Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Consequentialism

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:45:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen?

A few inquiries, if I may:

A. Is this the way things ought to be?
1. If not, is fixing this world impossible?
a. If so, then how do you justify the process by which human rights evolved as a concept? Is this not evidence of progress?

B. Can might be gained through acting in a way people view as moral? Are people not placed in power through coups if they are moral and, thus, gain widespread support?

C. Are you saying that if the world does not act in accordance with moral standards, the concept of right and wrong behavior should be cast aside? Or are you saying that those with power decide right and wrong?

D. If we remove the tyrannical actions of those in power and speak strictly of what constitutes morality, what would you see as moral?

I await your response.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen.
In a way that's an inherently consequentialist moral argument, because you are starting with a desirable goal (making things happen) and saying that might is how we get there. I don't necessarily agree with you here, but my point is that no matter what, you are inherently dealing with a moral question.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:45:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:32:10 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen.
In a way that's an inherently consequentialist moral argument, because you are starting with a desirable goal (making things happen) and saying that might is how we get there. I don't necessarily agree with you here, but my point is that no matter what, you are inherently dealing with a moral question.

Are you stating that creating change is moral, or that any link from means to end is moral?

If it is the former, how are economic or transportation based changes moral?

If it is the latter, would you then have to state that immoral actions, such as murder is moral? What about actions which seem completely irrelevant to morality, such as making a PBJ? By your argument, these claims, regardless of absurdity, are moral.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:03:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:45:06 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:32:10 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen.
In a way that's an inherently consequentialist moral argument, because you are starting with a desirable goal (making things happen) and saying that might is how we get there. I don't necessarily agree with you here, but my point is that no matter what, you are inherently dealing with a moral question.

Are you stating that creating change is moral, or that any link from means to end is moral?
Not necessarily. I only argued that his philosophy was rooted (whether he knew it or not) in a consequentialist moral system. As I stated in my original post, I think we need to look at the purpose of morality to determine our ends (which, as I argue, is a fair, prosperous, and relatively painless life) then work from there to see what can achieve that goal in a way that agrees with the goal itself. This does not mean that ends justify the means, because if the goal is, as I argue, a fair society, then the way you get to that goal must also be fair. You can't have a fair society if it's created by unfair practices.

If it is the former, how are economic or transportation based changes moral?
Again, I was using his argument to show that it could be presented as a consequentialist moral argument, not that I think change is inherently moral. If you were to argue that change is what we should be aiming for, then the answer is yes, but I think our moral goal isn't necessarily change, but lack of unnecessary pain/loss (fairness). Reaching that goal may take change, but change is more of a means than an ends.

If it is the latter, would you then have to state that immoral actions, such as murder is moral? What about actions which seem completely irrelevant to morality, such as making a PBJ? By your argument, these claims, regardless of absurdity, are moral.
I think I've already cleared up my position in the paragraphs above, so I'll just discuss that interesting point you brought up about things that are "irrelevant" to morality.

I really don't think any action is irrelevant to morality. There is only a scale of importance. Making a pb and j sandwich may be considered immoral if the sandwich made the consumer more unhealthy. That is because our moral goal (in my opinion) is to create a life for ourselves, both as individuals and as a society, that causes us least amount of pain and maximizes our life experience. If you are making yourself or others unhealthy, then you are negatively contributing to this goal as lack of health increases the amount of unnecessary suffering. Of course, making an unhealthy snack is a very small moral transgression, but it still is one nonetheless.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:45:17 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen?

A few inquiries, if I may:

A. Is this the way things ought to be?

That's like asking if water ought to run down hill.

1. If not, is fixing this world impossible?

Force is a measure to effect change. It is impossible to change the physics of reality.

a. If so, then how do you justify the process by which human rights evolved as a concept? Is this not evidence of progress?

Rights are granted by authorities in exchange for allegiance. A citizen exchanges innate freedoms for rights. Is it progress for people to barter their freedom for security?


B. Can might be gained through acting in a way people view as moral? Are people not placed in power through coups if they are moral and, thus, gain widespread support?

No coup start from a middle class. I class with time and energy to conduct a coup. the poor don't revolt because they do not have power or influence to do so. The rich do not revolt because the system is what secures them being rich.

So revolt against an unjust power come a class of people with the power, influence, time to conduct a revolt. Which is inline with what I said, and only furthers the idea that our freedoms are only secured by a well funded, educated public fighting for them.


C. Are you saying that if the world does not act in accordance with moral standards, the concept of right and wrong behavior should be cast aside? Or are you saying that those with power decide right and wrong?

I personally think right is what is in accordance with natural law. But as a society of irrational beings we are from from that standard. Making most discussions of right/wrong meaningless. And in human society right/wrong are committed through he application of force. Reward for right and punishment for wrong are only accomplished through similar application. we are talking about consequential-ism aren't we.


D. If we remove the tyrannical actions of those in power and speak strictly of what constitutes morality, what would you see as moral?

If human had no contract obligations of power between each other. Morally good would be:

To Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

To Love your neighbor as yourself.

To be free to sustain ones self and family from the world.


I await your response.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:16:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Correction for clarity:

So revolt against an unjust power come a class of people with the power, influence, time to conduct a revolt. Which is inline with what I said, and only furthers the idea that our [rights] are only secured by a well funded, educated public fighting for them.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 3:03:35 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:45:06 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:32:10 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen.
In a way that's an inherently consequentialist moral argument, because you are starting with a desirable goal (making things happen) and saying that might is how we get there. I don't necessarily agree with you here, but my point is that no matter what, you are inherently dealing with a moral question.

Are you stating that creating change is moral, or that any link from means to end is moral?
Not necessarily. I only argued that his philosophy was rooted (whether he knew it or not) in a consequentialist moral system. As I stated in my original post, I think we need to look at the purpose of morality to determine our ends (which, as I argue, is a fair, prosperous, and relatively painless life) then work from there to see what can achieve that goal in a way that agrees with the goal itself.
I see. I apologize for my inaccurate interpretation.

However, I still disagree with the notion that his proposal utilizes consequentialism. His post describes the way in which morality is derived, from power. This constitutes virtue ethics, which is the idea that an individual's character forms morality. In Mhykiel's argument, might is what creates morality.
This does not mean that ends justify the means, because if the goal is, as I argue, a fair society, then the way you get to that goal must also be fair. You can't have a fair society if it's created by unfair practices.
Could you please elaborate? It seems to me that the foundations of a society are irrelevant to the actions said society takes after it's formation. Thus, morality can not be derived.

Also, doesn't consequentialism view the means as irrelevant? What branch of consequentialism do you adhere to, if any?

If it is the former, how are economic or transportation based changes moral?
Again, I was using his argument to show that it could be presented as a consequentialist moral argument, not that I think change is inherently moral. If you were to argue that change is what we should be aiming for, then the answer is yes, but I think our moral goal isn't necessarily change, but lack of unnecessary pain/loss (fairness). Reaching that goal may take change, but change is more of a means than an ends.

If it is the latter, would you then have to state that immoral actions, such as murder is moral? What about actions which seem completely irrelevant to morality, such as making a PBJ? By your argument, these claims, regardless of absurdity, are moral.
I think I've already cleared up my position in the paragraphs above, so I'll just discuss that interesting point you brought up about things that are "irrelevant" to morality.

I really don't think any action is irrelevant to morality. There is only a scale of importance. Making a pb and j sandwich may be considered immoral if the sandwich made the consumer more unhealthy. That is because our moral goal (in my opinion) is to create a life for ourselves, both as individuals and as a society, that causes us least amount of pain and maximizes our life experience. If you are making yourself or others unhealthy, then you are negatively contributing to this goal as lack of health increases the amount of unnecessary suffering. Of course, making an unhealthy snack is a very small moral transgression, but it still is one nonetheless.

This seems to be more based upon benefit than morality. Could you please provide a causal link between the two ideas?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:25:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:47:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:45:17 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 3:43:49 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:02:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:37:36 AM, Harper wrote:
I think consequentialism is the most logical form of secular morality-- it works from the goal as its ultimate premise, and judges all actions based on how they contribute to reaching that goal. The only part one needs to figure out is what the "goal" is, and everything else follows from it. Now, because the whole concept of morals originated in subjective, living creatures, there can be no "objective" morality. Nothing is, in and of itself, wrong. Things are only wrong in the subjective context of living things, (morals (right/wrong) only exist if living things exist) and that's where you derive your goal from: understanding why morals even exist in the first place. And the answer is that living things, understanding that life is both pleasure and pain and that either way (whether you live a primarily painful or painless life) it ends in absolute destruction (death, which is a great injustice (for people to be born into the world suffering only to be rewarded with destruction)), want to keep life as painless and as fair as possible. And from that goal, you can derive the individual ideas of right and wrong. This is in no way objective, but for lack of a better term, it's subjectively objective (because the concept originates in the subjective mind, but uses the ultimate purpose of morals (which is subjective since purpose itself is subjective) as a premise to derive an objective moral code in the form of logical conclusions).

Rockefeller is on his 6th heart over 38 years at the age of 99.

There is only a finite amount of resources on Earth. That instead of increasing we seem to be content on fighting over. You can complain and talk all you want about what is right and what is wrong. And you know what? People with power, money, and influence will get what they want to make their lives happy and long. The rest of the people can die young and in debt.

But your apparent discontent with the way things are stems from a philosophy of right and wrong, no? So then, isn't talking about the philosophical basis of morals an incredibly (if not the most) important thing to be doing right now?

Or we accept that might makes things happen. If we truly want to effect this world and our condition then we should gain might to make things happen?

A few inquiries, if I may:

A. Is this the way things ought to be?

That's like asking if water ought to run down hill.
Are you stating that this law is incapable of changing? Could you please demonstrate this?
1. If not, is fixing this world impossible?

Force is a measure to effect change. It is impossible to change the physics of reality.
Above (1)
a. If so, then how do you justify the process by which human rights evolved as a concept? Is this not evidence of progress?

Rights are granted by authorities in exchange for allegiance. A citizen exchanges innate freedoms for rights. Is it progress for people to barter their freedom for security?
It seems to break the trend of force being necessary, and changed the focus to what is genuinely moral according to consensus.

B. Can might be gained through acting in a way people view as moral? Are people not placed in power through coups if they are moral and, thus, gain widespread support?

No coup start from a middle class. I class with time and energy to conduct a coup. the poor don't revolt because they do not have power or influence to do so. The rich do not revolt because the system is what secures them being rich.

So revolt against an unjust power come a class of people with the power, influence, time to conduct a revolt. Which is inline with what I said, and only furthers the idea that our freedoms are only secured by a well funded, educated public fighting for them.
This question was meant to determine if you are stating that the utilization of force makes morality useless. I do realize that these coups do utilize force, but this does not seem to negate morality.

C. Are you saying that if the world does not act in accordance with moral standards, the concept of right and wrong behavior should be cast aside? Or are you saying that those with power decide right and wrong?

I personally think right is what is in accordance with natural law. But as a society of irrational beings we are from from that standard. Making most discussions of right/wrong meaningless. And in human society right/wrong are committed through he application of force. Reward for right and punishment for wrong are only accomplished through similar application. we are talking about consequential-ism aren't we.
Above (1)

D. If we remove the tyrannical actions of those in power and speak strictly of what constitutes morality, what would you see as moral?

If human had no contract obligations of power between each other. Morally good would be:

To Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

To Love your neighbor as yourself.

To be free to sustain ones self and family from the world.

Thank you.

I await your response.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I suppose that I should provide my own view.

My meta-ethical perspective is simple subjectivism, or the idea that morality changes from person to person. I believe that this is due to different ends being desired by many people, from complete freedom to eternal happiness.

The fact that I provide arguments on these topics is merely meant to test my own personal morality and beliefs on the nature of morality.