Inherently wrong actions?

[viole]

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?

Well, I am not a moral realist. So, I think that the concept of objective morality is nonsensical.

But to address your question, with another question, under the assumption that objective morality exists: is that objectively moral to create a morally suboptimal world when you have the power to do otherwise?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nous]

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

I linked to two peer-reviewed articles that noted the analogy between morals, mathematics and logic.

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic . . . are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014)​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Again, objective moral facts (e.g., rape of a child is immoral), objective mathematical facts (e.g., the power set of an infinite set is of greater cardinality than the infinite set) and objective logical facts (e.g., an AAA-1 syllogism such as Nous has stated is valid) are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms.

If that is not "convincing" to you, then show that objective moral facts are not analogous in this way with objective mathematical and logical facts.

Not valid in the least

So you weren't able to click on the link and figure out what an AAA-1 syllogism is?

It's interesting that people come to discussion boards to expose their lack of knowledge on a subject, especially a subject as fundamental as logic.

Of course it is.

Prove it.

Come now, let's not resort to being disingenuous shall we?

If you believe I have said anything erroneous or "disingenuous," then prove it.

Not sure why this is difficult for you.

So you are able to figure out what "empathy" means? You can't explain why you are "empathetic" to people's pain but it doesn't "bother [you] in the least" for 4-year-old children to be raped?

And you still can't articulate any non-moral reason for outlawing murder, rape, assault, etc.?

It seems all you have contributed to this topic is to show that you don't know what a valid argument is.

 

[Nous]

This is NOT what you're earlier link provided. You are essentially putting this forth without really anything to back it up.

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic . . . are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014)​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Again, objective moral facts (e.g., rape of a child is immoral), objective mathematical facts (e.g., the power set of an infinite set is of greater cardinality than the infinite set) and objective logical facts (e.g., an AAA-1 syllogism such as Nous has stated is valid) are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms.

Have you done any reading on the topic of morality or ethics--the 170 section in the library?

P1 is debatable

Debate it, then. Give us your argument that it is not true that "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."

 

[Nous]

Objective moral facts don't exist.

Prove it.

I think you are believing that your earlier assertions equate to 'moral truths' but they do not match our world.

Then show that the sign of the statement, "Rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral," is contrary to the world.

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.

What do you mean by "logically consistent"? Do you mean valid?

Are you saying that your P1 is a true proposition? If so, then quote a dictionary definition of what you mean by "moral" in your P1 (which is your predicate term).

Here is the definition of "immoral" in my P1:

"violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/immoral?s=t

 

[Acim]

No it isn't. The moral thing to do is always what is beneficial for society regardless of your subjective opinion.

Thus, the case for relative morality is alive and well. Unless, you think you are putting forth an objective, factual version of "that which is beneficial to a society."

 

[Nous]

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)?

I do say that but it is based on what is seen as moral for society. Morality is subjective.

What do you mean by "subjective"? Define it.

If someone were to say that the mass-energy relation E=mc^2 is "subjective," how would you argue that it isn't "subjective"?

If someone were to say that the US flag is red, white and blue, but that it is "subjective," would that make sense?

As I just asked another, there are several tribes around the world that still practice cannibalism. Is that moral? IMO, no and most would say no, rather loudly would I add. But for those tribes, that is considered moral and acceptable.

In the same respect, the rapist of a 4-year-old child might consider the act "moral and acceptable". Let's say there are 3 people in your country who consider the act of raping a 4-year-old child "moral and acceptable." (There probably are at least 3 in the US who would say that.) Three is a "society," isn't it? So, then you could no longer claim that rape of a child is immoral "based on what is seen as moral for society." Right?

Do you begin to see how morality can be different for some societies?

No moral realist argues that everyone behaves the same or that every society abides by exactly the same moral codes (although, most every society's moral codes, as reflected by their criminal codes, are and have been extraordinarily similar, in a way that cannot be explained by diffusion). Again, let's say that there are aboriginal societies in Canada that do not believe E=mc2. Does that mean that that energy-mass relation is "subjective," or not not true for them?

The point I'm trying to illustrate here (as I've already noted), is that any species of moral anti-realism creates a conundrum for the person who wishes to say, "Yes, I believe X is an immoral act, but I know it isn't an objectively immoral act."

 

[Nous]

Because I have a standardized set of morals based on what society has imposed on me, my empathy, and the fact scientifically speaking, rape victims are greatly mentally injured by such a traumatic experience.

You've given 3 distinct reasons here as to why you hold the belief or opinion that "raping an 8 year old child is immoral and despicable". I wish to speak to the first and last.

As I noted in response to Jo above, do you understand the logical inconsistency in asserting that some act "is, in my opinion, immoral," but that it isn't objectively immoral? One is asserting that one believes a proposition is true (because "my society," "my friends" or "my spouse" has "imposed that belief on me"), but that it isn't objectively true.

You also say that raping a child is "immoral and despicable in your opinion" because "rape victims are greatly mentally injured by such a traumatic experience." So can you fill out that reason or condition in order to make an objective general rule? For example: "An act perpetrated upon a person that causes that person great mental injury, is perpetrated without that person's consent, and is perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure is an immoral act"? Can you think of any such act that meets those qualifications but that you would say is not immoral?

Such a proposition as I just stated would be entirely consistent with the Golden Rule. Would it not?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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?

I was actually referring to what that yaqub or whatever wrote about things only being evil if done in the name of Satan.

I tell you what, I'd sure rather be captured by a group of Satanists than a group of Muslims. I like my head where it is.

 

[Nous]

Well, I am not a moral realist. So, I think that the concept of objective morality is nonsensical.

In what way is moral realism or the existence of objective moral facts "nonsensical"? How is the existence of objective moral facts any more "nonsensical" than the existence of objective mathematical or objective logical facts?

But to address your question, with another question, under the assumption that objective morality exists: is that objectively moral to create a morally suboptimal world when you have the power to do otherwise?

I would prefer that your question be worded differently. But I think I understand your question. I would answer: Yes, unless there is a valuable lesson to be learned from having someone else perpetrate an immoral act upon one. Such a lesson might be merely the wrongness of such acts (so as to dissuade one from going out and perpetrating such acts upon a slew of other people), or perhaps it is just a lesson to deflate the ego.

 

[Acim]

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic . . . are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014)​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Interesting, to me, what you chose to leave out of the quote. Not sure it matters though. But this quote actually reads as:

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic, not science, are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014).
​

What this is saying is that (moral) realists may argue that mathematics and logic are the right models of moral theory. This doesn't make for moral objective fact, anymore than saying, "another religious person's reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic, not science, are the right models of religious theory." From this assertion, then jumping to the conclusion that objective religious facts exist.

Again, objective moral facts (e.g., rape of a child is immoral), objective mathematical facts (e.g., the power set of an infinite set is of greater cardinality than the infinite set) and objective logical facts (e.g., an AAA-1 syllogism such as Nous has stated is valid) are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms.

The "objective facts" part is what, in essence, cannot change. It's what's inserted between that which is the part that is debated. Such that "objective religious facts" might be assumed by all religious people as existing. Much to all of what you are putting forth thus far, is relying on such assumption.

Debate it, then. Give us your argument that it is not true that "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."

I am, have been and will continue to do so. Like previously when I brought up the State's use of capital punishment. It satisfies a) harm to a person, b) without person's consent, but not the last part (though that is debatable as I do believe part of "we the people" do take pleasure in capital punishment's results (that an alleged killer has now been killed). Such that, if one engages in (a) and (b), and can give off appearance of avoiding (c), then such actions may not be immoral. Like a person engaging in spanking (mild form of child abuse) could conclude before, during and after their actions that they did not want to have to engage in what harmed the child without their consent, but had to do it nonetheless, to maintain order. Just plug that formula into all positions of harming another person without their consent and suddenly it is either not immoral or is debatable. But that last item does seem to hinge on what a lot of adults do/government does and therefore justifies that sometimes harming others, against their consent, is actually the moral thing to do. I'm pretty sure this is how punishment is justified.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I linked to two peer-reviewed articles that noted the analogy between morals, mathematics and logic.

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic . . . are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014)​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Again, objective moral facts (e.g., rape of a child is immoral), objective mathematical facts (e.g., the power set of an infinite set is of greater cardinality than the infinite set) and objective logical facts (e.g., an AAA-1 syllogism such as Nous has stated is valid) are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms.

If that is not "convincing" to you, then show that objective moral facts are not analogous in this way with objective mathematical and logical facts.

So you weren't able to click on the link and figure out what an AAA-1 syllogism is?

It's interesting that people come to discussion boards to expose their lack of knowledge on a subject, especially a subject as fundamental as logic.

Prove it.

If you believe I have said anything erroneous or "disingenuous," then prove it.

So you are able to figure out what "empathy" means? You can't explain why you are "empathetic" to people's pain but it doesn't "bother [you] in the least" for 4-year-old children to be raped?

And you still can't articulate any non-moral reason for outlawing murder, rape, assault, etc.?

It seems all you have contributed to this topic is to show that you don't know what a valid argument is.

If you aren't going to respond to any of my refutations and just keep chanting the same mantra, there is no sense in continued dialogue.

I've already thoroughly dealt your weak sauce.

 

[ArtieE]

Thus, the case for relative morality is alive and well. Unless, you think you are putting forth an objective, factual version of "that which is beneficial to a society."

Don't know what those sentences are supposed to mean.

 

[Acim]

Prove it.

Prove a negative? Can you prove that pink elephants don't exist?

Then show that the sign of the statement, "Rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral," is contrary to the world.

That wouldn't be the sign of the statement. I would just have to show that the way this world works, rape of a 4 year old child is permissible by the world. That it is allowed to happen. It's not the alleged immorality that prevents it from happening.

What do you mean by "logically consistent"? Do you mean valid?

These mean the same, so if it helps you, then yes to the 2nd question.

Are you saying that your P1 is a true proposition? If so, then quote a dictionary definition of what you mean by "moral" in your P1 (which is your predicate term).

I am saying that P1 proposition I came up with is equally valid to your P1 proposition, which then leads to an equally valid 3rd assertion (conclusion) that you arrived at.

Here is the definition of "immoral" in my P1:

"violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/immoral?s=t

A) you then make leaps from what this definition is saying to assert your P1 assertion is a true proposition. It is not made true, or backed up by any definition you have linked to.

B) "conduct usually accepted" makes for case of relative morality.
B1) If "established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics" were objectively factual (already), I'd probably not be participating in a thread that is at least 17 pages long because on p.1, someone would've cited the principles of social ethics that are well established and that we are always consistent with. Instead, the debate goes on, because we have non-universal established principles that benefit greatly from situational concerns. Such that "murder is always wrong, unless the State engages in murder for purposes of punishment." Or "harming a person against their consent is always wrong, unless we are doing so as act of self defense."

C) Definitions of morality, and immorality, don't assume the principles, nor specifics of what makes for morality and immorality. My computer's dictionary....

...Defines moral as:

1 concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character: the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society: an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code | the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct: moral philosophers.​

2 holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct: he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person.

...and defines immoral as:

not conforming to accepted standards of morality: an immoral and unwinnable war.

I see the definition for first subpoint under moral definition 1 as well as immoral as making case for relative morality. In any part of this definition, I don't observe wording that makes a case for universal morality, nor objective moral facts. That would be the work and/or debate that second subpoint under moral definition 1 is speaking to.

 

[Nous]

Interesting, to me, what you chose to leave out of the quote. Not sure it matters though. But this quote actually reads as:

Another realist reply to the epistemic challenge is to argue that mathematics and logic, not science, are the right models of moral theory (Scanlon 2014).
​

What this is saying is that (moral) realists may argue that mathematics and logic are the right models of moral theory. This doesn't make for moral objective fact

The analogy between objective moral facts and objective mathematical and logical facts is that the facts are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms, not merely made up arbitrarily.

The "objective facts" part is what, in essence, cannot change. It's what's inserted between that which is the part that is debated.

I don't know what that means. Not much on this thread has actually been debated--as far as I know I am the only one who has stated an argument. You copied it and plugged in a different predicate term, but you haven't been able to show that the word "moral" as used in your P1 is found any dictionary.

I am, have been and will continue to do so. Like previously when I brought up the State's use of capital punishment.

No sentence imposed for violating a law is carried out for anyone's personal pleasure.

Like a person engaging in spanking (mild form of child abuse) could conclude before, during and after their actions that they did not want to have to engage in what harmed the child without their consent, but had to do it nonetheless, to maintain order.

I don't approve of hitting a child; it is an assault, but I feel certain that most parents who spank their own child do not do so out of personal pleasure. (But I think they generally do it out of anger.)

 

[Nous]

If you aren't going to respond to any of my refutations

Obviously you haven't refuted anything I've said.

Let us know if you ever figure out what a valid argument is.

 

[Nous]

Prove a negative?

You positively asserted that objective moral facts do not exist. What was the basis of your assertion?

Perhaps objective moral facts exist but you just lack the faculty for perceiving them.

That wouldn't be the sign of the statement.

Yes, the sign of the statement, "The act of raping a 4-year-old child is immoral," definitely matches the sign of the world. That's why the act is a crime in every nation of the world

That it is allowed to happen.

Yeah, prove that acts of rape of children are allowed to happen, never prosecuted.

It's not the alleged immorality that prevents it from happening.

No one has even vaguely suggested that the immorality of an act prevents the act from happening.

I am saying that P1 proposition I came up with is equally valid to your P1 proposition

You need to familiarize yourself with logic. Only arguments (deductions) are valid. And they are valid if they follow a certain form (such as a valid syllogism, such as the AAA-1, or a modus ponens--see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference ). The premises of valid arguments must be true propositions in order to produce a conclusion that is a true proposition. That's why I asked you to quote a definition of the word "moral" in your P1.

A) you then make leaps from what this definition is saying to assert your P1 assertion is a true proposition. It is not made true, or backed up by any definition you have linked to.

The conditions that constitute the middle term ("that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure") are in every way consistent with the definition of "immoral" that I linked to.

My computer's dictionary....

...Defines moral as:

1 concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character: the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society: an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code | the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct: moral philosophers.​

2 holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct: he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person.

So you haven't been able to find a definition of "moral" so that your P1 would be a true proposition (or that even makes sense). That's how we know that your P1 is not a true statement.

 

[Acim]

The point I'm trying to illustrate here (as I've already noted), is that any species of moral anti-realism creates a conundrum for the person who wishes to say, "Yes, I believe X is an immoral act, but I know it isn't an objectively immoral act."

I think it is an interesting point for this ongoing discussion, but it is somewhat like any belief. I believe Led Zeppelin is the greatest musical act of all time, but I don't know this to be objectively true (but I believe it could be).

Appeals to realism and/or idealism are certainly going to come up if objectivity is part of the discussion, but it isn't like philosophers have worked these out in a universal way. Fields like science may adopt an approach where realism is worked out (enough) to then go about whatever that field wishes to rationalize and conclude as 'fact.' From philosophy perspective, I believe, this would be understood as 'relative to that field.' Not technically universally factual.

Like someone bringing up E=mc2 is readily identifiable, I think for most, as 'scientific fact' yet benefits greatly from basic understanding of what each of those symbols represent (and they represent fairly significant/broad understandings) and rely on assumptions that are essentially treated as indisputable, within science. Take them outside domain of science, place them squarely in domain of philosophy, and the discussion on E (alone) is matter of ongoing discussion/debate. IMO, it is similar to "2+2=4." Which I think is even more fundamentally accepted as 'objective fact' but understood, I think, as relevant to mathematics. To me, the assumptions within '2+2=4' are generally more accepted without much dispute, because it is understood that by a certain (young) age, you ought to have that assumption (or assumptions) nailed down. Assumptions like 2 (of anything) exists, assumption that things can be added to, and assumptions around equations (making things equal that appear different).

To me, all the assumptions are disputable. Thus not truly 'objective fact' but also not worth, IMO, spending a lot of time with because of how simplistic it is and how it can work in certain situations, IOW how pragmatic it is to assume it to be accurate/factual. Within this type of discussion, I think mathematical 'facts' benefit greatly from the idea of there is very little to no emotional investment in the assumptions. If someone writes up 2+2=5, there's not an immediate appeal to emotion to assert the wrongness. Whereas if someone writes, "raping a child is (equals) morally okay" then suddenly the emotional aspect is possibly all that's being dealt with for as long as there's a discussion to be had.

Moral anti-realism may create a conundrum that you are alluding to, but I also see it as a form of being modest with own beliefs about emotional charged beliefs. Moral realism has conundrum of trying to utilize those emotionally charged beliefs, resting on assumptions and arguing that they aren't inherently based on individual or collective assumptions. Assuming they are 'objective facts' because majority believes them to be true (for themselves). Kind of like the conundrum religion rests on. Or science for that matter.

 

[Acim]

Don't know what those sentences are supposed to mean.

You don't know what this thread means by relative morality?

 

[ArtieE]

You don't know what this thread means by relative morality?

No don't know what those two sentences were supposed to convey. Try stating your point clearly and concisely with different words.

 

[Acim]

The analogy between objective moral facts and objective mathematical and logical facts is that the facts are deduced from premises that are true by definition of the terms, not merely made up arbitrarily.

I don't observe you presenting premises for objective moral facts that are true by definition (of moral/morality).

I don't know what that means. Not much on this thread has actually been debated--as far as I know I am the only one who has stated an argument. You copied it and plugged in a different predicate term, but you haven't been able to show that the word "moral" as used in your P1 is found any dictionary.

Nor have you with your P1 assertion.

No sentence imposed for violating a law is carried out for anyone's personal pleasure.

I don't approve of hitting a child; it is an assault, but I feel certain that most parents who spank their own child do not do so out of personal pleasure. (But I think they generally do it out of anger.)

Which is why your assumed definition strikes me as a bizarre way to define morality. It hinges on the 'personal pleasure' part really. Otherwise, it is highly debatable as to being 'universally applicable.' Creating problems along lines of a) okay to harm people, b) okay to do so against their consent, but if c) taking pleasure in (a) then that (alone) is what makes for it being immoral.