And that's a problem because now I have to ask myself if something you post can be taken seriously; if, in short, it's worth replying to. — tim wood

And the answer is obvious. No.

Those who are discerning will know which of my comments are to be taken seriously and which of my comments are of a more playful nature. Some are gifted in this regard and others are lacking. Clearly there are a few people here who struggle with this and fall into the latter category. You have my sympathies.

I had similar thoughts as Tim. I have a hard time defining "good" in regards to what you have posted, I find it difficult to relate it to my statement, and the premise of the argument seems to me like it doesn't solve anything.

but can we compare the two and deduce which could be considered "more moral"?

The argument isn't supposed to solve anything, at least not directly anyway. It's not that kind of argument, as should be apparent from just a brief going over of it. It is an argument against certain attempts to define "good" which are common in philosophy. For example, where what is good is what is pleasurable. But that's just one example of many. Note the variable, "X".

but can we compare the two and deduce which could be considered "more moral"? — Lif3r

Idealist political theories and real time political practices are two different things. One does not really judge in my opinion the theories, we judge the actions.
Real life communism was in no was like the theory, therefore it should really be judged as men's actions. The same does not really apply to capitalism, the theory fits pretty well to the real thing.

I think therefore that politics should be left out of moral theory because what it really comes down to is the way people practice their political beliefs. That can be judged moral correct or not but not the beliefs themselves.
The same applies to many other categories as well. Jews are not more moral than Hindus, red heads are not more moral than blondes.

Perhaps I am missing a joke. (Yet again) — Lif3r

No, you did not miss anything.

Good for who? I think we have to pick what something is good for to determine the type of good we are talking about.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?

Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.

This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together.

I remember saying to myself when I was 15 that morality is more relative than objective, and I feel like I agree with my 15 year old self, but in my mind this doesn't rule out the *potential of objective morality.

No, you did not miss anything. — Sir2u

Whereas you'd miss an eighteen-wheeler if it were parked right under your nose.

Good for who? I think we have to pick what something is good for to determine the type of good we are talking about.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?

Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.

This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together. — Lif3r

But before you even get to the question of good for who, or what type of good, surely the meaning of "good" must precede that, otherwise how is one to make sense of those questions? And you can't define "good" as, say, "good for the individual" since that would be a circular definition.

One resolution would be to maintain that "good" is in some ways indefinable. This was G. E. Moore's answer, as I understand it.

I dont buy it. Something is good if it creates a desirable outcome.

I dont buy it. Something is good if it creates a desirable outcome. — Lif3r

Okay, so what part don't you buy, and why don't you buy it?

So, what's the difference, if any, between asking "I know he is a vegan, but does he eat meat?" and asking "Is something good if it creates a desirable outcome?"?

I'll tell you what the difference is, if you haven't picked up on it. The former is a closed question. In other words, it makes no sense to question whether a vegan eats meat, as the matter is already settled. We know that, on account of being a vegan, he doesn't eat meat. Whereas the latter is an open question, i.e. it is far from settled, as the ongoing philosophical discussion attests, and it does make sense to question whether that which is good is that which creates a desirable outcome. One might, for example, question whether the death penalty is good, even if it creates a desirable outcome. Maybe it's wrong in spite of popular desire for the outcome. Maybe it's something else, in place of desire, that determines what is good. There are alternative theories which do not give desire pride of place.

Are you with me so far? Do you agree or disagree with what I have said?

I understand the argument. What I don't understand is how it negates my original statements regarding society adopting principals in order to preserve it's existence. I'm not trying to imply that a popular moral is good or bad. I'm just saying that it exists.

PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-) — Sam Sam

I give you no grade. You simply did as required. The most thanks you're due is the same thanks we all are deserving of when we don't steal.

That you almost faltered and that you did not instinctively return the ring offers you some data points to where you need to build your character.

The answer to Cain's question in Genesis 4:9 is yes.

I understand the argument. What I don't understand is how it negates my original statements regarding society adopting principals in order to preserve it's existence. I'm not trying to imply that a popular moral is good or bad. I'm just saying that it exists. — Lif3r

What? If you understand the argument, then you should understand the problem with what you're attempting to do and address that problem. Maybe the argument is flawed, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You don't seem to have put much effort into engaging it at all, actually.

I've only come into this from your attempt to define "moral" or "good", which caught my attention. Whether we're talking about your original definition about agreement amongst society regarding its betterment or your subsequent definition about creating a desirable outcome, both of these definitions can be subjected to the open question argument, which concludes - contrary to what you propose - that your definition of what is moral or good cannot be what is moral or what is good. So what's your response? Do you have one? You can't just say that you don't buy it without providing any kind of explanation to move things forward.

That you almost faltered and that you did not instinctively return the ring offers you some data points to where you need to build your character. — Hanover

That is, if you aspire to be a moral, upstanding citizen, which isn't all it's cracked up to be, truth be told. The world won't come crashing down if you decide to be a little bit naughty and break the rules from time to time.

both of these definitions can be subjected to the open question argument which concludes, contrary to what you propose, that they cannot be what is moral or what is good. — Sapientia

You do not understand your own argument. According to that argument, listed on two sites above, 1) moral (normative) judgments are either true or false, 2) they cannot be grounded in non-human observation of the natural world. I suppose that means that from the observation, "That is a rock over there," you cannot get to an ought, or a good. Sense, and fair enough.

On 1), however, the good must be something, else 1) is nonsense. If it's something it must be at least to some degree knowable, and the how of that is through observations of people. Also sense, and again fair enough. Since you won't go there, I'll paste them here:

"The open-question argument claims that any attempt to identify morality with some set of observable, natural properties [my italics] will always be an open question (unlike, say, a horse, which can be defined in terms of observable properties). Moore further argued that if this is true, then moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties and that therefore ethical naturalism is false. Put another way, what Moore is saying is that any attempt to define good in terms of a naturalistic property fails because all definitions can be transformed into closed questions (the subject and predicate being conceptually identical; it is given in language itself that the two terms mean the same thing)." -Wiki.

"Moore's non-naturalism comprised two main theses. One was the realist thesis that moral and more generally normative judgments – like many of his contemporaries, Moore did not distinguish the two — are objectively true or false. The other was the autonomy-of-ethics thesis that moral judgments are sui generis, neither reducible to nor derivable from non-moral, that is, scientific or metaphysical judgments. Closely connected to his non-naturalism was the epistemological view that our knowledge of moral truths is intuitive, in the sense that it is not arrived at by inference from non-moral truths but rests on our recognizing certain moral propositions as self-evident." -Stanford.edu.

That is, if you aspire to be a moral, upstanding citizen, which isn't all it's cracked up to be, truth be told. The world won't come crashing down if you decide to be a little naughty and break the rules from time to time. — Sapientia

This is what I meant by your being a troll. This isn't worth addressing.

If, in your own words, you're forced to suppose that I'm a troll, then why continue to engage me?

This is what I meant by your being a troll. This isn't worth addressing. — tim wood

So honesty makes me a troll? I think it's refreshing in an otherwise stale and predictable discussion. If you don't think that it's worth addressing, then don't address it. No one has a gun to your head, do they?

Being a troll and being in error are two different things. I think you've misread and misunderstood your own sources - that's mere error, Trolling is a different animal, weasel or skunk, I'm not sure which - maybe both!

So honesty makes me a troll? — Sapientia

But that's the point. You wrote above that you're merely eliciting responses. In these discussions, that's dishonest, at best disingenuous. You're either honest or dishonest, which is it? If you're honest, then a number of your posts here and elsewhere have not been honest.

But that's the point. You wrote above that you're merely eliciting responses. In these discussions, that's dishonest, at best disingenuous. You're either honest or dishonest, which is it? If you're honest, then a number of your posts here and elsewhere have not been honest. — tim wood

No, I did not write that I'm merely eliciting responses. I'm not so one dimensional. And what do you want from me? Must I point out, for your sake, when I'm being ironic, when I'm being sincere, and when it's somewhere in between? Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. You'll just have to learn to pick it up, as others seem capable of telling the difference.

You know, believe it or not, I can joke around with the likes of Baden, Bitter Crank and Hanover, and I can also have a serious conversation with them, sometimes jumping in and out and switching between and mixing it up a bit, without them being so utterly flummoxed. Up your game!

Fair enough. I did experience temptation and I took time to ponder my decision. (The pondering was useful and brought me personal growth.)

There's a line between being playful, ironic and provocative on the one hand, and trolling on the other. It's not trivial to define the distinction, but I think it's something like the latter deliberately seeks to disrupt for the sake of disrupting, whereas the former may do it more for the sake of humour, or even to make a subtle point. Sapientia's on the right side of that line in my view (even if he is a thieving bastard).

i thought you were arguing for a moral economics, you changed. And I am an anarchist in the way I do not believe in authority over others, but yeah sometimes its a very conservative position because its anti-state, but its also anti-employer. And look the next time you call someone a fool, your answer better be absolutely golden. was it even an answer? ok so you think I am so stupid you dont even understand my points. ok, i guess thats fair, but its a second call for clarification and soon its you that looks stupid. when you legislate you in no way change the amoral* character of profit making, its not suddenly moral because you create a floodgate so we dont end up rioting. and look good/bad marketing doesnt matter, its the act of ownership that makes it amoral. the reason it is amoral is because it does not universally apply. ownership. just how the world works, then why are you arguing what i said? and nothing is just how the world works, because we could easily enter a sharing economy and there are many sharing communities in existence. just not in us eurpoe china au etc but they exist in pockets.

I'll accept Baden's correction and assessment here. I rehabilitate my view of S. and take his advice to "up my game." We'll see how it goes.

its the act of ownership that makes it amoral. the reason it is amoral is because it does not universally apply. — Martin Krumins

Are you willing to pursue all this in smaller-sized bites? Will you start by saying what you imagine ownership to be?

And my understanding of "amoral" would include that the amoral cannot be immoral. That is, amorality in itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

For if we did not will the return of rings then there would be no rings to steal, hence we would land in contradiction with ourselves.