Inherently wrong actions?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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

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

Sigh
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Go learn something.

We're done till you figure out what you are doing.

 

[Acim]

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

The idea of this thread, that I don't think anyone has ever really shown me inherently wrong actions. If there were such an animal as inherently wrong actions, I think a case could be made for objective moral facts.

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

I agree that this is possible. I'd like to see the case made for that though. Would be like saying (to an atheist) perhaps an objective religious god exists, but you just lack the faculty for perceiving that.

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

This is not accurate. It matches, perhaps, today's criminal code for every nation, but the world is perfectly fine allowing it to occur. World will function just as well if it happens or doesn't happen. World doesn't do anything to prevent it from happening. If you change immoral to illegal, I'd probably not have a debate.

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

I was a child that was raped, by a person that was never prosecuted. Do you think I'm the only one, ever?

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

Then (allegedly) immoral acts are not what the world is based on in how it operates. How reality operates. Reality doesn't appear to care about our made up arbitrary, ever evolving rules of conduct. While our criminal codes of justice do.

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.

Again, I am saying that my P1 proposition is as true as the one you provided. The argument is just as valid.

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.

They are not consistent. It is an assumption on your part. It could be a shared assumption by many, even a majority, but still an assumption that is not consistent with the definition.

There is nothing in the linked definition on immoral (or moral) that alludes to: harm, consent or pleasure in that. You are assuming that to be 'proper code of ethics.' I believe from all of us who in this thread fall on side of relative morality, we'd agree with this, but stipulate that with idea that we don't know if that is in fact universal, and do have reason to believe it may not be.

 

[Acim]

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

Perhaps easier with an inquiry. Do you believe you have put forth an objective understanding for morality?

I'm thinking the answer is no based on your earlier statement: "What is subjective is what people think is beneficial."

 

[ArtieE]

The idea of this thread, that I don't think anyone has ever really shown me inherently wrong actions. If there were such an animal as inherently wrong actions, I think a case could be made for objective moral facts.

1. The definition of "inherent" is "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
2. We have a survival instinct and it's in our basic nature to want to survive.
3. Obviously actions that enhance chances of survival are inherently right and actions diminishing chances of survival are inherently wrong.

 

[Nous]

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

Again, the middle term of my argument lists conditions ("human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure"--of which rape of a child is but one example) that are entirely consistent with the definition of "immoral" here:

1. 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

Nor have you with your P1 assertion.

False. See above.

 

[Nous]

Sigh
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

If you have understood what "valid" means, and if my argument is not valid, then you will have no problem showing my argument to be invalid. What are you waiting on?

 

[Nous]

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

The idea of this thread, that I don't think anyone has ever really shown me inherently wrong actions.

Then obviously "the idea of this thread" does not help you to substantiate your claim that "objective moral facts do not exist". Perhaps you should try a different idea.

I agree that this is possible. I'd like to see the case made for that though.

As with mathematics and logic, a person who tries to understand the topic, tries to grasp particular moral, mathematical or logical facts, but simply cannot might be lacking some fundamental faculty for it. Some people apparently really cannot understand infinite sets, so they should just get out of the mathematics business.

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.

This is not accurate.

Go right ahead and show us that the world believes that raping a 4-year-old child is a moral act. That is, show that I got the sign wrong on that moral fact.

I was a child that was raped, by a person that was never prosecuted.

Lots of crimes are not prosecuted--e.g., because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that some crimes are not prosecuted obviously does not imply that the world considers the criminal act to be a moral act. Try not to get too confused.

Then (allegedly) immoral acts are not what the world is based on in how it operates. How reality operates. Reality doesn't appear to care about our made up arbitrary, ever evolving rules of conduct.

I'll just repeat: No one has even vaguely suggested that the immorality of an act prevents the act from happening. You will never find such an assertion or belief in any scholarly literature in which the author explains or advocates for moral realism. Let me know when you grasp this fact.

Again, I am saying that my P1 proposition is as true as the one you provided.

False. You were not able to find a definition of "moral" that made your P1 a true statement.

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.

They are not consistent.

Prove it.

There is nothing in the linked definition on immoral (or moral) that alludes to: harm, consent or pleasure in that.

That's correct. Perhaps you need to look up the word "consistent".

How would we determine if an act "violat[es] moral principles; [does not conform[ ] to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics"? I've got an idea: Let's look at the world's criminal codes to see if that act is one of those criminalized. To criminalize an act and prescribe punishments for those committing those acts is how people express their disapproval of someone violating moral principles. Right?

 

[Sonofason]

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.

As I would expect.

 

[Sonofason]

Your strawman is quite stupid and reflects a serious lack of intelligence or questionable dishonesty and lies. I never said that raping an 8 year old girl would ever be ok. I essentially said that in the case of consequentialism, it might be the lesser of two evils to let one girl be raped than to let the entire human race die horribly.

Now you're just admitting though that this simply your personal belief. THe point of this was to demonstrate there is no inherently wrong actions because its just your belief. Its my belief as well that raping an 8 year old girl is wrong, but I don't claim to be a moral authority for everybody. In fact in my opinion, your morality is awful. You would let everyone die in some situation to protect your morals. I'm glad we don't have world leaders like you.

[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry that you do not trust your own conscience. Well, I know that rape is always wrong. It is wrong under all circumstances. And I will live or die holding to that truth. And I believe that it is tragic that we have world leaders like you.

 

[Sonofason]

Its just our opinion that harm is wrong and that causing harm is wrong. I agree with you in my opinion that causing hard is wrong, but were just stating our opinions. In some other cultures or societies or perhaps even different species, rape might have normalized like It was a standard in human civilization for ages. Furthermore, Its also just our opinion that we should respect the fact that a child has no ability to consent. All of these things you're postulating are just moral opinions. Only someone who had infinite knowledge and was perfectly good could dictate what is right and wrong. This is the only way something could be inherently wrong. You simply don't have the moral authority to dictate what is right and wrong as a fundamental constant of the universe.

I know this comment was not intended for me, but I'd like to say this...actually, I have the moral authority to declare to you what is right and what is wrong, because God has declared to all of us what is right and what is wrong, and thanks to God, now I know as well. And so I am telling you now, call it a dictation if you like, that anyone who intentionally harms an innocent person has done something that is inherently wrong. Since you do not know God, your opinion doesn't really matter.

 

[Sonofason]

A new hypothetical...thank God for those on this thread who have finally convinced me and hopefully many others that raping an 8 year old child is okay.

I can see we are entering a wonderful new age in this world. Yes, if it feels good, just do it.
God must be so proud of all of you.

 

[Sonofason]

You're the one nit-picking over the wording, not me. I'm just pointing out that the concept isn't universal because it assumes that everyone wants to be treated the same way. That's all I was saying. If you add any other conclusion to what I said, that's on you.

Well, I get it. It seems that you're right. It's not a perfect precept for all people. Try to remember who it was that Jesus was speaking to.

"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying..." The Golden Rule.

He was speaking to his disciples. I do not believe they were masochists.

 

[JoStories]

That was decided long ago by evolution and natural selection when we evolved instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. So what is beneficial is what enhances our chances of survival and successful reproduction because those are inherent in our nature.No because we don't want to be eaten.

What was or is beneficial is not necessarily based on survival. Is it beneficial to society to have banned SSM for all those long years? Why was it seen as detrimental? Because gays cant procreate? Well, neither can sterile couples or those who choose not to have children and what of them? Do you begin to see the what society deems as beneficial can be as willy-nilly as what they have for lunch each day.

 

[JoStories]

But it's not obvious. You're just having the cops do what you needed to do, if they get there in time to do any good in the first place.



Well, now we're getting somewhere. Someone being violent to an innocent is what presses the moral among us to take action. And if the perp is bigger than you, it pays to have a great equalizer handy no matter how energized you are by your anger.



If someone had complained when she was still at home, he would have been punished.

I should have guessed..another gun totting hunter type. No and no. I have never had guns in my home and I never will. And lastly, I cannot tell you how many elders I tried to help in situations just like the one I described and NO ONE would help. The police turned a blind eye but given their recent tendencies to simply shoot black americans, is it any wonder they simply don't give a merde?

 

[JoStories]

A new hypothetical...thank God for those on this thread who have finally convinced me and hopefully many others that raping an 8 year old child is okay.

I can see we are entering a wonderful new age in this world. Yes, if it feels good, just do it.
God must be so proud of all of you.

Excuse me but I have been one of the most vocal in saying no to that. Broad brush you are painting us all here with, no?

 

[JoStories]

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?

You are trying to mix two schools to thought into one and it is simply impossible to do so. Philosophy has changed over years and years yet math doesn't. How can you meld the two into one? In some Islamic and African countries, it is perfectly acceptable to rape a child. For them, rape is seen as normal, as much as that makes me want to hurl. For us, it is wrong and therein lies the difference. Subjective simply means that it is not based on fact, it is based on emotion and thought and fears and so on. If you want a dictionary definition, I am sure google has one available.

 

[ArtieE]

What was or is beneficial is not necessarily based on survival. Is it beneficial to society to have banned SSM for all those long years?

What's SSM?

Do you begin to see the what society deems as beneficial can be as willy-nilly as what they have for lunch each day.

You still don't understand that people may have different opinions about what is beneficial but that what is beneficial is always the moral thing to do?

 

[JoStories]

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?

No, as I just said, there are countries where rape of a child is considered normal. Here, in this country, we have deemed that it caused too much damage to the child, which is true. That is, however, subjectively based, insofar as we decided, based on the emotional, physical and psychological damage to the child that it is wrong. However, understand this. Not every child is damaged in the same way. I was raped as a child. For me, it was a lesson to prepare me for the rape of my own child, all of which is subjective.

 

[ArtieE]

Here, in this country, we have deemed that it caused too much damage to the child, which is true. That is, however, subjectively based, insofar as we decided, based on the emotional, physical and psychological damage to the child that it is wrong.

It is wrong because it is detrimental to the children themselves, society and it's continued existence if we damage our children.

 

[serp777]

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?

I don't believe that a moral proposition is "true." I believe that the morals i follow are consistent with my feelings regarding empathy and what society has instilled within me. What you're doing is begging the question here, which is a fallacy. You're stating the conclusion of your argument as a premise--that moral propositions can be either true or false. You're assuming that morals are objective by saying that a moral proposition can be true or false and as such you have not demonstrated how you've arrived at the conclusion that moral propositions can be true or false. In an objective morality moral propositions would be true or false because things would be moral or immoral regardless of opinion, circumstance, or any other factors. If there was no objective morality, then at most you could say that a moral proposition is consistent with moral opinions. True or false wouldn't make sense if there was no objective morality.

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?

More specifically I say that raping is immoral and despicable since rape victims are traumatized and thus my feelings dictate to me that its wrong because of what society has distilled into me and empathy. But i don't consider that my feelings are infalliable. In order to say something was objectively moral, it needs to be shown that its factually true as essentially a fundamental constant of the universe . Things cannot be made objective by humans because of moral relativism. For example, throughout much of human history in many societies and cultures, rape was a norm and was not considered an immoral act. At that time it wasn't considered immoral. So there's no objective way to distinguish which relative morality is more moral because all morality rests on certain moral assumptions that haven't been proven to be objective at all. For example, its assumed that causing harm is immoral. But that's just an assumption and there's no logical proof for why that should be true. So I suppose I could make a general rule based on some assumptions, but that wouldn't make it objective at all.