Moral Basics

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

I guess It all depends on the specific situation and how you choose to look at it.  

I don't think it does. I believe in objective morality, so I believe how you look at it only determines how likely you are to see the truth. Like the way our opinions about what others deserve can prevent us from having compassion for them...

Also, you misread Key's post. Here's a quote with the bit you missed highlighted "In such case, I wouldn't call that being neutral, but rather isolationist. "

Edited April 4, 2016 by mererdog

[kokigami]

On 3/30/2016 at 0:05 PM, mererdog said:

How can you tell that what you are doing is right?

I can't. At the very basic, Newtonian application, if we get the result we expected, we chose the right actions, (for that particular goal). That is, if we throw a stone to break a window, and the window breaks, then we did it right.  Beyond that, pretty much a crap shoot. Ultimately, this question is more about what goal one is trying to achieve. And isolating that goal from unintended consequences. Your goal seems to be adhering to an unspecified objective morality that may or may not exist. Personally, I think it is unlikely. But, I can probably agree that some of the things you might attribute to that objective morality are, in most cases, likely good. But accepting that I can't "know" that they are universal goods, keeps me introspective. Once we establish for ourselves that something is objectively good/bad, we are no longer going to examine our moral choices on that issue. For example, if the color puce is inherently evil, by objective morality (or my assumption about said objective morality), I will no longer consider the color for interior decorating.  

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, kokigami said:

Your goal seems to be adhering to an unspecified objective morality that may or may not exist.

Not really. For me, acting morally is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, kokigami said:

Once we establish for ourselves that something is objectively good/bad, we are no longer going to examine our moral choices on that issue.

Only if we lack the basic humility that allows us to accept that we might be wrong.

[murphzlaw1]

On 4/1/2016 at 4:01 PM, mererdog said:

 

And, for the record, mererdog should never be capitalized. It is a very improper noun.

 

ain't that the truth

[mererdog]

On 4/9/2016 at 11:06 AM, murphzlaw1 said:

ain't that the truth

Now that you agreed, I'm starting to second guess...

[kokigami]

On 4/6/2016 at 9:56 AM, mererdog said:

Only if we lack the basic humility that allows us to accept that we might be wrong.

then you haven't accepted it as objectively moral. Just probably moral. And in that doubt, I agree, there is hope.

 

[ClericThomas]

1. Does it hurt anyone else.

2. Does it hurt me.

3. Does it hurt society.

4. Will the action do the opposite of #1, #2 and #3 these would be moral acts.

Morality is an evolutionary advance of our community focused society as the dominate animal species on the planet.

Examples:

If two women are adults and want to marry it doesn't hurt anyone else or themselves, it doesn't harm society and in contrast supporting them is the opposite of them marriage being stabilizing is good, they forming a household and adopting would help society and therefore be good to support.

If a man murders a woman it harms the woman and hurts society by removing the woman as a productive unit working, making and raising children possibly and hurts the woman's circle of loved ones including removing a social support in that circle. And it hurts the murderer removing them to a prison where they lose freedom, might get abused by other inmates and wouldn't be working and supporting their circle of loved ones. So its pretty impacting if one looks at that from both the murderer and victims perspectives. (They should be locked up and punished but it has a clear impact as well which I would call secondary to the superior impact of the innocent victim.

Its generally how morality that works seems to work from my experience and freed of religious prohibitions which make no sense to me but seems to be there anyway.

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, ClericThomas said:

1. Does it hurt anyone else.

2. Does it hurt me.

3. Does it hurt society.

How do you objectively measure hurt? Meaning that if one guy says an action hurts and another says it does not, how do you tell who is right?

[ClericThomas]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

How do you objectively measure hurt? Meaning that if one guy says an action hurts and another says it does not, how do you tell who is right?

I should have said harm. But for example who is harmed if two men or two women love each other and get wed, by harm I mean tangible harm not hurt feelings or moral objections based on religious bias but harmed. You murder someone you harm many people the murdered victim, their family who may have depended on their labor, society loses the productive person and even the murders family is impacted.

[mererdog]

On 5/29/2016 at 10:40 AM, ClericThomas said:

But for example who is harmed if two men or two women love each other and get wed, by harm I mean tangible harm not hurt feelings or moral objections based on religious bias but harmed.

I don't know. But I would point out that the phrase "religious bias" seems to indicate a religious bias. If a fundamentalist says that a same sex couple will burn in Hell, that is an opinion offered on a matter of fact. Why would their opinion that it does cause harm be less valuable than your opinion that it doesn't?

Beyond that, is your position that unless you can prove conclusively that it causes harm you must assume it doesn't?

And what if I murder a murderer? You know, the type of scenario where you harm some and help others?

Edited May 31, 2016 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

On 5/29/2016 at 11:40 AM, ClericThomas said:

I should have said harm. But for example who is harmed if two men or two women love each other and get wed, by harm I mean tangible harm not hurt feelings or moral objections based on religious bias but harmed. You murder someone you harm many people the murdered victim, their family who may have depended on their labor, society loses the productive person and even the murders family is impacted.

The opposite of harm is moral?  So, then, you would support the government putting everyone on a diet based strictly on their scientific observations as to what people need nutritionally, perhaps by giving us all a daily amount of nutritious paste without any flavor or allergens?  It would be the opposite of harm, especially if they included mandatory exercise with that program, but I do not think it something I would support.

[inner searcher]

Quote

How can you tell that what you are doing is right?

I am a late comer to this topic but I would like to toss in my cent and a half's worth.  Going back to the original question quoted above, as I see it if we are doing whats right, (this is problematic by itself, being that what is right for you may not be right for anyone else) that choice or decision is far less likely to keep us awake at night or give us that sick feeling in the gut. There are however those times when the "right" thing may not be clear to us or,  when this path or that path both may certainly make us wish we had stayed in bed. All of these situations can be improved with a display of faith, meaning prayer and/or meditation, the answers will usually come if we search for them. This of course is keeping in mind that when viewed from the outside, our "right" decision may look like poor judgement to those not involved.

[Minister at Large]

The operative word here of course is "Right". What is 'the' Right. It reflects somewhat on the hoary moral chestnut concerning the notion of 'Good'. A most interesting distinction.  The ULC proposition - that does no harm to others - is certainly sound, but is it complete?  

[Key]

On 7/21/2016 at 7:30 PM, Minister at Large said:

The operative word here of course is "Right". What is 'the' Right. It reflects somewhat on the hoary moral chestnut concerning the notion of 'Good'. A most interesting distinction.  The ULC proposition - that does no harm to others - is certainly sound, but is it complete?  

No, it isn't complete by itself. It is only a tenet. Interaction is required to complete the proposition. It is a call to put words into action, not just more words.

[cuchulain]

Maybe "Right" is strictly a personal value, granting that society has much influence on people's personal values.

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Maybe "Right" is strictly a personal value, granting that society has much influence on people's personal values.

That is a pretty easy conclusion to come to when you are thinking about stuff like sex, drugs and rock and roll. When you are thinking about things like rape and murder, it gets a lot harder to say  "Hey, it may not be right for me, but if someone else wants to do it..."

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, mererdog said:

That is a pretty easy conclusion to come to when you are thinking about stuff like sex, drugs and rock and roll. When you are thinking about things like rape and murder, it gets a lot harder to say  "Hey, it may not be right for me, but if someone else wants to do it..."

Excellent point

[cuchulain]

On 8/1/2016 at 11:21 AM, mererdog said:

That is a pretty easy conclusion to come to when you are thinking about stuff like sex, drugs and rock and roll. When you are thinking about things like rape and murder, it gets a lot harder to say  "Hey, it may not be right for me, but if someone else wants to do it..."

as I said, society plays a factor.  the societal approach seems a lot like argument ad populum to me though.  A lot of people think it's a good idea, so it must be...just doesn't quite hold for me.  I don't see how rape can be approved by any society, yet I think it is in some, though I can't name the places off hand.  Murder, that's a lot harder to define, especially since humans have so many differing definitions for everything.

[mererdog]

On 8/3/2016 at 4:25 PM, cuchulain said:

I don't see how rape can be approved by any society, yet I think it is in some, though I can't name the places off hand.

Sorry, but I somehow missed your response here until now.

Just as an FYI, historically speaking, rape has been embraced by more societies than not. It goes hand in hand with the notions of people as property that produced things like arranged marriages. Of course, as you suggested about murder, societies that embrace rape usually have their own definitions that call their actions good.

Which brings us to some of the fundamental moral questions. How can you tell the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact,  if you can only view the world subjectively? Absent a way to tell the subjective from the objective, is it better to err on the side of assuming something is objective, or to err on the side of assuming it is subjective? Better to feel guilty when you do nothing wrong, or to not feel guilty when you do wrong?