No, the principle of paying off moral debt doesn’t make sense even to start with, and the reason is what I have been trying to convey: There is no correspondence between the original transgression and the presumed reimbursement. — Congau

Yes there is, it corresponds to whatever satisfies as reimbursement. This would be true even if I was talking about the individual, which Im not.

Whatever is paid back, most be paid back in kind, or else it just isn’t real. If you steal a hundred dollars, you can pay back a hundred dollars and at least there is some logical correspondence between crime and compensation. But when paying back in an unconvertible currency so to speak, there’s no way to reach satisfaction. — Congau

Thats just not true, people reach satisfaction over moral transgressions all the time. They do so regardless of this strict mathematical calculation you claim must be present. The currency may seem unconvertible to you but people get by just fine without it.

You seem to imply in your argumentation that you can morally commit any immoral act as long as you pay back somehow, and that it is as if the bad thing you did never happened. No, what was bad remains bad. If you kill someone’s child and later save the world, that child will still be gone. — Congau

Its not that it never happened, or that reality (the child being gone) would change somehow, its about the moral measure of that person. The bad actions are still bad and the good actions still good as you say, but Im not asking whether the bad actions are considered good somehow based on good action. im asking about the balance, about how the good and bad measure against each other.
We dont judge someones moral worth on whether they’ve did 1 good thing or 1 bad thing, we take account of both and weigh them against one another. I dont think thats controversial.

I dont think so. Zeno was making entirely different points with what you are referencing. He did not have anything like the quantum level in mind, but rather logic.
I think you are reading into Zeno too much to draw that conclusion, and resemblance to quantum mechanics is superficial and coincidental.

There is an interesting application of this idea with regards to punishment. We could consider punishment for past actions, like a jail sentence, a way of repaying a moral debt. You have incurred a debt by taking away someone's rights in some way, and now you pay for that by giving up some of your rights. Thus, the balance is re-established, albeit with everyone worse off. — Echarmion

Sure, thats why they say former prisoners have payed their debt to society. I had in mind a moral sense of it though, but yes in principal its the same idea.

People here are suggesting that doing right all your life doesn't entitle you to suddenly murder anyone. True. — Artemis

What if you steal a pack of gum, but spend the rest of your life doing nothing but right to make up for it? Do we forgive the stolen pack of gum?

But as Pfhorrest suggests, this is probably more due to our relative certainty that the loved one will not continue bad acts and the lesser known person might. — Artemis

Sure, there would be instances where thats the case but Im asking about those circumstances where thats not the case, where its a member of society judged by the rest of society.

I think doing good things to "make up" for a bad deed aren't thus so much a way to eradicate "debt" as much as a way to prove regret, remorse, and reformation. — Artemis

Ok, so a few questions here. Is that in all cases, that you can never “make up” for a bad deed? (You steal a pack of gum, then replace the pack of gum plus work the store for free for a few weeks).
Does “making up” actually prove regret or remorse (morally speaking)? It seems like you could have other motivations, selfish or immoral ones.

Objective/subjective is irrelevant. However you think of morality or the basis of morality doesnt matter, im asking about what those judgements would be.
You are still responding as though “B” is a person, but Ive already told you what “B” is. The specific judgements for what good compensates for what bad is getting ahead of the question. Does the principal of paying off moral debt this way make sense to start with? If we then determine that its sound in principal then we can talk about what kind of trade-offs make the most sense. (And subjective/objective basis of morality still doesnt matter).

Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.

The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...

Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)

But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic. — Monist

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you can call it fallacious, or claim you do not believe in logic does not make it so. These are just empty, meaningless words and positions you are offering.
Things make sense, things happen in certain ways, there is a consistency to reality and that doesnt change just because you say it does. (Edited a grammar error.)
Anyway, like I said once you have resorted to nonsense as your argument you have checked out of the conversation.

My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.

You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.

Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE. — Monist

If you are not interested in making sense then there is nothing more to say. If you are going to offer nonsense as a an argument, then you have ended the discussion.

...the act of doubting requires existence. Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesnt exist.

But to talk about debt and pay back, both creditor and debtor need to be identical, i.e. if A harms B, A must later benefit B (and not C or D) — Congau

B would be the “we” I mentioned in my OP. This is about humans judging humans.

If by “unshakable” you mean certain, you can only be certain of one thing, you own existence. Its Decarte.
You can doubt the nature of your existence but not that you exist. “I think therefore I am.”
If by “unshakable” you mean something other than certainty then why would you want to have unshakable belief in anything? You should always be open to changing your belief if given better evidence or better reasoning. Unshakable belief is the basis for delusion, self deception and fanaticism.

Ok, well first of all you are confusing atheists with cosmologist and theoretical physicists. This plus your use of “you lot” in reference to atheists makes me think you arent being totally honest about being an atheist. What would Jesus say?
Second, your argument relies on 2) very heavily, and I dont think it supports the weight.

2. The existence of something implies an innate potential for something to exist. If there is no innate potential for something to exist, nothing can exist. — Randy333

Something that exists cannot have an “innate” potential to exist, it already exists. A balloon doesnt have the “innate” potential to be a balloon, it IS a balloon.

Debate, or at least discussion (which *gasp* might include someone disagreeing with you) is what this forum is for.

Well come on, you’ve offered no good reasons to believe any if that is true. Do you have evidence, or at least a good argument as to why the universe even has a mind?
Im sorry, but what you have posted is a claim with no support, no argument. Its very close to the description offered in Starwars as a description of the force. You’ve just added a god-prefix, presumably to keep in housed in the familiar framework of religious terminology. What are you even offering for discussion here?

You’ve been watching too much Starwars. Your descriptor is completely unnecessary. Redundant. There is just the universe and the stuff in it. No magic needed.

Its hardly a “wild goose chase”. I referenced the last post I made, if you cannot follow the discussion one post past, I dont know what to tell you. You dont seem to be paying attention to what Im saying...i mean, you responded to a quote of mine and then asked me if that was the quote you didnt respond too. When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass.

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to? — god must be atheist

Well no, that is the paragraph you DID respond to. Lol
You just quoted the exact same paragraph you already did.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. — god must be atheist

Right, Im didnt suggest you were advocating it. You were the one that made the point about moral axioms “after the morals have been solidified” as “justification for the morals”, and I was saying thats true some of the time but not all of the time. I used the term “ad hoc”, which wasnt the best way to describe what you were saying so Ill take the blame for the confusion on this part.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems. — god must be atheist

Yes, this is where we disagree....although the wording has changed to “acceptable” to society instead of whats good for society.
Just so we are clear, which do you mean?

I think thats true some of the time, that moral axioms are just ad hoc rationalisations, but thats not true of all moral systems. Having an ad hoc justification is an error in logic, a fallacy. Thats not the only way people come to moral stances or adopt moral systems, and its not the basis for all morality.
Also, why did you only respond to the middle paragraph of my last post? That comes off as bad faith engagement so if there is another reason Id like to hear what it is.

You said this:

No, I don't agree that morality starts with axioms and definitions and categorical truths. Instead, I am convinced that the categorical truths follow the accepted moral behaviour, and that is based strictly on what is positive for society, or else for positive for segments of society. — god must be atheist

I read that as morality is “based strictly” on whats good for society. If thats wrong, please explain what else you mean by that.
Thats what law is for, whats good for the society. In the rest of your post you describe a distinction, which I accept, between law and morality but in your argument you are not making much distinction at all.
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands.
So I think where we disagree is what the best basis for morality is. I dont think we should consider whats best for society as morality because there are so many examples of the law being wrong, ignorant and/or batshit crazy. I think when those of us that figured out slavery Is awful and immoral we weren't just changing whats accepted, we were getting it right. (Morally speaking).
You disagree, right?

I think you are conflating law and morality and culture together. Anyway, not much point in continuing if you cannot talk about these explanations you have, we will keep hitting a wall.

Morality doesnt have to be a arbitrary, transforming quagmire. It depends on what its based upon, what axioms you are operating from.
If morality is about human suffering, then slavery is clearly not moral. If morality is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you, then slavery again is wrong. It depends on what morality is based on, then you can operate from that to determine whats moral in a non-arbitrary, transforming way.
So now youre going to shift the burden of “transformability” of morality to those axioms, fair enough. But I dont think those are arbitrary (correct me on using that term if thats not what you meant by “complete transformability”) either, I think we determine the basis for morality the same way we do for everything else. What makes sense as a basis? What is effective as a basis? Those questions have answers that are not arbitrary, at least not in any sense that science or other things we don’t think of as arbitrary wouldnt also be.
So maybe a person doesnt have any basis or axioms for their morality, but I dont think its accurate to call that an arbitrary or completely transformable morality. I would describe that as not having morality, as what is moral/immoral has no meaning anymore. It would just be whatever the person feels like doing whether it makes sense or not. As soon as a person wants to make sense, they have rules to follow, a non-arbitrary basis.

Ok, gotchya.

Then you should pay more attention, a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english. My second analogy was better than my first attempt I thought. Better illustrated the point Im making.

Lol, ok. So an answer to my question?

Nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream.
There is a question in there. Do you have an answer?
Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. At least show you understand the analogy. Thats literally the least you could do and have it still be considered a discussion.

Social customs. Societal needs — god must be atheist

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories.

You first lol
How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address.
My point is, knowledge of what someone is going to choose does not predetermine what they will choose. Its just knowledge of what they will choose.
Ill try another example.
If you come up to me and ask me for a cookie, and I know that you are sincere in your desire for me to give you a cookie, then I know you are going to take the cookie when I take it out of my cookie bag and offer it to you. I know you will take the cookie because you sincerely asked me for the cookie. You’ve still made the choice, i just knew what it was going to be.
The knowledge and the free will are not mutually exclusive, as you claimed.
Now, maybe you do not believe in free will in which case your initial statement makes no sense. Omniscience is mutually exclusive with something you dont think exists? That would be gibberish. (Im just covering the bases, im not saying you dont believe in free will but in case you dont’t...your statement is nonsense).

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice. If you think they have a choice to start with, someone else knowing what they will choose doesnt magically take that away.
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

Id bet ya if there was some way to tell...unless YOURE the troll! :brow:

Alcontali

Youre being trolled dude.

.because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

I dont think so, because even if god DID do everything and that the answer to philosophical questions like what is moral or immoral is according to what god says it is, we would still need to determine what that is using the tools we have. Since nobody has a direct line to god, we have to use the tools we do have. Philosophy is one of those tools.
You could make the same objection to a world without god, swapping god for the laws of physics for example.
Scientific discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if the universe follows the laws of physics then the answer to all philosophical questions becomes “because science says so”.
Could do the same thing with clearly philosophical categories, like ethics. Without getting into the weeds of where ethics actually come from: Ethical discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if X is the full description of ethics then the answer to all philosophical questions “X did it”.
In any of those examples, its still worth philosophical discussion because knowing the source of all things (or ethical things, or scientific things) only answers the question of source. There are so many answers and questions on the way to an ultimate source that having a clear answer of that source (“god did it”) alone wouldnt give us much of a framework at all, none Id say.
So I disagree.

Ok, I think I understand you now.

Im not treating them like they are the same thing, Im referencing one to gain information about the other. You dont think a persons past actions should be considered in moral judgements? Hitler is helping at a soup kitchen, you just have to conclude he’s a good person even if you know his history?

Ah, ok. In what way did I make a category error? Which categories?

You said:
“DingoJones This assumes a scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules. Why assume that?“

I didnt make that assumption. You are reframing what Im saying as a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules.” and then asking me why I went with a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the normal arithmetic rules”. I didnt, you just said I did.
The reason why this is a sticking point for me is because your reframing explicitly imposes a set of rules (“arithmetic rules”) on the expression of my views, but thats just your reframing of it. I didnt assume that framing, you did.
If thats your only query, then I feel like its been answered now. Not much more for me to add so your welcome to the last word.

No problem. :)

...you realise my use of the word “debt” is metaphorical, right?

I dont know what to tell you. I disagree that any structures I used meets the minimum necessary requirements to be considered a mathematical model and therefore subject to any other mathematical parameters. Even you used the word “approximate”, which is hardly sufficient for you to then smuggle in the other mathematical parameters such as a scalar metric.

Thats what I would consider a principal based ethic (“dont do this”), which I addressed in the OP.
Ok, so unintentional consequences...where do we put them on ethical scales here? Thats a good question.
I think intention is a determinate factor in judging right and wrong, in the sense that a certain threshold of due diligence is being met. As long as the person has met that threshold (aren't being totally thoughtless or grossly ignorant of the consequences of their actions) then we dont need to put those unintended consequences on our ethical scale.