Inherently wrong actions?

[Acim]

So what? Evolution and natural selection evolved organisms with instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate so survival and procreation were right for organisms long before humans and human thinking even appeared on the scene.

Don't forget the killer instinct.

 

[ArtieE]

And if we don't (or even if we do), what's the rationality that justifies doing anything in relation to 'wrong actions' without that itself becoming, plausibly, inherently wrong? Which is where punishment I feel enters the picture. If killing is inherently wrong, and we kill the killers, it's so bizarre that we'd justify that as inherently right(eous). But that's just the obvious, extreme example. All/any actions in relation to a wrongdoing are questionable, at the very least. But I observe they become less questionable / more righteous under relative wrongness. Wrong to murder? Sure. But not when we do it to killers.

The moral thing to do in every situation is what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to society and the people in it. Is capital punishment beneficial or detrimental to the societies where it's used?

 

[ArtieE]

Don't forget the killer instinct.

Here are some lists of instincts... where is the "killer instinct"?

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/205/instinct.list.html
http://listverse.com/2012/01/28/top-10-human-reflexes-and-natural-instincts/
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Angell/Angell_1906/Angell_1906_p.html

Please link to a list where it appears.

 

[Acim]

Here are some lists of instincts... where is the "killer instinct"?
Please link to a list where it appears.

Previously linked.

Still available on google search.

 

[Acim]

The moral thing to do in every situation is what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to society and the people in it. Is capital punishment beneficial or detrimental to the societies where it's used?

That's just it, it comes down to opinion/bias.

There is no objectively beneficial or objectively detrimental.

So, we can rephrase OP with "Are there any actions that you think are inherently detrimental?"

In case it's not clear, my answer would be - no there are not. But there are (apparently) relatively detrimental actions.

 

[ArtieE]

There is no objectively beneficial or objectively detrimental.

Yes there is. A moral/good person always tries to figure out what the objectively beneficial thing to do is and do it.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think punishment is insane because of my understanding of the Golden Rule being causal, such that punisher is really punishing themselves. Or think of it karmically.
I also think after having a taste of (God's) Grace, and having zero desire to punish, that the mindset that justifies punishment as warranted is literally unaware, namely of own Self, but for sure others.
Theologically, I understand punishment as attempt to reinforce fundamental error. Or in way you might understand it, calls for punishment are (universal) appeals to protecting a desire to serve Satan.

Fair enough.

Perceived problems in relationships means someone has done something wrong in relation to another, perhaps rising to level of fear (likely) or worthy of having a grudge held against them (at least). Something that upsets the balance of harmony between two (or more).

Remembrance of Love being way to truly overcome such problems, or reminder to forgive and restore mind to default state where Love is no longer kept at bay as ineffective and unworthy of correction / healing. IOW, recognizing God's Redeemer (aka Holy Spirit) would have me look, honestly and earnestly, upon a brother as myself. Undoing allegiance to such problems and reasserting the natural state of each relationship as inherently Holy.

So how should we as individuals/a community/a society respond to someone who has done something that we consider (relatively) bad/wrong, e.g. gone on a shooting rampage?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes.

But am still hypocritical enough to engage in some tactics by which my grudges toward others may amount to a desire I hold for them to be punished.

That (thinking by me) and all forms of punishment I'm familiar with, strike me as inherently insane.

I thank God there is another way to overcome perceived problems in relationships without resorting to such insanity.

Indeed, it's a stretch to think that we can know a perfectly righteous stand with regard to the knowing whether or not someone deserves some form of punishment, or that we might deserve some form of retribution for those certain acts that others might do that make us feel as though justice ought be done. But that doesn't mean that we have to or that we are obligated to give people what we might think they deserve. That would be forgiveness. A very Christian view if I might say so.

 

[Acim]

Yes there is. A moral/good person always tries to figure out what the objectively beneficial thing to do is and do it.

That would be the case for everyone. Always trying to figure out the beneficial thing to do, and do it.

Thus relative to everyone's (individual) model of the world, and what it means, to them, to be beneficial or detrimental.

When you get around to it being objectively known and is such that all of us in this thread can see that, let me know. Until then I see it as subject to being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. That could, likely is, influenced by personal opinions / feelings regarding notions like instincts, or society, or right/wrong.

For some (I would say all that walk the planet), killing is beneficial to survival. What is killed, how that occurs, what are the associated feelings with that killing, can it be (legally) justified - are all matters of debate. But, the idea that killing something in order for me/us to survive is I find not very debatable. Thus, killing is not an inherently wrong action, while relative to an individual's morality, or sub-group's, it might be profoundly wrong to kill certain things (in certain situations, at certain times). So, even for those same people, the situation would matter, such that killing is relatively wrong (or right) not based just on what is killed, but when or how.

 

[Acim]

So how should we as individuals/a community/a society respond to someone who has done something that we consider (relatively) bad/wrong, e.g. gone on a shooting rampage?

I'm not big on the "should" word. If asking me how I think people should respond to perceived wrongdoing, I would go with whatever way makes most sense to them. Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears. Might delay certain theological outcomes (in appearance only) for awhile, but won't lead to downfall of (God's) Reality regardless of the action/response.

If asking me how I think it best to respond to perceived wrongdoing, i.e. person going on a shooting rampage, I would say with forgiveness. I routinely see forgiveness framed as for the person perceived as engaging in wrongdoing, to somehow justify that as 'okay' and that this is best (somehow, magically). There's a whole lot to be said for just how erroneous that is for forgiveness to be framed that way. In essence, it is not doing anything in relation to the perceived wrong, and is variation of the original error (which could be perhaps better explained via wall of text). The perceived wrongdoing is judgment. And if looking really really closely, honestly directly - it is really a judgment of own self. But the temptation, and logic at work, is to not at all make it about own self. Yet one must honestly ask, who is it that is perceiving it as wrong?

Therefore forgiveness is foremost for own self. In essence to change perception. In short term, it could be to change perception of that situation. In actuality, it is to change perception of own self. I see that as restoring self understanding (or judgment) to a default state, where there is no conviction in (inherently) right or wrong actions. Yet, I don't see it ending there, and forgiveness is really offering a new beginning. A passing away of old beliefs. Due to my theological understandings, I see forgiveness as naturally leading to experience of (God's) Love and Grace. How things work from there is perhaps another wall of text, or world of history with purified perception.

I do understand forgivness as the only sane defense in a world that perceives separation from God and other selves to be 'reality.'

 

[ArtieE]

For some (I would say all that walk the planet), killing is beneficial to survival. What is killed, how that occurs, what are the associated feelings with that killing, can it be (legally) justified - are all matters of debate.

Of course. Seen from an objective point of view did the killing prevent greater harm to innocents than not killing and you had no other option but to kill? If so it's objectively justified.

 

[Acim]

Of course. Seen from an objective point of view did the killing prevent greater harm to innocents than not killing and you had no other option but to kill?

Who holds the objective point of view?

Would be nice to see such a being's understanding of a) killing, b) innocents, c) options/other options and d) objectivity.

If so it's objectively justified.

Since my response begs the question of your assumption, I cannot readily agree. But if willing to say something like Creator God holds the objective view, and let's call it a day, then we're cool.

 

[ArtieE]

Who holds the objective point of view?

Aren't you capable of seeing things from an objective point of view?

 

[Acim]

Aren't you capable of seeing things from an objective point of view?

When I connect with Divine Self, yes.
When I'm reacting to emotionally hyped up 'needs,' it strikes me as being influenced by personal feelings and opinions, so not (very) objective. Example of 'emotionally hyped up need' would be 'need for survival' when Divine Self understands that's never in doubt.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears.

Please expand (wall of text is just fine!).

 

[Acim]

Please expand (wall of text is just fine!).

I would in another thread, but not this one. Feel free to start such a thread and invite me in.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I would in another thread, but not this one. Feel free to start such a thread and invite me in.

Happy if I start a thread in the one-on-one debate section (really just to keep the conversation a bit simpler than it might be if others start coming in)?

 

[Nous]

The word "objective" and morality only comes up in your posts: #148, #149, #158, #282, #291, #322, #327, #329, #334, and about a half dozen others.

I obviously haven't denied using the word "objective". I have used it many, many times in the phrase "objective moral facts". I haven't used the term "objective morality," and I don't know what anyone means by that term.

As noted before, this was previously addressed. You first brought it up in post #236, and it was addressed:

by me in post #241, in a very direct rebuttal.

In #241 you quoted part of a paragraph from the IEP article, which begins and ends with a number of conditionals ("If . . ., then . . ."), which obviously do not demonstrate that any premise of the realist argument to be erroneous.

You also haven't shown either premise of my deduction to be false. That argument deduces that a particular act (rape of a 4-year-old child) is an immoral act.

In contrast, you haven't shown that any of your assertions about moral facts (or any other assertions) can be deduced from any true propositions. That's the crucial difference between moral realism and moral anti-realism--or one of the crucial differences. The other big difference exhibited on this thread is most everyone here who as asserted any form of moral anti-realism has gotten tangled up in the logical inconsistency of saying "[X] is not objectively immoral [thus making an assertion about an objective moral fact], but I believe it is."

 

[Acim]

I obviously haven't denied using the word "objective". I have used it many, many times in the phrase "objective moral facts". I haven't used the term "objective morality," and I don't know what anyone means by that term.

You don't know what "objective morality" means, but do know what:
"objective moral facts" are
"objectively wrong" is
"objectively immoral" is
??

Is post #329, you quoted the words "objective morality" used in a question and said, "I think I understand your question."

In #241 you quoted part of a paragraph from the IEP article, which begins and ends with a number of conditionals ("If . . ., then . . ."), which obviously do not demonstrate that any premise of the realist argument to be erroneous.

But it does. It provides rationale against the premise: Moral sentences are sometimes true. It does this by noting how "objectivity" works with regards to morality, by asserting:

"Objectivity is to be found within the world. If moral judgments are not about accurately describing the world —for example, if moral judgments are about us —then moral objectivity will not be found within the world. If moral objectivity is to be found within us, then it is not the same objectivity with which we began, or, so had been the old antirealist’s way."

You also haven't shown either premise of my deduction to be false. That argument deduces that a particular act (rape of a 4-year-old child) is an immoral act.

Going with the above, this assertion: rape of a 4-year old child is an an immoral act, is not found / observable in our world. It's found within us, by first observing mental constructs around rape/consent and then escalating those constructs to mean immoral/moral actions.

Here, from the article, would be another way of refuting the moral assertion: rape of a child is an objectively immoral act

Language allows us to communicate with one another, typically using sentences and utterances. A large part of language involves, among many other things, influencing others and us. Normative language, in contrast with descriptive language, includes moral language (that is, moral language is part of evaluative or normative language). It is even more important not to be swayed by moral language because moral reality grips us. It is bad that others try to deceive us, but it is worse that we deceive ourselves into accepting moral facts simply because of the language that we use. That is, moral language — if it is not to describe the world —must not be mistaken as descriptive. Moral language binds us in a certain manner, and the manner in which it binds us is important.

This saying, among many things, "moral language must not be mistaken as descriptive."

Me, being what you might call a nondescriptivist, would concur with the following as it relates to your prescription of immorality regarding 4-year olds:

Rather, the non-descriptivist believes that moral judgments are expressed by commands or prescriptions. Neither commands nor prescriptions are truth-apt, and as a result they typically are not meant to describe the world. Moral language does not describe the world, according to the non-descriptivist. That is, it represents our wishes, preferences, emotions, and so on, but it represents nothing over and above them.

And this:

Non-descriptivists agree, nonetheless, that moral language is the tool of choice when we are panting for help, recommending a course of actions, passing judgments on what others do, and so on, but it is never the tool for describing the world.

And let's throw this in for good measure:

Error theorists maintain that moral judgments systematically err by positing moral facts. (For instance, Mackie says that “[t]he assertion that there are objective values or intrinsically prescriptive entities or features of some kind, which ordinary moral judgments presuppose is, I hold it not meaningless but false” 1977, 40.) That is, moral language aims to get the world right, but it always misses the mark.

So when you say:

In contrast, you haven't shown that any of your assertions about moral facts (or any other assertions) can be deduced from any true propositions. That's the crucial difference between moral realism and moral anti-realism--or one of the crucial differences. The other big difference exhibited on this thread is most everyone here who as asserted any form of moral anti-realism has gotten tangled up in the logical inconsistency of saying "[X] is not objectively immoral [thus making an assertion about an objective moral fact], but I believe it is."

You are referencing that people are stating their understandings of morality are subjective, not objective. They are admitting to the idea that their moral prescriptions may not accurately describe the world in an objective way (that all would clearly agree upon, because of the descriptive language of the moral assertion). They are instead saying it works for them, because it is how they feel (emphasis on feel) their world ought to be described. Essentially overlaying an idealism upon what exists in judgments, or projections, of us observers.

It really is expressions that don't readily explain an individual's worldview, nor do I think it is expected to. When another comes along and shares in that, it shows how morality (judgment of right and wrong) is relative to not just individual subjective assertions, but to groups of people, or at least 2+ people.

Therefore, based on the existence of relative morality, we all appear to agree that "rape of a child is immoral." But taking that to the arena of 'objective fact,' and I observe no one, including you, has shown why the judgment is an accurate description of the way things work in our world. Just a prescription, or command, that is best followed for emotional reasons and to avoid getting in legal trouble with local law enforcement.

 

[ArtieE]

Evolution and natural selection evolved us with brains wired in such a way that we don't want to get raped. Which is why we say rape is immoral and have laws against it. And unless one claims that it was our subjective judgment that made evolution and natural selection produce organisms that don't want to get raped rape is objectively wrong.