Inherently wrong actions?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Nice point by point refutation. Wasn't it you whining about ad hom?

You are a riot. So you swoop in, try to be dismissive of everything I say based on my username, justifying that by grossly and glibly mischaracterizing not only my position, but the position of Satanists everywhere, and you think I should dissect said ignorance point by point in a thread about something different entirely. and to top it off, you pretend like you have somehow won because I have not?

The logical fallacies overfloweth the cup, iced with at least 3 forum rule violations.

I will have to assume you have stooped to this level because you are unable to hold your untenable position vis a vis the subject at hand else wise.

 

[ArtieE]

The definition of "inherent" is "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
We evolved instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to reproduce. Those belong to our basic nature. We create "laws and concepts of ethics and morality" to increase our chances of survival and successful reproduction. Actions that decrease our chances of survival and successful reproduction are inherently wrong.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are a riot. So you swoop in, try to be dismissive of everything I say based on my username, justifying that by grossly and glibly mischaracterizing not only my position, but the position of Satanists everywhere, and you think I should dissect said ignorance point by point in a thread about something different entirely. and to top it off, you pretend like you have somehow won because I have not?

All of which you dismissively attempted to refute.

The logical fallacies overfloweth the cup, iced with at least 3 forum rule violations.

Ditto my last.

I will have to assume you have stooped to this level because you are unable to hold your untenable position vis a vis the subject at hand else wise.

At least I have a position which you have neither refuted nor offered an alternative for.

 

[Acim]

I earlier said that (I believe that) serving Satan is inherently wrong. Unless I missed it, I never got a response from you on that.

Can you explain why it would be wrong (first) or inherently wrong?

I believe many on the thread believe many things are inherently wrong. I'm yet to observe one that when presented hasn't been met with a rebuttal of where or how it could be right / not wrong.

I did specifically bring up actions in OP. So, some say killing with malice is inherently wrong. Take out the "with malice part" (malice being challenging to observe, objectively) and suddenly the action isn't inherently wrong.

So, it'll be curious what actions you associate with "serving Satan" and how you go about arguing that those actions are inherently wrong.

 

[Acim]

It doesn't matter what proportion of those who believe in inherent morality. There could be nobody who believed in or discovered it. but it would still be universally applicable. If there is only subjective morality, there would be complete chaos what with, given our current population, 7 billion different sets of morality.

Glad I brought up relative morality to cover the alternative to universal morality. That way, 7 billion people could rely on that if wondering in a situation what is the 'right thing to do' according to local laws and customs.

I'm having to repeat myself. A perpetrator who violates the rights of another, forfeits their own rights.

And I've spoken to this. I essentially said the perpetrator could then become the one who is violating the rights of another. Brought up State as example of this, where relative morality would suddenly be at odds with its own self. Murdering the murders, who as you are saying, have forfeited their rights - so all good, and righteous. Until, we learn that one murderer was actually innocent. Does State then forfeit their rights? Their authority? Or we move on and pretend mistakes happen and not really inherently wrong to murder people?

Also brought up that it's possible rights were forfeited before a chance meeting between potential perpetrator and 'owner.' The owner having forfeited rights decades ago, but never got caught. Who is righteous in that situation? Is the potential perpetrator just carrying out justice at that point?

 

[Acim]

Suppose you're in a situation where you have to take action. How do you determine which action would be the moral action and why would it be the moral action?

Many responses. Such as:
1. Relative morality would weigh in. Probably dominate the decision made.
2. I'd likely check with Inner Guide, probably helping with perspective, hopefully providing as much peace as I can muster in the situation.
3. I'd possibly realize, during the action, that there is no inherently wrong steps on the path. My / spiritual reality will be fine regardless of the decision for action.
4. I might ask 'What would Neo (from The Matrix) do?' And balance that with 'But what would Morpheus hope he does?'
5. If the results of my actions were pleasing to me (and hopefully other witnesses), I'd conclude 'wow, another perfectly execute moral action on my part. Man, I'm good!'

 

[Acim]

Thank you. I read the post written by Acim and had to wonder how anyone could consider rape to be something debatable and further, something that could be construed as not rape. This is particularly true when rape is applied to children. Scumbag seems a very mild term, IMO. Whether one is religious or not has no bearing on whether rape is seen as a wrong action.

As a child that was raped, I'd like to think maybe I could relate to what you are getting at. But interestingly, you're not really explaining. I wrote long post and you dismissed many of my explanations. So be it. "Scumbag" truly strikes me as judging own self, and to be as clear as possible, I do not only mean specific you judging specific you, but am alluding to general principle that judgments are really about the person judging, though play a treacherous game in hiding that fact. So, if truly a mild term, then probably no problem for specific you if that is actually being said about specific you.

Because you aren't really explaining what makes for wrong, or what makes for rape (in all situations), then I'll just resort to reminder that everyone in this thread has shown they believe rape to be (at least relatively) wrong.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

All of which you dismissively attempted to refute.

This is neither the time nor the place for me to educate you about Satanism. There is a dir for that, maybe start there.

At least I have a position which you have neither refuted nor offered an alternative for.

Maybe if you had read past my username you might realize I have done exactly that.

 

[Acim]

The definition of "inherent" is "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
We evolved instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to reproduce. Those belong to our basic nature. We create "laws and concepts of ethics and morality" to increase our chances of survival and successful reproduction. Actions that decrease our chances of survival and successful reproduction are inherently wrong.

Wouldn't this relate to species survival and species reproduction?

Also challenging to see all laws as created for this purpose, especially when laws are debated and/or done in committee with no chance of debate and end up regulating behavior in a way to increase taxes (revenue) for government. Thus some laws, even about morality, could be doing the opposite, hurting out chances of survival and successful reproduction, but will be spun by supporters of the law/policy one way and detractors will claim the opposite.

Like "killing in self defense" is prime example that comes up from this thread. Such a policy (law) strikes me as relative wrongness up the wazoo that truly makes "basic nature" a somewhat elusive concept or matter of ongoing debate.

 

[Acim]

It's goofy to claim that the Golden Rule is a causal law (which you seem to tacitly acknowledge in some of your statements).

I tacitly acknowledge because I consider that position one form ignorance, that I used to hold. Not seeing it as causal is IMO not actually understanding the Rule.

It obviously isn't a causal law. If it were a causal law, then there would be no reason for it to command people to act in a certain way. Newton's law of gravitation doesn't issue a command for the planets and objects to abide by it.

There is not reason for it to command people to act in a certain way, nor does it appear like that, on its own. I see the Rule as statement of fact: What you do unto others, you do unto yourself. Similar to: judge not, lest ye be judged. That's not: don't judge other people, cause one day you'll be judged by third party (i.e. Creator God) and well, it won't be pretty. I think the 'not' version of that is how many actually interpret that. I say this because it is how it was explained to me initially and how I believed the rationale of the assertion. Not anymore. I now see judgment as thoughts that don't leave their source, and are in essence impacting the judger. That could, theoretically, take a lifetime or 10 to play out. I believe, have observed it playing out much sooner. Sometimes in less than a minute. Fascinating when it plays out that quickly.

Again, I know of no reason that the existence of objective moral facts require "an absolute force/entity permeating the whole of existence" any more than the existence of objective mathematical facts require such.

In order to argue that objective moral or mathematical facts require such an "absolute force/entity," you would need to begin with a premise that is a true proposition, and make a valid deduction.

Wouldn't "a premise that is a true proposition' be the absolute force/entity at work in this little maxim you just came up with?

 

[Nous]

Do you know what 'objective' or 'absolute'(the word I used in the post you responded to) means

Treating others as you'd have them treat you is fine, if you believe in that, but the evidence shows people generally don't behave that way(ESPECIALLY if they subscribe to some dogma that tells them to)

Yes, I do. When I speak of "objective moral facts," I am using the term "objective" as defined in number 7 and 8 (i.e., "opposed to subjective"): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective?s=t

The thesis of moral realism proposes that there exist objective moral facts: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/ The concept of objective moral facts is analogous to the concepts of objective mathematical facts or the objective facts of logic. E.g., it is an objective mathematical fact that 23 is a prime number. 23 is prime not just because some of us believe or have agreed to say that it is prime; 23 (the figure that represents 23 objects) was prime even prior to any hominid being able to count to 23 or understand that 23 has no other positive divisors than 1 and itself. Similarly, it is an objective moral fact that raping a child is immoral. Raping a child is immoral not just because some of us believe it is or have agreed to say that it is.

The proposal or assumption that there exist objective moral facts does not entail the assertion that everyone behaves in any particular way. Nor does the Golden Rule imply that everyone abides by it.

In your initial post that I responded to, you asked for "an absolute standard" for moral behavior. In response, I asked whether the Golden Rule would not suffice as "a good objective moral standard". I still ask why it wouldn't.

Do you believe that there is something wrong with raping a child? If so, why do you believe that? To say, on one hand, that you personally believe that it is wrong for an adult to rape a child, but, on the other hand, that it is not objectively wrong for an adult to rape a child, is logically inconsistent unless you do not wish your beliefs to conform that what you claim is true.

 

[Nous]

The answer's simple really. I view deeming something good or evil to be similar to determining which colour is best, rather than determining what colour something is.

So continuing the colour analogy, I could say "I think black is the best colour" without having to feel that black is objectively the best colour.

Your initial statement that I replied to was that you "don't believe any action is objectively right or wrong," then you proceeded to assert that you "would consider somebody who raped a child to be evil."

I still don't know how it makes sense to assert (as it seems that you are suggesting) that it is "best" to believe or consider the sun to be (or to say that the sun is) green, even though the sun isn't objectively green.

The problem here is that moral nihilism just doesn't provide any justification to pretend or assert or believe that some acts are wrong--e.g., moral nihilism doesn't provide any justification for claiming that it one thinks or believes that raping a child is wrong, bad or immoral. Why don't nihilists just state what they claim to believe?--"There is nothing wrong or bad for some guy to come along and rape my 4-year-old daughter!"

Edit:
For what it's worth, I'd recommend avoiding colour analogies when arguing something's objective in the future. Colour can get quite tricky as far as objectivity is concerned.

Yes, we can change "I believe the sun is green" to "I believe the sun is triangular".

 

[Nous]

The issue of consent has already been discussed extensively on this thread.

The answer to the cartoon's juvenile question is easy: It isn't a crime for a person to engage in a consensual sex act with someone who is pretending to be raped.

I find it funny that when the subject of morals or ethics is addressed directly, many people (who have generally not done much reading in the 170 section of the library) exhibit an acute disconnect with what they normally assert with respect to right and wrong acts. You're not trying to suggest to there are no objectively right or wrong (moral or immoral) acts, are you? You have definitely said things to me indicating just the contrary.

 

[Nous]

I tacitly acknowledge because I consider that position one form ignorance, that I used to hold. Not seeing it as causal is IMO not actually understanding the Rule.

Obviously you haven't presented any evidence by which to conclude that the Golden Rule is a causal law.

Wouldn't "a premise that is a true proposition' be the absolute force/entity at work in this little maxim you just came up with?

Is a "true proposition" what you meant by the phrase "an absolute force/entity that permeates the whole of existence"? Why didn't you just use the term "true proposition"? It would have been much less confusing to me.

 

[Erebus]

Your initial statement that I replied to was that you "don't believe any action is objectively right or wrong," then you proceeded to assert that you "would consider somebody who raped a child to be evil."

I still don't know how it makes sense to assert (as it seems that you are suggesting) that it is "best" to believe or consider the sun to be (or to say that the sun is) green, even though the sun isn't objectively green.

The problem here is that moral nihilism just doesn't provide any justification to pretend or assert or believe that some acts are wrong--e.g., moral nihilism doesn't provide any justification for claiming that it one thinks or believes that raping a child is wrong, bad or immoral. Why don't nihilists just state what they claim to believe?--"There is nothing wrong or bad for some guy to come along and rape my 4-year-old daughter!"


Yes, we can change "I believe the sun is green" to "I believe the sun is triangular".

There are a few different stances to take within moral non-objectivism and even within moral nihilism. Some people may indeed say that no action can be said to be bad or wrong at all. Others, myself included, hold that morality isn't objective, but people can still subjectively determine right and wrong actions.

I don't consider morality to be objective, because I don't see how it can be. How do you separate morality from values, feelings, societal norms and desires? I can't comprehend the view that morality can be presented as a system of objective facts. Furthermore, every attempt to do so that I've seen has fallen apart somewhere down the line and/or been selected arbitrarily.

Maybe this example will help illustrate my point. What do you think is the best colour? Do you feel that your choice of colour is objectively the best? If you do, then I honestly don't see how we can have a worthwhile discussion on this subject. If you don't, then you've demonstrated that you can believe something to be the case without also having to hold that it's objectively true.

So to me, morality is subjective. What's evil to me may not be to you and vice versa. To me, raping a child is evil. To me, black is the best colour.

 

[Nous]

There are a few different stances to take within moral non-objectivism and even within moral nihilism. Some people may indeed say that no action can be said to be bad or wrong at all. Others, myself included, hold that morality isn't objective, but people can still subjectively determine right and wrong actions.

So as long as the rapist determines that it isn't wrong for him to rape your 4-year-old daughter, you're good with that? You wouldn't dispute his determination on that, would you?

 

[Erebus]

So as long as the rapist determines that it isn't wrong for him to rape your 4-year-old daughter, you're good with that? You wouldn't dispute his determination on that, would you?

Really? At this stage I have to wonder if you're trying to wind me up. I've been patient with you, but you insist on implying that I'm perfectly happy for people to rape children when I've repeatedly told you that I'm not.

What are you having so much trouble understanding? Do you disagree that you can hold an opinion that you don't believe is objectively true? Do you believe that everything you like and support is objectively right? Do you believe that everything you hate is objectively wrong?

If not, why are you unable to at least entertain the notion that this principle could also be applied to morality?

Furthermore, why are you using the most emotive scenario you can conjure to argue in favour of objective morality?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The issue of consent has already been discussed extensively on this thread.

The answer to the cartoon's juvenile question is easy: It isn't a crime for a person to engage in a consensual sex act with someone who is pretending to be raped.

I find it funny that when the subject of morals or ethics is addressed directly, many people (who have generally not done much reading in the 170 section of the library) exhibit an acute disconnect with what they normally assert with respect to right and wrong acts. You're not trying to suggest to there are no objectively right or wrong (moral or immoral) acts, are you? You have definitely said things to me indicating just the contrary.

I have no idea what rape has to do with what I posted. I think I've made it clear that there's no objective basis for morality. It's man-made.

 

[Nous]

Really? At this stage I have to wonder if you're trying to wind me up. I've been patient with you, but you insist on implying that I'm perfectly happy for people to rape children when I've repeatedly told you that I'm not.

I don't understand why a moral nihilist (regardless of the version, even those who propose "moral relativism") objects to a rapist getting to enjoy himself by doing something that you claim isn't objectively or inherently wrong, bad or immoral.

I have no problem with someone teaching a 4-year-old to tie her shoes, because I do not believe such an act is immoral. (Indeed, I think it is a good thing to teach a child to tie her shoes.) Why doesn't the moral nihilist say the same about the rapist? What is the reason for the nihilist's disapproval of someone raping a 4-year-old child?

Do you disagree that you can hold an opinion that you don't believe is objectively true?

Absolutely not. That's why I am asking you to explain the reason for your disapproval of a rapist having a moment of pleasure with your 4-year-old daughter.

Furthermore, why are you using the most emotive scenario you can conjure to argue in favour of objective morality?

I'm just asking the hard questions about moral nihilism.

 

[Nous]

I have no idea what rape has to do with what I posted.

We have been using rape as an example of an immoral act, and one of the things "masochists" do is to pretend to be the victim of rape.

I think I've made it clear that there's no objective basis for morality. It's man-made.

As I noted, I recall posts where you said certain things to me suggesting that what I had posted was in some way wrong or bad. As I recall, I was merely providing information on the ineffectiveness of psychiatric drugs, maybe especially antidepressant drugs, and, further, the evidence that such drugs actually just make people worse by inducing chronicity and a number of other adverse effects, such as inducing weight gain. You certainly gave me the impression that you didn't approve of me posting what I had posted (which was actually just some facts from the peer-reviewed literature). If someone (like me) dissuades another person from taking antidepressants, there's nothing wrong or bad about that, is there?