Inherently wrong actions?

[Nous]

Obviously one cannot calculate a moral precept. Neither can one calculate the objective mathematical fact that some infinite sets are of greater cardinality than other infinite sets. One can only deduce such facts from certain premises. I suppose the person who denies that infinite sets exist would be unconvinced by any such deduction or theorem.

Ok so you can't then.

The fact that one cannot arrive at a proposition by calculation does not mean that the proposition is not true--that would render every objective fact that isn't a numerical figure to be untrue. Obviously you do not believe only facts that can be derived by calculation.

Again, objective moral facts are essentially analogous to objective mathematical facts and the objective facts of logic, and moral facts pose no further conundrums than the facts of mathematics or logic. Indeed, the deduction of particular objective moral facts entails the use of the facts of logic, of valid arguments. E.g.,

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

So why not admit your personal judgements of things are just that?

It isn't merely my personal judgment that, for instance, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral. Every nation in the world criminalizes such acts, which is an expression of moral disapproval.

I am not attracted to four year old children, so I don't rape them. I recognize that the insertion of a penis into such small orifices is likely to do damage, and I am generally quite empathetic to people's pain, but I wouldn't say it is wrong, nor does the thought of it happening, along with all the rest normals might describe as 'horrors', bother me in the least.

You are "generally quite empathetic to people's pain," but rape of a child doesn't "bother [you] in the least"? How does that make sense?

Why are you "generally quite empathetic to people's pain"?

I can only assume that the very fact that every country has laws criminalizing certain acts must be confounding to you? After all, if the acts listed in criminal codes are not in some way wrong to perpetrate, then it seems it should be wrong to punish people for committing them.

 

[Nous]

Tis not I that am arguing for such things. Just using your rhetoric to say if you put those words before anything, they become equally objective facts as assertions you have made.



(A little dose of what you've done in this thread....)

I repeat, it is objective moral fact that voting Democrat is wrong.

Objective moral facts are not arbitrary--if that is what you are trying to suggest.

Earlier you said that you "personally believe it is wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat, but it is not objectively wrong for an adult voter to vote Democrat." I'm not sure if you are retracting part or all of that. In any case, it is just another of those examples of logical inconsistency where one is asserting, "The sun is not objectively green, but I believe it is green."

And here is the rebuttal for that within the article.

The article does not give any argument refuting either cognitivism or the stated argument that deduces the existence of moral facts. Just the contrary:

The cognitivist understanding of moral judgments is at the center of moral realism. For the cognitivist, moral judgments are mental states; moral judgments are of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is, cognitive states. But how are we to know this? One manageable way is to focus on what we intend to do when we make moral judgments, and also on how we express them. Moral judgments are intended to be accurate descriptions of the world, and statements express moral judgments (as opposed to command or prescription) just as statements express ordinary beliefs. That is, statements express moral language. The statements that express moral judgments are either true or false just as the statements that express ordinary beliefs are. Moral truths occur when our signs match the world.​

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

I think my rebuttal, based on this thread, would say that if the moral sentence is: Raping a child is inherently wrong - then I would like to understand the truth-making relation that makes this true. For currently, I actually do believe by this logic that the moral sentence: Raping a child is inherently right, could be rationalized by similar logic. Though, obviously this will depend on what is provided as the truth-making relation.

I do prefer to change the example of what is currently being employed as the moral assertion, but will do my best to adapt to those who insist it is just as fair game as say why it is inherently wrong to vote for Democrats. As if those are on par with each other.

I don't follow what you are saying here at all. Please clarify. E.g., what are you claiming to rebut?

 

[Nous]

I'd rather not.



Because it is inherently wrong, and understood as an objective moral fact.

...is how I see you responding.

No, I have not responded that some act is immoral merely because I said it is. Objective moral facts are mere arbitrary assertions. See the argument above the deduces that raping a child is an immoral act. There is an entirely rational reason that some acts are immoral.

 

[Nous]

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?

He didn't say that at all. He said that morality is subjective and he has a point. No morality is devoid of emotion. What may be right for you might be wrong for me.

Well, if the rapist determines that it isn't wrong for him to rape a child, then why do you say it's wrong for him to do so (if you do say that)?

 

[Nous]

It seems that you don't understand the moral nihilist position.

Nihilism (from the German "nihil" - "nothing) is a philosophical school that has various branches. Anyway, moral nihilism is the position that there is no absolute or objective foundation for morality, so it's impossible to posit moral truths.

From Wikipedia:

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for actions to be right or wrong relative to a particular culture or individual, and moral universalism, which holds actions to be right or wrong in the same way for everyone everywhere. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

I well understand the distinction between moral nihilism and moral relativism. Yet they are both species of moral anti-realism. That's my point.

So my displeasure at you counseling those on psychiatric drugs to stop taking them would just me expressing my own subjective opinion that them heeding your advice would not be conducive to their well-being. I cannot say that it is morally right or wrong, though.

But doesn't the expression of one's disapproval of someone else's acts imply some kind of judgment about the wrongness of that person's act? (BTW, I am certain I did not advise anyone to stop taking any psychiatric drugs.)

As for rape, I cannot point to some abstract moral order whether in the natural world or in theological terms to assert that rape is inherently wrong

What about the fact that the act of raping a 4-year-old child is an act that harms the child, is perpetrated without the child's consent and is perpetrated merely for the momentary pleasure of the rapist? (See the syllogism above.) Are those conditions not sufficient to say that there is a moral fact about raping a child? And that the fact is that raping a child is immoral?

I do not recognize moral features in the universe.

A person might also not "recognize" objective mathematical facts or facts of logic "in the universe". That doesn't lead to the conclusion that there are no objective mathematical facts or objective facts of logic.

 

[Nous]

Also, that's not what that meme was getting at. It's pointing out the failure of the Christian "golden rule" in that it doesn't factor in people like masochists. Masochists want to be hurt in various ways, so a masochist following the "golden rule" would demonstrate how they wish to be treated by hurting others.

But the masochist would treat another person in the way that the masochist wants to be treated only if the other person wants to be treated that way. Thus the Golden Rule is still golden. The masochist does not want anyone to harm him/her without his/her (the masochist's) consent.

 

[Nous]

Well, if God created the best of all possible worlds, as it is to be expected from a perfect God, then I would go so far as to conclude that whatever we do is not only not inherently wrong, but it is inherently right, or morally neutral.

How about other possibilities than the one stated in the antecedent of your conditional here? For instance, let's say that God didn't create what we stupid humans would call "the best of all possible worlds". What is your consequent on the issue of objective moral facts in that case?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The fact that one cannot arrive at a proposition by calculation does not mean that the proposition is not true--that would render every objective fact that isn't a numerical figure to be untrue. Obviously you do not believe only facts that can be derived by calculation.

Again, objective moral facts are essentially analogous to objective mathematical facts and the objective facts of logic, and moral facts pose no further conundrums than the facts of mathematics or logic. Indeed, the deduction of particular objective moral facts entails the use of the facts of logic, of valid arguments. E.g.,

Ya, you keep saying that, but that alone isn't too convincing.

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.

So much wrong with this. Circular logic, affirming the consequent, speculation of motive, unsupported premise. Basically a total logic fail.

P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.

Again, speculating as to why is specious reasoning. Maybe the rapist is from Kenya and believes raping a kid will cure their AIDS for instance(actually fairly common)

C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

Broken premises, broken conclusion.

It isn't merely my personal judgment that, for instance, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral. Every nation in the world criminalizes such acts, which is an expression of moral disapproval.

And that is an ad populum fallacy. 2 billion Muslims don't make Islam objectively true.

You are "generally quite empathetic to people's pain," but rape of a child doesn't "bother [you] in the least"? How does that make sense?

It's pretty much as it sounds actually. Have you convinced yourself you must believe as you do just to feel basic human emotions? If so, I assure you you are mistaken.

Why are you "generally quite empathetic to people's pain"?

The same way as everyone else(barring sociopaths)

I can only assume that the very fact that every country has laws criminalizing certain acts must be confounding to you? After all, if the acts listed in criminal codes are not in some way wrong to perpetrate, then it seems it should be wrong to punish people for committing them.

What a strange jump in logic. This is the second time(in this post at least) you have drawn a direct correlation between the law and 'morality' . Do you believe lawmakers are the arbiter's of morality?

 

[Nous]

The fact that one cannot arrive at a proposition by calculation does not mean that the proposition is not true--that would render every objective fact that isn't a numerical figure to be untrue. Obviously you do not believe only facts that can be derived by calculation.

Again, objective moral facts are essentially analogous to objective mathematical facts and the objective facts of logic, and moral facts pose no further conundrums than the facts of mathematics or logic. Indeed, the deduction of particular objective moral facts entails the use of the facts of logic, of valid arguments. E.g.,

Ya, you keep saying that, but that alone isn't too convincing.

Then refute it.

So much wrong with this. Circular logic, affirming the consequent, speculation of motive, unsupported premise. Basically a total logic fail.

Again, speculating as to why is specious reasoning. Maybe the rapist is from Kenya and believes raping a kid will cure their AIDS for instance(actually fairly common)

Broken premises, broken conclusion.

You don't know what you're talking about. This is a valid argument:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

It is an AAA-1:

M = P.
S = M.
Therefore, S = P.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Barbara_.28AAA-1.29

It is not "circular".

And that is an ad populum fallacy. 2 billion Muslims don't make Islam objectively true.

I have not claimed that anything is true merely because lots of people believe it is true. You claimed that my judgments about rape of a 4-year-old child are "just" my "personal judgments". I noted that that every country in the world criminalizes such acts, which is an expression of moral disapproval. Therefore my judgments on rape of children are not merely my "personal judgments".

You are "generally quite empathetic to people's pain," but rape of a child doesn't "bother [you] in the least"? How does that make sense?

It's pretty much as it sounds actually.

What do you think "empathy" means? How can one be "generally quite empathetic to people's pain" but not be "bother[ed] in the least" about a 4-year-old child being raped?

Why are you "generally quite empathetic to people's pain"?

The same way as everyone else(barring sociopaths)

Are you having a problem reading? I asked "why," not "how". Why bother (supposedly) being "empathetic? It certainly seems it would be a big waste of energy for someone who doesn't believe there is anything wrong with a person intentionally causing the worse sort of pain to another person. You evidently have no empathy for the trauma experienced by a child who is the victim of rape.

What a strange jump in logic. This is the second time(in this post at least) you have drawn a direct correlation between the law and 'morality'

Because what Oliver Wendell Holmes said is true: "The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race." Acts are criminalized generally because they are morally wrong. Rape is not criminalized because it is physically painful (I assume it sometimes isn't physically painful), but because it is morally wrong. Murder isn't outlawed because it is physically painful (murder can be entirely painless), but because it is morally wrong.

Obviously you haven't articulated any non-moral reason to outlaw rape and murder.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Then refute it.

You are the one making the claim. You have yet to support it in any meaningful way.

You don't know what you're talking about. This is a valid argument:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

It is an AAA-1:

M = P.
S = M.
Therefore, S = P.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Barbara_.28AAA-1.29

Not valid in the least, and I already explained why. Maybe you should Google the term 'logical fallacy' and read up.

It is not "circular".

Of course it is. The conclusion is contained in the premise(which also makes it an affirming the consequent fallacy, as mentioned previously)

I have not claimed that anything is true merely because lots of people believe it is true. You claimed that my judgments about rape of a 4-year-old child are "just" my "personal judgments". I noted that that every country in the world criminalizes such acts, which is an expression of moral disapproval. Therefore my judgments on rape of children are not merely my "personal judgments".

Come now, let's not resort to being disingenuous shall we? I obviously didn't mean you are the only person to ever believe that particular action is 'wrong'. However, you are still barking up the logical fallacy tree with this appeal to mass opinion.

What do you think "empathy" means? How can one be "generally quite empathetic to people's pain" but not be "bother[ed] in the least" about a 4-year-old child being raped?

Not sure why this is difficult for you. Human emotion exists regardless of what you believe. Because, you know, we are human and that's how we evolved.

Are you having a problem reading? I asked "why," not "how". Why bother (supposedly) being "empathetic? It certainly seems it would be a big waste of energy for someone who doesn't believe there is anything wrong with a person intentionally causing the worse sort of pain to another person. You evidently have no empathy for the trauma experienced by a child who is the victim of rape.

Yes, because people that do not hold your(insofar completely unsupported) beliefs on this matter must be monsters that eat babies, devoid of all human emotions unless they choose to feel them for their own vile and nefarious machinations.

Because what Oliver Wendell Holmes said is true: "The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race." Acts are criminalized generally because they are morally wrong (I assume it sometimes isn't physically painful), but because it is morally wrong. Murder isn't outlawed because it is physically painful (murder can be entirely painless), but because it is morally wrong.

Sure plenty of dudes say plenty of things. Saying things alone (even if you repeat them ad nauseum)doesn't make them true(as your post history in this thread seems to indicate you believe)

Obviously you haven't articulated any non-moral reason to outlaw rape and murder.

The fact that you seem to think laws boil down to moralizing is interesting. Can you really not fathom any other reason they might be there?

By the way, what's with your weird fixation on 4 year old girls? You mention raping them in every single post.

Where's Chris H when you need him.

 

[Sonofason]

I didn't "dodge" the question. The question was simply pointless since you were suddenly talking about remote possibilities instead of certainties.

Well then do explain how certain it is that all of humanity should suffer horrible deaths and extermination if I should prevent the rape of an 8 year old girl, which is what my answer was about.

 

[ArtieE]

Well then do explain how certain it is that all of humanity should suffer horrible deaths and extermination if I should prevent the rape of an 8 year old girl, which is what my answer was about.

I'm not going to try to dissect the conversation you quoted in post number 248 would just be a waste of time. We have moved on.

 

[Acim]

First of all, I was not calling you a scumbag. You inferred that one all on your own. I was referring to child rapists. I guess you must have missed that one.

I didn't think, even for a second, that you were referencing me as 'scumbag.' So, I'm thinking you missed point I made. Not a huge deal though.

 

[Acim]

I believe this is inherently wrong (because this is what God tells me - I believe it is inherently wrong from God's Perspective, so it is not relative to me alone). You believe otherwise. Because I believe it is inherently wrong from God's Perspective, nothing you can say will make me see otherwise. (I believe) It is just inherently wrong. For you not. Hence my earlier statement that, in this at least, I don't think we're going to make much progress in this particular aspect of this discussion.

I concur. It's an appeal to authority and impossible to argue otherwise. If I believe it is inherently wrong to pick one's nose because this is what the Peanut Butter Man tells me, and I believe it is inherently wrong from the Peanut Butter Man's perspective, then what can be the argument against it being inherently wrong.... other than my belief/understanding of the Peanut Butter Man's ethics. Which would be relative to me, and I think is easily discernible.

From my (actual) theistic perspective all actions are inherently neutral. All thoughts are not (neutral). Thus, thoughts about actions are not neutral. Whether or not they deal with morality is slightly dependent on what the thought is about. My theological understandings do have awareness of right mindedness and wrong mindedness. Might take a wall of text to explain that in satisfactory detail, but essentially Loving / forgiving thoughts are right mindedness; whereas, fearful / guilt laden thoughts are wrong mindedness (yet undone via forgiveness).

 

[Acim]

Again, objective moral facts are essentially analogous to objective mathematical facts and the objective facts of logic, and moral facts pose no further conundrums than the facts of mathematics or logic. Indeed, the deduction of particular objective moral facts entails the use of the facts of logic, of valid arguments.

This is NOT what you're earlier link provided. You are essentially putting this forth without really anything to back it up. Like saying religious facts pose no further conundrums than the facts of mathematics or logic.

E.g.,

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

P1 is debatable and not objective. Hence why this is unlike mathematic fact(s).

 

[Acim]

Objective moral facts are not arbitrary--if that is what you are trying to suggest.

Objective moral facts don't exist. You have yet to show otherwise. I think you think you've shown otherwise, but the points you've named so far are assuming the logic to be sound.

The article does not give any argument refuting either cognitivism or the stated argument that deduces the existence of moral facts. Just the contrary:

The cognitivist understanding of moral judgments is at the center of moral realism. For the cognitivist, moral judgments are mental states; moral judgments are of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is, cognitive states. But how are we to know this? One manageable way is to focus on what we intend to do when we make moral judgments, and also on how we express them. Moral judgments are intended to be accurate descriptions of the world, and statements express moral judgments (as opposed to command or prescription) just as statements express ordinary beliefs. That is, statements express moral language. The statements that express moral judgments are either true or false just as the statements that express ordinary beliefs are. Moral truths occur when our signs match the world.​

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

This is not helping your position. I think you are believing that your earlier assertions equate to 'moral truths' but they do not match our world. They may match your thinking of the world (thus relative to you, and anyone that thinks in similar fashion). Sometimes in our world, people do things that others equate to immoral. They are clearly permissible by the 'way the world works' even if they are not permissible by local laws. They still happen. There is nothing objective that is clarifying, with any sense of certainty, what makes for wrongness.

I honestly see the section you are getting this from as disputing what you are getting across. I also think this is not necessarily a well argued point, nor makes for righteousness in understanding objectivity. Your utilizing it is akin to theist using doctrine as way to point to 'inherently wrong actions' and yet even with what you are choosing, it is very hard to see how it is supporting your personal beliefs in 'objective moral facts.'

I don't follow what you are saying here at all. Please clarify. E.g., what are you claiming to rebut?

I already did above. It's really just taking inverse of whatever you are claiming as 'objective fact' (regarding morality) and stating it as if there is no possible rebuttal, when clearly there is.

Eg:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are moral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is moral.

I honestly see this as logically consistent as what you put forth.

 

[JoStories]

The moral thing to do in every situation is to do what is beneficial to people and avoid doing what is detrimental to people. People can of course disagree about what is beneficial or detrimental but the moral thing to do will always be what is beneficial and avoid doing what is detrimental. No subjective opinions can change that.

But what is beneficial can change and thus, is subjective. As you say, people can disagree about what is beneficial. Did you know that there are still tribes scattered around the globe that practice cannibalism? I find that and so do most other people to be as far from beneficial to society as it can get yet those tribes exist. So I ask you, what does society constitute as beneficial and how is that defined?

 

[JoStories]

Your mother, but not your father, spouse, children, grandchildren....somebody else's mother????

My father is dead. My late partner is dead. My children were taken from me and I have not seen them or my grandchildren EVER. Does that answer your question? No, I suppose it doesn't. No, in general, I would not harm another. But I was an advanced practice nurse with a serious passion for elder abuse. There have been a few times when I wanted to find the F***er who harmed an elder and make them feel what they inflicted on the elder, so yes, I suppose I would harm in some certain situations.

 

[JoStories]

As one who, figuratively at least, DOES serve Satan, I can't help but wonder at all the blown up buildings and sawn off heads in the name of Allah that might qualify as 'right' action by this same standard.

No they would not. What I believe in is a concept that is difficult to define. I use the word God but its incredibly misleading. Its merely energy, a force if you will. And no, I don't believe in killing in the name of any damn god. No matter what name you put to it. Does that answer you?

 

[JoStories]

Correct.

THUD!!!!!!!!!! Wow...just plain wow.