• Samuel Lacrampe
    739
    Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals.BlueBanana
    Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews?

    the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition.
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    Accepting something based on rational reasoning dodsn't make it your will.
    BlueBanana
    Either I misunderstand you, or misunderstood me. Regardless, the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethics, and the golden rule is directly derived from justice. As such, this treatment is necessarily unjust.

    I'd think about the situation objectively and try to not be selfish, and accept my situation as a just sacrifice for a greater good.BlueBanana
    But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss. In which case, unequal happiness is not better than equal misery. As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery".
  • BlueBanana
    866
    Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews?Samuel Lacrampe

    It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation.

    the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethicsSamuel Lacrampe

    Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated.

    But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss.Samuel Lacrampe

    That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain.

    As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery".Samuel Lacrampe

    I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument,Samuel Lacrampe

    It does not. You have it backwards.
    No? The formula 2+2=4 is not objective, but man-made?Samuel Lacrampe

    Exactly. Now you are getting it.
    Nature has no integers or equivalents.
    There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
    Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Day One: All men are equal
    Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too.
    — charleton

    This only proves the words describing the idea have changed, not the meaning or the idea behind them.
    BlueBanana

    No it proves that women were not considered fully human.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    The same goes for the laws of morality.
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    charleton

    Please state the "laws" of morality!
  • BlueBanana
    866
    No it proves that women were not considered fully human.charleton

    You know that's not what was meant by what was written.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    It is simply an historical fact that women for centuries have not been considered as men's equals.
    Such a position has been the moral standard until the 20thC.
    Why are you trying to deny the basic facts of history?
  • BlueBanana
    866
    It is simply an historical fact that women for centuries have not been considered as men's equals.
    Such a position has been the moral standard until the 20thC.
    charleton

    Irrelevant. We're talking about an opinion of a person in 21st century.

    Why are you trying to deny the basic facts of history?charleton

    Why are you acting dumb? I couldn't have denied them as I haven't made any claims about any historical facts.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Why are you acting dumb? I couldn't have denied them as I haven't made any claims about any historical facts.BlueBanana

    If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.
    It is you that is acting stupidly, not me.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.charleton

    I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a flaw in your picture of morality. Just because morality is different between cultures, nations and times, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that there is no Objective morality. It could simply be, that if the people that make up these societies don't pay careful attention to the moral structure of their communities, they could become immoral over time (which explains the variance in morals depending on time and location). Or they could pay more careful attention to morality and so be considered more moral than others communities. Your argument doesn't successfully dispute that picture of morality.

    You yourself seem to have suggested this (that you believe things are objectively moral wrongs) when you made the claim on the thread about Job, where you said that the Bible and the Quran were both immoral. That doesn't seem to be consistent with your claims that there is not an objective morality, as if it is true, because they belong to other people, other cultures, other times, it would be wrong to describe them as objectively moral wrongs, a few quotes of you to illustrate this point:

    If anything is flawed it is, then, the Bible's absurd story of Job,charleton

    But they are guilty by association if they continue to promote Scripture, yes.charleton

    The Koran is much worst for inaccuracies, contradictions, hatred and immorality.charleton

    These are three examples of Objective moral claims you have made. You seem to believe that religion is an objective moral wrong? (correct me if i'm mistaken), You have also described God as evil (an objective claim) However if you don't think there is an Objective morality, to be consistent then you can't claim they are immoral. Or at least, if you do, what you mean is that 'it is immoral for me, in my particular relative position in time and space, but it is not immoral for people in other times and places.'

    You appear to be taking up the inconsistent position of both the moral relativist and the objectivist simultaneously.

    Also, if there is no objective morality because of this, then in the future, your own society may completely change their moral code to be in absolute contrast with your own, and so I wonder if according to you they wouldn't be wrong in that case?

    Say if future societies took it upon themselves to allow incest, bestiality, and considered those who disagreed with that moral structure to be immoral themselves, would this be considered moral? This type of example has some interesting implications to your argument.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    These are three examples of Objective moral claims you have made.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    No they are not. They are the result of my experience with these issues, and are therefore subjective.
    It's like you don't know what objective means.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    No they are not. They are the result of my experience with these issues, and are therefore subjective.
    It's like you don't know what objective means.
    charleton

    It appears I know more about objectivity and subjectivity than you do.

    Subjectivity is based on personal whims, and is not something you can argue with people about. If someone says that apples are delicious, that is a subjective concept and so it makes little sense to argue with someone and tell them they are stupid for thinking it tastes good when you think it tastes bad.

    The same can be transferred to morality if you think its subjective. It makes little sense to argue with people and tell them they are wrong for thinking something is morally right or wrong if morality is subjective.

    If you are saying someones morality is subjective, then you are claiming that the psychopaths like Ted Bundy are within their moral right to murder because they perceived it as a good thing while they were doing it. This is a completely flawed view of morality, which I can guarantee you yourself do not believe, as you have already suggested.

    So I will ask, is the morality of genocide subjective? wrong in one place and time, and right in another? Depending on the experience of the person that is doing the genocide? Like it is subjective to say that an apple is tasty?

    Can you not see the flaws I am pointing out?
  • Agustino
    11.3k
    Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity. Moral relativism protects many people in the West from spiritual forms of anxiety - it helps them repress it.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Can you not see the flaws I am pointing out?Mr Phil O'Sophy

    You are only pointing out your own flaws my friend.
    and you continue to avoid answering the question; please furnish the thread with some examples of objective morality.
    I am happy to claim that my observations on the morality of the world is based on my experience of the world; my studies; my life.
    But since you have yet to offer any kind of observations on the details of 'objective morals' or "objective moral laws', you are wasting the time of all who contribute to the thread.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity.Agustino

    That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    and you continue to avoid answering the question; please furnish the thread with some examples of objective morality.charleton


    1. murdering children is objectively wrong.

    But since you have yet to offer any kind of observations on the details of 'objective morals' or "objective moral laws',charleton

    I already gave one example but you choose to ignore them:
    So I will ask, is the morality of genocide subjective? wrong in one place and time, and right in another? Depending on the experience of the person that is doing the genocide? Like it is subjective to say that an apple is tasty?Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Feel free to actually confront the examples I am offering and explain to me how they are subjective? All you are doing is avoiding everything you are being challenged with.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    1. murdering children is objectively wrong.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    On what grounds?
    And what do you mean 'objective' in this context?
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    On what grounds?charleton


    On any grounds (hence objective). It means that no matter how one may justify wilfully killing an innocent child, it is wrong, regardless of anyones subjective feelings towards the killer. It can under no circumstances, be considered morally good to commit such an act.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    It can under no circumstances, be considered morally good to commit such an act.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Regardless of culture, time, place etc.
  • Vaskane
    8
    Conscious mental thoughts are private to the subject. The definition of justice is subjective in so far that the concept of justice differs in nearly every culture. Society is an additional foreground perspective that dictates the objective "truth" of a group of people. Even still not all people see eye to eye with societal definitions.
  • Agustino
    11.3k
    That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny.charleton
    I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned.Agustino

    Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Society is an additional foreground perspective that dictates the objective "truth" of a group of people. Even still not all people see eye to eye with societal definitions.Vaskane

    Indeed. I think that with matters that relate to moral and emotional value, objectivity can be no more than the people in the room at the same time agreeing.
    In the real world people have opinions.
  • Agustino
    11.3k
    Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute.charleton
    So why does it bother you that I think mine is absolute? Being absolute just means that it applies to everyone, and if someone does not act according to it, then they are being immoral.

    You certainly think absolutely that moral values are not absolute.
  • Vaskane
    8
    Thought experiment: If you were the only person alive, what would you separate into GOOD/BAD categories? Most likely that which you divy into these categories are for survival purposes. Morality is merely 'mans' attempt at survival. We choose to participate in moral actions hoping for equality, the fact is equality doesn't exist.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    739
    It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation.BlueBanana
    I agree with this. But I thought you were presenting an example where the act can be morally good yet unjust, when you said here "Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals." But now, you say it is merciful to put him in jail; which to me is a form of punishment. Long story short, we have yet to find a case where an act is morally good yet unjust, or vice versa.

    Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated.BlueBanana
    It now sounds like we are arguing about the same position, namely, that the act of "imposing my desires on others (and no other reasons)" cannot pass the golden rule without contradictions. As such, this act cannot be just.

    But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss.
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain.
    BlueBanana
    I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized.BlueBanana
    Perhaps a misunderstanding once again, because I agree that for some situations, the net gain is a reasonable criteria for a morally good act. And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.
  • BlueBanana
    866
    If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.
    It is you that is acting stupidly, not me.
    charleton

    Don't drag me into that, that's not even my stance. If someone uses a bad or fallacious argument, I am going to point that out and argue against that argument, even if I agree with its conclusion. I don't agree with LaCrampe, but your claim that his opinion changed is false. From Wikipedia:
    man (without an article) itself refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    739
    If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument,
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    It does not. You have it backwards.
    charleton
    So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

    Nature has no integers or equivalents.
    There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
    Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers.
    charleton
    And yet planes fly, houses stand, and you are using a computer to respond to these posts. But more importantly, if you do not believe that math is objective, then by extension you do not believe that logic is objective. And in which case, there is no common ground for you and I to have a coherent discussion.

    Please state the "laws" of morality!charleton
    In general, since morality is the science of "what ought to be", this "ought" implies a law. Specifically in my objective morality, the law is justice, that is, equality in treatment under similar situations, or by extension, the golden rule.
  • BlueBanana
    866
    And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.Samuel Lacrampe

    Even if it's unjust?

    But now, you say it is merciful to put him in jail; which to me is a form of punishment.Samuel Lacrampe

    I wouldn't call the minimal action done to only prevent further crimes a punishment, but if that is done, what about not killing Hitler, instead putting him in jail? That's merciful, but arguably unjust.

    What about dragging the moral agents into all this? Is killing other animals for food immoral? (I think it is but as >90% of people are not vegetarians I think it's a safe bet to ask this rhetorical question.) What about non-conscious things? Do they deserve equal treatment?

    It now sounds like we are arguing about the same position, namely, that the act of "imposing my desires on others (and no other reasons)" cannot pass the golden rule without contradictions.Samuel Lacrampe

    No, I argued that treating others the way they want to be treated leads to contradictions. You can't take people's desires into account with golden rule in a way that doesn't lead to contradictions.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place?Samuel Lacrampe

    Indeed, no. Your assumption that god exists makes you think morality must be objective.
    If you were to challenge your false belief then you can see how both god and morals is so obviously man-made.
    It is evidently so.
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.