this way, I'll use a different word. The word isn't important to me, just that what we are discussing relates to how we judge actions and meet out justice, and I'm not talking about legal justice because that is an extension of state power, I'm talking about every act of justice from disciplining children in the home to the choice between locking up or executing murderers.

Also, how does rejecting my definition assist in us getting along? For is that not the purpose of morality? To allow us to live in harmony?

How can actual "bad" behavior really exist if differences between personal, internal values imply that every set of values is of equal moral legitimacy?

It doesn't, there is only 'bad for me', 'bad for you' and 'bad for the collective as aggregated by aggregation function X'. What aggregation functions we choose and what degree of badness is permissible within a given society is all relative. I am advocating a relative consequentialist view. I identify how an action affects me, and then judge what I should do to ameliorate the affects that I judge as being negative for me. Now you might say that this would just lead to vigilantism, but I don't think that is a necessary consequence. Economies of scale still apply here and so it will always be more efficient for groups to band together for law enforcement and these groups will see it as beneficial to disallow others from taking the law into their own hands (namely by punishing them for it) this is effectively the process by which we came to the system we have now anyway, I'm just saying we should take it to its logical conclusion.

You also seem to be imposing your views about "punishment" on others in the manner which you just criticized in others.

I don't see how, I'm only pointing out that if we are truly attempting to punish someone that we should do it in a fashion that THEY do not like not in a fashion that WE do not like. Otherwise we are not really discouraging the actions that we perceive as bad. If justice and punishment have a different objective for you then by all means, use a different measure. I'm just discussing what I see to be the predominant view in our society.

If one person's idea of "fairness" is just as good as any other's, then on what grounds do you also claim that certain behaviors are truly unfair?

You assume that I still promote the judgement 'truly unfair' and I do not. There is no 'truly unfair' since all moral statements are relative. Thus there is only 'unfair from my perspective' and 'unfair enough that I want to punish you for it'.

Hope that clears things up. Most of your problems with my proposal come from assuming that absolute judgements either still exist or that I'm trying to come up with them. I'm not, I embrace relativism in its most general sense. Other definitions of morality are welcome, but I reserve the right to speak out against those who would limit me from deciding on my own moral code or from judging me for my choices in values. Not because they don't have a right to, but because it annoys me and I don't see how it adds to valuable discussion about what should and should not be allowed to happen. If the consequences of my actions affect you negatively, tell me and if I do not see the changes required as being of significant harm to me I'll do my best to change them since I might want a favour from you at some point in the future. Cooperation, not honesty, is the best policy.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:10:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I should also mention that while I advocate aggregation of law enforcement power, I would not intend this continue to the point of only one law enforcement agency. Multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdictions would lead to more efficient law enforcement through competition provided there was a sufficiently well functioning media organisation or some other method of communicating the results of law enforcement.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:25:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Morality isn't some highly-intellectual theory. It's simply when you act emotionally as opposed to reasonably, specifically when your emotional impetus defies reason.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:51:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 3:36:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Morality is how one ought to behave, or the code of conduct one ought to follow. So, tell us what that is.

I think you're missing my point. I am not saying if the majority believes in something, that must be "right," nor am I giving a definite guideline to reach a conclusive definition of morality. In fact, collective self-interest was a word intended to replace the word morality, and by definition I don't believe those who believe in collective self-interests are more "moral" than others.

To replace "moraity" with "collective self interest", this essentially reads:

In fact, collective self-interest was a word intended to replace the word morality, and by definition I don't believe those who believe in morality are more "moral" than others.

Which becomes incoherent. You believe that collective self-interest can replace morality to be clearer on meaning, but you don't believe that people who promote [morality] are more moral? This is like saying you believe that goodness is pleasure, but you don't believe those who maximise pleasure are good.

I'll say again my two cents on this: morality is how one ought to behave, so if one wants to replace the word with another, one has to retain that idea of being bound to act in a certain way.

For example, [drowning children analogy with multiple responses]

The correct response is saving the life. Given a more well known example, the trolly analogy, the right thing to do is save the five, as five lives are worth more than one (ceteris paribus). We can justify this intuitively, rationally, emotively, etc. but at the end of the day, the fact that other people are wrong doesn't stop morality from working anymore than the existence of creationists disproves evolution.

I don't disagree. I am a spiritualist who believes in the growth in soul based on actions, and that it is moral to try to change the world

You've just used the word moral. So you still have that idea: try explaining it. Either you're using it in a way that only you understand, which means it cannot be morality, or you've made a minor oversight here and can explain this idea better.

Yet spirituality (or any other religion in the world) is not based on logic

This threw up huge alarm bells to me. When someone believes in something not based on logic, especially when logic is not being discussed, then it usually is to shut down discussions, not open it. What you've got is your own escape hatch here, which isn't going to fly. If you think you have morality in your non-logic system, you still have to explain what it is. Saying "it's not logical" means it's wrong, as anything is either a communicable idea, or an incommunicable idea. And as morality necessarily must be communicable, it can either mean your idea is communicable, or it isn't true.

Or, to be clearer throughout what I am saying: on what grounds does "collective self-interest" clear up what "morality" means? In my view, you've simply got a well understood word which lacks ethical partisanship, and replaced it with a fuzzy phrase with partisanship to individualism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:14:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not that morality doesn't exist. It's that it only exists in its own context. If you want to be technical then an idea exists just as much as your shoe.

It is theoretically possible to convert your shoe into energy and then convert it back into a shoe and so objectivity is just as relative and nonexistent as an idea.

To say a shoe exists is to imply it exists in its own context. It doesn't exist next door but on your foot. It doesn't exist in the distant past with dinosaurs but it exists in the now.

An idea or belief is the same. It exists between your ears. It exists therefore it exists.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:45:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:35:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:51:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/11/2013 3:36:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

I'll say again my two cents on this: morality is how one ought to behave, so if one wants to replace the word with another, one has to retain that idea of being bound to act in a certain way.

By replacing the word I'm trying to replace this fundamental notion that leaches on to the term "morality" - that there is a protocol for "how one ought to behave," and ultimately there is a right behavior and a wrong behavior. You seem to be confusing "a new word for morality" with "a word interchangeable with morality." I think of it as a word which could be used to doubt oneself and eradicate any judgement based on any conviction that could be rooted on an irrational principle (i.e favoring American over Iranian. If all lives were equal, then we don't need to have "patriotic" attacks on middle-eastern countries which many Americans believe to be moral)

For example, [drowning children analogy with multiple responses]

The correct response is saving the life. Given a more well known example, the trolly analogy, the right thing to do is save the five, as five lives are worth more than one (ceteris paribus). We can justify this intuitively, rationally, emotively, etc. but at the end of the day, the fact that other people are wrong doesn't stop morality from working anymore than the existence of creationists disproves evolution.

That is the typical answer - but the world is more complicated than that. What if the trolley was driven by a man who was certain that those five men were planning to kill 50 men? What if he were 95% accurate, is he then justified? Or 90%, 60%, or maybe 5% if they were to kill 5,000 men. Are you going to resort to an utilitarian method of defining life's worth and calculating out the most efficient situation? By doing so you are ironically being inhumane, even though you may think you are doing it to maximize the number of people living on earth..

I don't disagree. I am a spiritualist who believes in the growth in soul based on actions, and that it is moral to try to change the world

You've just used the word moral. So you still have that idea: try explaining it. Either you're using it in a way that only you understand, which means it cannot be morality, or you've made a minor oversight here and can explain this idea better.

Alright, I'll explain to you what my morality is. My morality is purely based on the growth of the soul. Every emotion and every action is moral. Hitler is moral, Stalin is moral, and your next door neighbor who annoys you by playing loud music every day is moral by definition of my morality - for they are creating experiences and emotions to which people's soul could use to mature.
Clearly, my morality differs from 99.99% of Americans in the country, or probably even in the world; and for me to say "well, since I think this is the way people should define morality because I think so" is an extremely immature thing for me to say.

Yet spirituality (or any other religion in the world) is not based on logic

This threw up huge alarm bells to me. When someone believes in something not based on logic, especially when logic is not being discussed, then it usually is to shut down discussions, not open it. What you've got is your own escape hatch here, which isn't going to fly. If you think you have morality in your non-logic system, you still have to explain what it is. Saying "it's not logical" means it's wrong, as anything is either a communicable idea, or an incommunicable idea. And as morality necessarily must be communicable, it can either mean your idea is communicable, or it isn't true.

Alright, explain to me. What is this "soul' thing that I am basing my morality upon? I like to theorize that it is a 2nd type of energy which does not have the same physical property yet existed with mass and the detectable energy when the big bang occurred, but maybe something like God sneezed and life formed just because. "It's not logical," but it may not be wrong, for my definition of logic may be wrong as well. However, as logic today is based on basic algorithms, as of right now I can not prove my morality based on logic. Collective self-interest was an attempt to understand the world in the most logical way with our widely accepted notion of logic.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 6:36:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like where you are going with this Delucha as it is similar to what I was trying to say. I'd like to make only one comment with regards to your idea about magnitudes of goodness and badness. There is not only one way of aggregating preferences of a group together to form a collective opinion. There are many ways to do it, and I would argue that doing it democratically (1 vote each) is not necessarily the best. Also I would dispute that there no collective self interest of 1 person, there is, it just happens to be the same as their individual self-interest i.e. collective of 1.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 2:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll point out how basically every objection you came up with against morality presupposes morality existing, and none of them are binding. To pick out a choice few:

Yes, cultural nationalism e.g. patriotism for a geography is immoral. Political nationalism by contrast can be justified. Yes, with less and less certainty the less and less favourable an act becomes, meaning it becomes more and more dubious whether it is the moral thing to do. Utilitarianism isn't inhumane, it's impartial - the virtue you were seeking for to begin with. Simply saying it is "inhumane" is unwarranted and unfounded.

Secondly, you're view of morality is wrong. Sorry, I'm not a relativist, I believe there is an objective morality like there is an objective science. And I know as in founded in reason and fact that for every moral act, its inverse is immoral. If giving money to the poor is good, then stealing from the poor is bad. If saving the lives of millions is a great good, then the Holocaust is evil. As well as intuitively any moral system directing our behaviour cannot say that all behaviour is good, any behaviour which says "not killing that man" is moral AND "killing that man" is moral contradicts itself and is false.

Thirdly and finally "what is this 'soul' thing I am basing my morality upon"? It is a waffly new-age idea from what I can gather, as you've refused to explain these concepts in any communicable way. Instead of deciding to adhere to the universal standard of logic - that things are what they are, that things cannot be and not-be at the same time, and that things must either be or not-be - you have stepped out of the realm of the real world, and are discussing events that cannot affect us here, and are thus without meaning. Your philosophy keeps generalising itself more and more and it no longer means anything. Let me run through an analogy:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?

Your case dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I am not skeptical of what you're asserting anymore: I am skeptical you are even asserting anything at all.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 2:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 2:12:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Your case dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I am not skeptical of what you're asserting anymore: I am skeptical you are even asserting anything at all.

That's fine.
Have a nice day.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 11:04:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 2:12:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'll point out how basically every objection you came up with against morality presupposes morality existing, and none of them are binding. To pick out a choice few:

Yes, cultural nationalism e.g. patriotism for a geography is immoral. Political nationalism by contrast can be justified. Yes, with less and less certainty the less and less favourable an act becomes, meaning it becomes more and more dubious whether it is the moral thing to do. Utilitarianism isn't inhumane, it's impartial - the virtue you were seeking for to begin with. Simply saying it is "inhumane" is unwarranted and unfounded.

Good point, though what this has to do with the presupposition of morality I can't quite fathom.

Secondly, you're view of morality is wrong. Sorry, I'm not a relativist, I believe there is an objective morality like there is an objective science. And I know as in founded in reason and fact that for every moral act, its inverse is immoral. If giving money to the poor is good, then stealing from the poor is bad. If saving the lives of millions is a great good, then the Holocaust is evil. As well as intuitively any moral system directing our behaviour cannot say that all behaviour is good, any behaviour which says "not killing that man" is moral AND "killing that man" is moral contradicts itself and is false.

Just because you can't conceive of a relative moral system doesn't mean there isn't one. The contradiction is only apparent if you presuppose an absolute moral theory, which you do, but relativists don't so why do you expect it to hold any value to us? Again, doesn't have anything to do with the presupposition of an absolute morality.

Thirdly and finally "what is this 'soul' thing I am basing my morality upon"? It is a waffly new-age idea from what I can gather, as you've refused to explain these concepts in any communicable way. Instead of deciding to adhere to the universal standard of logic - that things are what they are, that things cannot be and not-be at the same time, and that things must either be or not-be - you have stepped out of the realm of the real world, and are discussing events that cannot affect us here, and are thus without meaning. Your philosophy keeps generalising itself more and more and it no longer means anything. Let me run through an analogy:

Agreed, I don't really understand why he had to resort to a soul type thing in order to validate his supposedly relative moral theory. By the way, it is by no means universal that things cannot be and not be or that they must be or not be. Look up dialethism, paraconsistency, paracompleteness if you need examples of fully fledged logical systems which do not require one or more of these properties. If you believe these aren't real logic well then I guess we're done here.

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?

Your case dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I am not skeptical of what you're asserting anymore: I am skeptical you are even asserting anything at all.

Is this an argument against Delucho's particular form of relativism or all relativism in general? I'm assuming you are referring to his Soul idea. In which case indeed. Your particular example makes no mention of whether the garden actually behaves as if it has been tended. You need the additional test that you plant a similar garden elsewhere that the believer admits is not tended by the gardener to act as a control. If the believer claims that the Gardener will always tend any similar garden to look the same as the one here, then he has a problem.

Let me put forward a counterargument. You suppose that you should simply reject the theory of the Gardener's existence. Your logic for doing this is that his nonexistence is the same as his existence. However, since his theory makes no predictions that would affect your decisions (which it can't or it would have testable predictions) the act of rejecting is functionally equivalent to the act of accepting it. So you haven't really done anything at all. I just dismiss the question and wait for more evidence, rejecting it outright seems like a lot of trouble and a lot of arguments for something that doesn't get me anything.