• Samuel Lacrampe
    643
    The principle of the matter can co-exist, though. If I and everyone treated everyone and themselves exactly as they pleased there is nothing contradictory in that. It's completely equitable in that everyone is treating people in the same manner. Whether we succeed is another matter altogether.Moliere
    Let's use an example. Person A wants to live. Person B wants person A to die. How do either person A or B can act so that the equality in treatment is preserved at all times?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    You may be right, but that would merely suggest that no society is completely just; not that justice is subjective.Samuel Lacrampe

    This is question begging nonsense.

    Justice should also be offered to children you know; why are you omitting children? :joke:
    By 'men', I mean mankind. A minor misunderstanding.
    Samuel Lacrampe

    A MASSIVE error. You omitted children and women. Did you realise that it was international women's day this week?

    I doubt you have anything worthy to say. So I'll not hold my breath waiting.
  • Moliere
    1.1k
    Person A wants to live. Person B wants person A to die. How do either person A or B can act so that the equality in treatment is preserved at all times?Samuel Lacrampe

    Person A treats B exactly as person A wants to do -- since A wants to live, A will defend themselves. Person B treats A exactly as person B wants to do -- since B wants A to die, B will try to kill A.

    But they'll both be treating one another exactly as their desires dictate.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643
    I don't say morality is subjective. I say that moral feelings, impulses, attitudes, judgments, values, ends.... vary from one person and from one cultural context to another, though it seems there are common biological bases to all that variety, rooted in our nature as human animals.Cabbage Farmer
    I agree. Inasmuch as if the human eye sees an object, it is likely that the object seen is real, so it can be that if humans have a moral feeling, it is likely that it points to a real morality. That said, I do not use this argument in the OP.

    For instance, if a man assaults anyone who looks at him crooked, I don't call his action "just" and "good" in light of the fact that he treats all his victims the same.Cabbage Farmer
    You omit that equality in treatment in all men includes the very man treating others too. If the man wouldn't want others to treat him the way he treats others, then he is not just, because he treats himself differently than he treats others.

    All we know is, a concept of equality or proportionality must factor into the characterization somehow. But how? And what else can or must factor into our characterization of justice?Cabbage Farmer
    See example 2 in the OP. Justice can be relative to the factors that determine the act. Those factors are found rationally. As long as for a given rational factor, everyone is treated equally, then justice is done.

    One of us says the pieces should be the same size. Another says the size of the cake should be proportionate to the weight of the consumers. [...]Cabbage Farmer
    In example 1, you omitted the phrase "all else being equal". This example was intentionally over-simplified to introduce the concept. Example 2 gets more complex and introduces the factors you mention. If you have a valid argument to introduce a factor that makes justice relative to it, then the acts remain just as long as everyone involved is treated equally relative to those factors.

    As I've argued above: Even if we grant that the morality or "goodness" of an act can be evaluated purely in terms of a conception of justice, and even if we grant that equality or proportionality is essential to any conception of justice, it has not been shown that there is an objective standard by which to arrive at a single noncontroversial definition of justice adequate to this purpose.Cabbage Farmer
    Justice: equality in treatment in all men, even when it is relative to some factors which were arrived at rationally. The factors are determined through objective reasoning; the persons are compared against those factors objectively; therefore justice is determined objectively.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643

    Haters gonna hate, but not philosophize. :groan:
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643

    As I said earlier, "To preserve equality in treatment, if you treat others and yourself as you please only, then you would be forced to accept others to treat you, others, and themselves as they please only." In your response, neither A nor B are accepting the same treatment from the other. Thus equality in treatment is not preserved.

    To generalize: "Equality in treatment in all men" means that for a given situation, a just treatment is determined such that all men must follow it for others and themselves, as well as from others. This is really nothing more than the golden rule.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Haters gonna hate, but not philosophize. :groan:Samuel Lacrampe

    Please refer to the post I made above.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643
    This is question begging nonsense.charleton
    This is merely an opinion or position. An argument is a position backed up by reason.

    A MASSIVE error. You omitted children and women. Did you realise that it was international women's day this week?charleton
    I was aware. As previously stated, by 'men', I mean mankind. This is a conventional term in traditional philosophy. Thus I am not omitting children or women. But what is the point to linger on this? Do you want me to apologize? I can if you want. My intent was not to offend anyone.
  • Wayfarer
    6k
    Justice: equality in treatment in all men, even when it is relative to some factors which were arrived at rationally. The factors are determined through objective reasoning; the persons are compared against those factors objectively; therefore justice is determined objectively.Samuel Lacrampe

    I think you are begging the question here. There might be disagreement about what constitutes 'an objective judgement' for many kinds of reasons. But here you're more or less insisting that objectivity is self-evident or that there are some objective criteria which just naturally everyone will agree on. And I don't think you've established that.

    I think what you're actually wanting to argue for is more along the lines of 'natural law ethics' - a subject that I'm not that familiar with, but I feel it provides the kind of non-subjective grounding that you're wanting to advocate.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    I was aware. As previously stated, by 'men', I mean mankind. This is a conventional term in traditional philosophy. Thus I am not omitting children or women. But what is the point to linger on this? Do you want me to apologize? I can if you want. My intent was not to offend anyone.Samuel Lacrampe

    No I do not want you to apologise. But this is a clear indication that morality is neither absolute or objective. You can't even agree with the moral position to had a few days ago.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643

    Even if my position were to have changed, it does not entail that morality is neither absolute nor objective. But regardless, my position has not changed. Can you describe how you think it has changed?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Can you describe how you think it has changed?Samuel Lacrampe

    Day One: All men are equal
    Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too.

    So what are the objective rules to morality then?
    What ever shit comes into your head?
  • AngleWyrm
    64
    I find the definitions for good/bad as equality to be too narrow for a robust treatment. So I'll offer another definition of good/bad:
    Good that which contributes to the survival and reproduction of the species
    Bad that which detracts from the survival and reproduction of the species

    Some examples that this wider definition supports
    • Eating insufficient calories to sustain the energy output for a day is bad (starvation).
    • Opening an umbrella indoors is bad (broken lamp).
    • Specializing to become a high volume producer trading excess to other specialists is good (net gain in GDP).
  • Wayfarer
    6k
    Good that which contributes to the survival and reproduction of the species
    Bad that which detracts from the survival and reproduction of the species
    AngleWyrm

    If your choices are biologically determined, then they’re not really choices.

    I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.

    Richard Polt Anything but Human
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643
    I think you are begging the question here. There might be disagreement about what constitutes 'an objective judgement' for many kinds of reasons. But here you're more or less insisting that objectivity is self-evident or that there are some objective criteria which just naturally everyone will agree on. And I don't think you've established that.Wayfarer
    I may have misunderstood your point, but are you saying that the right factors that influence the act are not obtained objectively? Maybe an example might help.

    A policeman arrests a black man that was present at a crime scene, and does not arrest a white man that was not at the crime scene. If the reason the policeman arrested the black man and not the white man was because of race, then the act was not just, because race is not a valid reason to arrest someone. If on the other hand the reason was because one was at the crime scene and the other was not, then the act was just, because this is a valid reason to arrest someone.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643

    I have decided to stop taking your comments seriously. With that, thanks for increasing the Replies count on this discussion. I suspect this attracts more readers. :blush:
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    643

    "Equality in treatment" is the criteria of moral value (goodness/badness) specifically, not value in general. There are other types of values, and you are close to the mark when it comes to physical values. I would say the criteria for that one is more accurately health and safety of the individual, but you can indeed extend it to the species.

    We know that moral value is different than physical value because the nazis, which are (almost) universally labelled as morally bad, would still be labelled as morally bad, even if they had successfully preserved and expanded their reign.
  • jorndoe
    530
    (here’s a copy/paste of something I once typed up elsewhere)

    We don’t usually talk about torture of rocks or abuse of snow. Moral matters are (existentially) mind-dependent, i.e. subjective, and are generally social matters. Four simple basics of morals:

    • we can assume that anyone including non-humans likes freedom by default (cf autonomy)
    • we can assume that anyone including non-humans dislikes harm by default (cf the Hippocratic Oath)
    • the above sets out a default baseline for the Golden Rule
    • violation of the above may entail forfeiture of some or all of them

    These have been codified in various important historical documents, such as:

    Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. — The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19

    Liking freedom and disliking harm are typically involuntary, not a matter of opinion, not discretionary or invented, regardless of liking and disliking being mind-dependent (subjective).

    The complexities of life entails significantly more complex regulations and injunctions; these, and their applicability, may be informed by the basics above.

    Moral action includes acting in the interest of others.

  • charleton
    1.2k
    I have decided to stop taking your comments seriously. With that, thanks for increasing the Replies count on this discussion. I suspect this attracts more readers. :blush:Samuel Lacrampe

    There's none so blind that cannot see.
    I suggest you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and bury your head in the sand. Alternatively could could actually start to think about what you believe on these issues - but i doubt you have it in you.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    "Equality in treatment" is the criteria of moral valueSamuel Lacrampe

    Says who?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.