answers about morality?

[joe1776]

what else is moral if not logic?

On its own, logic is amoral. It can be used to create or destroy and for moral or immoral purposes.

 

[joe1776]

try and answer me those questions without factoring in laws:

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a child near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a stranger and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a dog near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to steal your wallet?
is it wrong to kill someone that cursed you?

Laws aren't necessary. Each of those cases can be decided by the intuitive judgments of unbiased minds. You can do it and so can I. In fact the laws that pertain to them were written by men who learned from the very same judgments of conscience that you and I have.

 

[LukeS]

Whats an unbiased mind? The very nature of sentience is bias - it gets a job done. The concept of an unbiased mind is like an unbiased hand, or any other adaptation - null and void. The only things without bias are rocks and stones.

 

[LukeS]

Murder is an unlawful premeditated killing. If a country didn't have any laws against premeditated killings they wouldn't be murders.

True.

 

[LukeS]

if murder wasn't wrong, it would't have been considered murder.
I can't really understand what it is you want me to prove?
Are you asking me to prove that it is "objectively" wrong? i can't! because it is not
I can't really think of anything that is "objectively" wrong. unfortunately it is all based on what HUMANS decide to be wrong.

I'm asking you to be logical, analytic, to link the definition of murder to one of wrongness. In a was that shows every murder, every possible case, is always wrong. YOu may argue "all harm to humans is bad" and "all bad things are wrong" for instance.

try and answer me those questions without factoring in laws:

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill you and you cant stop him otherwise?

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a child near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a stranger and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a dog near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to steal your wallet?
is it wrong to kill someone that cursed you?

can you imagine, once upon a time, it wasn't considered wrong in ANY of the statements???
as the years passed by, the latter became obvious to people that are wrong.
we make laws when we understand that something is wrong. not the other way around.
we do however, use laws to try and prevent people from using their own "moral code" (gladly).

Ok, I am not actually trying to promote murder in any way, but would you say that every law is good?

Premise? what premise?

It might happen in countries that are driven by flawed logic like north Korea.

In the logic going from "murder" to "wrong" you have to have an argument, of sorts. If flawed definitons off murder are possible, are they still cases of "murder" - legally yes, within the context of the legal system of that nation. So if "bad" defintions of murder can happen, what then?

 

[LukeS]

if murder wasn't wrong, it would't have been considered murder.
I can't really understand what it is you want me to prove?
Are you asking me to prove that it is "objectively" wrong? i can't! because it is not
I can't really think of anything that is "objectively" wrong. unfortunately it is all based on what HUMANS decide to be wrong.

I'm asking you to be logical, analytic, to link the definition of murder to one of wrongness. In a was that shows every murder, every possible case, is always wrong. YOu may argue "all harm to humans is bad" and "all bad things are wrong" for instance.

try and answer me those questions without factoring in laws:

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill you and you cant stop him otherwise?

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a child near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a stranger and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a dog near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to steal your wallet?
is it wrong to kill someone that cursed you?

can you imagine, once upon a time, it wasn't considered wrong in ANY of the statements???
as the years passed by, the latter became obvious to people that are wrong.
we make laws when we understand that something is wrong. not the other way around.
we do however, use laws to try and prevent people from using their own "moral code" (gladly).

Ok, I am not actually trying to promote murder in any way, but would you say that every law is good?

Premise? what premise?

It might happen in countries that are driven by flawed logic like north Korea.

In the logic going from "murder" to "wrong" you have to have an argument, of sorts.

 

[LukeS]

oo

if murder wasn't wrong, it would't have been considered murder.
I can't really understand what it is you want me to prove?
Are you asking me to prove that it is "objectively" wrong? i can't! because it is not
I can't really think of anything that is "objectively" wrong. unfortunately it is all based on what HUMANS decide to be wrong.

I'm asking you to be logical, analytic, to link the definition of murder to one of wrongness. In a way that shows every murder, every possible case, is always wrong. You may argue "all harm to humans is bad" and "all bad things are wrong" for instance.

try and answer me those questions without factoring in laws:

is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill you and you cant stop him otherwise?


is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a child near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a stranger and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to kill a dog near you and you cant stop him otherwise?
is it wrong to kill someone that tries to steal your wallet?
is it wrong to kill someone that cursed you?

can you imagine, once upon a time, it wasn't considered wrong in ANY of the statements???
as the years passed by, the latter became obvious to people that are wrong.
we make laws when we understand that something is wrong. not the other way around.
we do however, use laws to try and prevent people from using their own "moral code" (gladly).

Ok, I am not actually trying to promote murder in any way, but would you say that every law is good?

Premise? what premise?

It might happen in countries that are driven by flawed logic like north Korea.

In the logic going from "murder" to "wrong" you have to have an argument, of sorts. If a NK definition of murder is a bad or morally flawed one, does that make murder (in the context f that, flawed, legal definition) less evil? For it is still an act of murder to that societies judiciary.

What about alien races, they may want to hunt humans for sport, but impose a "inhumane" legal system on us...making fatal self defence an act of murder. So its LP (logically possible) to have murder laws which are evil, and ought to be violated. Not in the everyday world we live in, but in thought experiments.

 

[joe1776]

Whats an unbiased mind? The very nature of sentience is bias - it gets a job done. The concept of an unbiased mind is like an unbiased hand, or any other adaptation - null and void. The only things without bias are rocks and stones.

In this context, an unbiased mind is one that is not personally involved with, and holds no significant and relevant bias toward, a moral judgement in the case at hand.

 

[Segev Moran]

On its own, logic is amoral. It can be used to create or destroy and for moral or immoral purposes.

Yeah, I meant it in the sense of what is moral if not based on logic.

 

[Segev Moran]

Laws aren't necessary. Each of those cases can be decided by the intuitive judgments of unbiased minds. You can do it and so can I. In fact the laws that pertain to them were written by men who learned from the very same judgments of conscience that you and I have.

intuitive is lacking information. it will be based on what i know, but that is far then being unbiased. it will be biased to my own beliefs.
as people beliefs are subjective, laws are formed to prevent such intuitive judgement.
Can you imagine if the court of law was based on intuition???

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm asking you to be logical, analytic, to link the definition of murder to one of wrongness. In a was that shows every murder, every possible case, is always wrong. YOu may argue "all harm to humans is bad" and "all bad things are wrong" for instance.

I can't argue that all harm to humans is bad, as it is false.
some harm to humans is essential for survival.

and also, all bad things are not necessarily wrong.

murder, however, is what we call when we "wrongfully" kill someone.

I am not saying our laws are perfect, but i do say that they represent what humans commonly believe is wrong and not.

 

[Segev Moran]

IOk, I am not actually trying to promote murder in any way, but would you say that every law is good?

of course not. but the one that prevents people from killing others for no valid reason, is.

In the logic going from "murder" to "wrong" you have to have an argument, of sorts.

I think i understand what you are asking.
Murder, is what we call when one kills another being (usually human) without a justified cause.
So if you kill someone for bumping into you in the street, it will be called murder.
if you kill someone as self defense, it is not considered murder.

So the logic is, that humans decided that murder is wrong, therefore, we have laws trying to prevent it.

 

[Segev Moran]

What about alien races, they may want to hunt humans for sport, but impose a "inhumane" legal system on us...making fatal self defence an act of murder. So its LP (logically possible) to have murder laws which are evil, and ought to be violated. Not in the everyday world we live in, but in thought experiments.

Yet the fact is that alien race did not decide on our laws. they are the outcome of our advancement as a society.

If the alien race will force a law that murder for sports is good, it doesn't make it good for humans, rather good for the aliens.

the same goes for animals.
murdering an animal might be considered not as bad as murdering humans, yet it is obviously much worse for the animal.

everything is relative, so relative to 100 years ago, we are much better today.

 

[joe1776]

intuitive is lacking information. it will be based on what i know, but that is far then being unbiased. it will be biased to my own beliefs.
as people beliefs are subjective, laws are formed to prevent such intuitive judgement.
Can you imagine if the court of law was based on intuition???

I predict that a murder trial in the future will look something like this: A professional, expert panel of highly intelligent members, trained in the forensic sciences, will gather the facts of the case and analyze them.. Their reasoning faculties will be concerned with:

What exactly happened?
Who did it?
What was their intent?

The question, "Was this act immoral?" will be an intuitive judgment of their collective conscience. If the act was not immoral, they will not punish it, of course. There will be no law involved because society will not care what men who had no knowledge of the facts in the specific case at hand thought about it.

If the act was immoral, and the defendant did it, the question of "What's a fair punishment in this case?" would be another question of conscience and its intuitive judgment. An average of the panel members' recommendations will be fair. Once again, no laws on sentencing guidelines will interfere because the opinions of people who don't have knowledge of the case will have no value.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are in a room with another man secured firmly to separate chairs on opposite sides of the room. Your family and his are locked in rooms watching you. You have 2 buttons 1 kills you and lets everyone else free, 1 kills hims and lets everybody else free. If you do nothing at the end of one hour everyone dies. Choose logically.

I press the button that kills him. My life is more important to me and my family than his is, so it is logical for me to save myself, as I value my own life more than his and my family depends on me.

 

[Segev Moran]

I predict that a murder trial in the future will look something like this: A professional, expert panel of highly intelligent members, trained in the forensic sciences, will gather the facts of the case and analyze them.. Their reasoning faculties will be concerned with:

What exactly happened?
Who did it?
What was their intent?

I would narrow it down to : What exactly happen?
As for the what was their intent, will probably be irrelevant.
Even if your intent was to help someone but you killed him (intentionally), it will still probably be murder.

The question, "Was this act immoral?" will be an intuitive judgment of their collective conscience.

I thought we just agreed it will be based on knowledge about the case.
it might be intuitive if they encounter a very similar trial, yet even the smallest piece of information can make the intuition false, so it is a must to judge each case on its own and "band" intuition from being a judgement factor.

If the act was not immoral, they will not punish it, of course.

I would hope so

There will be no law involved because society will not care what men who had no knowledge of the facts in the specific case at hand thought about it.

What do you mean? you say that no one will care if murderers will walk freely in the streets?

If the act was immoral, and the defendant did it, the question of "What's a fair punishment in this case?" would be another question of conscience and its intuitive judgment.

Unless we can actually try and rehabilitate criminal and do some statistics how long it takes for a criminal of different levels to actually be recovered.
we can also have a punishment system that holds a prisoner until he is proven itself as rehabilitated (with a minimum period of time based on the above statistics )
There are many things that are possible if we invest more time in understanding the human mind and the way we function.

An average of the panel members' recommendations will be fair. Once again, no laws on sentencing guidelines will interfere because the opinions of people who don't have knowledge of the case will have no value.

Oh. now i understood what you've meant above
In this case i agree. people's thought shouldn't matter in a court of law. only facts. i fear today, many times its not the case.

 

[joe1776]

As for the what was their intent, will probably be irrelevant.

Intent is a key element in every moral case. If we intentionally cause harm, it's immoral. If we accidentally cause harm, it's not. Traffic accidents are caused by negligence but are not criminal cases for this reason. In mercy killings the intent is to end suffering, not to cause harm, therefore not immoral. If the intent is to defend oneself or to protect innocent others the act is not immoral.

I thought we just agreed it will be based on knowledge about the case.

My fault. I didn't make clear that those three questions of reason would have to be completely answered before our intuitive judgment would kick in.

What do you mean? you say that no one will care if murderers will walk freely in the streets?

No. I'm talking about the legislators who wrote the laws on murder. Since they wrote those laws knowing nothing about the facts of the case at trial, the future public will not care about having their opinions. Therefore laws will be abandoned.

There are many things that are possible if we invest more time in understanding the human mind and the way we function.

Agreed.

 

[Segev Moran]

Intent is a key element in every moral case. If we intentionally cause harm, it's immoral. If we accidentally cause harm, it's not. Traffic accidents are caused by negligence but are not criminal cases for this reason. In mercy killings the intent is to end suffering, not to cause harm, therefore not immoral. If the intent is to defend oneself or to protect innocent others the act is not immoral.

What about a case that i harm someone because I truly believe its for his benefit?
In my eyes its a very moral thing. yet it will probably be immoral in the eyes of society if the benefit was, for example, to be released of a demon possessing your soul or something like that.

so although intent is a base for moral laws, we only apply it to a very specific and objective cases of intent (or lack of it like self defense or accidental event).

another question can be in regards to accidents, what if a driver runs over a man who jumped to the road.
lets assume it is obvious he had no intent in killing this man.

as you said, not an immoral event.

but what if you will find out that he had just texted someone when hit that man?
would you say the morality judgement changes?

some would say no, some would say yes.

what if you knew for a fact that if he avoided texting, the man's death was very very likely to be prevented. your moral judgement of the event will be different even more.

and so it goes. our judgement of moral is based on our understanding of actions and outcomes.

the more we know about humans and our universe, the better we understand the outcomes, thus the better we can decide what actions should be avoided.

My fault. I didn't make clear that those three questions of reason would have to be completely answered before our intuitive judgment would kick in.

Oh. ok. so we agree on that. only it is not intuitive if you know everything that happened.
the more information you have, the less intuitive it becomes.

No. I'm talking about the legislators who wrote the laws on murder. Since they wrote those laws knowing nothing about the facts of the case at trial, the future public will not care about having their opinions. Therefore laws will be abandoned.

I don't think it will be so. maybe law enforcement will be less enforced, but the laws will surely remain.
the only time that laws can be obsolete is if anyone can do anything without consequences.

Agreed.

cheers

 

[joe1776]

What about a case that i harm someone because I truly believe its for his benefit? In my eyes its a very moral thing. yet it will probably be immoral in the eyes of society if the benefit was, for example, to be released of a demon possessing your soul or something like that.

Getting the facts straight would be a function of the reasoning minds of the jurors. The jurors aren't just going to take the perpetrator's word that he meant no harm. But a clear case of euthanasia is not immoral because the intent is to end suffering not to harm. The states that make it illegal are committing an immoral act by making criminals of people who act morally.

The jurors are not likely to see the demon excuse as a lack of intent, thus justifiable, but they might option for insanity and put the killer in an asylum.

another question can be in regards to accidents, what if a driver runs over a man who jumped to the road.lets assume it is obvious he had no intent in killing this man but what if you will find out that he had just texted someone when hit that man.

The texting explains the cause but it still wasn't an intentional act.

what if you knew for a fact that if he avoided texting, the man's death was very very likely to be prevented. your moral judgement of the event will be different even more.

It doesn't matter. The driver did not commit an intentional act. That's all that matters.

Oh. ok. so we agree on that. only it is not intuitive if you know everything that happened.
the more information you have, the less intuitive it becomes.

That's not my take on it.. In my thinking, you need to think of the intuitive function of your brain and the reasoning function of your brain as being assigned separate tasks: The reasoning function is assigned to get the facts straight, to collect and analyze them. The intuitive function than makes a judgment.

 

[Segev Moran]

Getting the facts straight would be a function of the reasoning minds of the jurors. The jurors aren't just going to take the perpetrator's word that he meant no harm. But a clear case of euthanasia is not immoral because the intent is to end suffering not to harm. The states that make it illegal are committing an immoral act by making criminals of people who act morally.

The jurors are not likely to see the demon excuse as a lack of intent, thus justifiable, but they might option for insanity and put the killer in an asylum.

The texting explains the cause but it still wasn't an intentional act.

It doesn't matter. The driver did not commit an intentional act. That's all that matters.

That's not my take on it.. In my thinking, you need to think of the intuitive function of your brain and the reasoning function of your brain as being assigned separate tasks: The reasoning function is assigned to get the facts straight, to collect and analyze them. The intuitive function than makes a judgment.

I thi

Getting the facts straight would be a function of the reasoning minds of the jurors. The jurors aren't just going to take the perpetrator's word that he meant no harm. But a clear case of euthanasia is not immoral because the intent is to end suffering not to harm. The states that make it illegal are committing an immoral act by making criminals of people who act morally.

The jurors are not likely to see the demon excuse as a lack of intent, thus justifiable, but they might option for insanity and put the killer in an asylum.

The texting explains the cause but it still wasn't an intentional act.

It doesn't matter. The driver did not commit an intentional act. That's all that matters.

That's not my take on it.. In my thinking, you need to think of the intuitive function of your brain and the reasoning function of your brain as being assigned separate tasks: The reasoning function is assigned to get the facts straight, to collect and analyze them. The intuitive function than makes a judgment.

Can you please define intuition in your pov? because I suspect we see intuition as different things.
Intuition to me is making a decision based on lacking information that is mostly based on "gut feeling" and not knowledge.