Inherently wrong actions?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think you have the words 'absolute' and 'arbitrary' mixed up. I get it, they both start with A.

Thanks for stopping by with the ad hom though. Real classy. ...and sort of ironic all things considered.

 

[Acim]

Defined by external objects - in this case, various forms of environment - social, ecological, financial, etc.

Even moral ability is not so much subjective as it is bound by personal parameters.

Thanks for providing your definition.

Haven't read far enough ahead yet to see if anyone challenged this. So, I may come back to this, depending soley on external factors.

 

[Acim]

If the Golden Rule were a causal law, then why does it fail to cause so many people to do unto others as they would have others do unto themselves?

I don't observe it doing this (failing). From what I think you are trying to get across, I do see it being questionable that it is causal, but us lacking degrees of awareness of its effects. The less that it is understood as questionable, the more I see it being observed, experienced as causal. I'd elaborate to try and help make it clear, but would like for you to provide example of how you identify it as failing.

I know of no reason to have to "appeal to a god" in order to deduce that there exist objective moral facts.

I know of no way around this. Perhaps the understanding of 'god' is your debate? I'll rephrase what I said: Without an appeal to an absolute force/entity permeating all of existence, I'm unclear on what makes for absolute / inherent wrongness for any rational thinker?

 

[Acim]

It isn't murder if you kill in self-defense. And if someone says they're going to kill you, that's self-defense as well. Whenever anyone threatens to violate your rights, they forfeit their rights. If they threaten to murder you, you're justified morally to kill them in self-defense. Unfortunately the law doesn't always look at it that way. It will say you should have gotten an injunction, but won't lock him up.

I feel like this is stating what I said, in other wording. When I said: "A claim of self defense does (in some instances) justify killing another person."

The rest of what I was saying, as way to get around the notion that 'murder is always wrong' can be justified by logic that asserts it is 'morally justifiable to kill in self defense.' I'm not saying it'll be easy to get around it, but that it is possible. And noted example of: "Law enforcement can/does justify killings on self defense. Sometimes, we have learned, they made up circumstances of it being self defense."

In the cases where it is 'made up circumstances of it being self defense' and they were not caught making that up, then it would be seen by everyone (alive on this planet) that agrees with such logic, as a morally justifiable killing. Thus, from our perspective (us being people alive on the planet) we have found a way to justify what was technically a murder. The only possible person that would know otherwise would be the killer. Given the stakes we have around murder (you can lose your life), it would best to not be forthcoming and is better to just not get caught. All this assumes they know for sure it was not morally justifiable. Perhaps for them, it is questionable and they don't trust the (earthly legal) system to see it their way, so instead of it being a matter to be determined by 'jury of your peers' then just maintain that the threat to their safety was viable, and hope all evidence available doesn't show otherwise.

 

[Acim]

The point was really that only God can determine objective morals since he would be the only one capable of having infinite knowledge and being perfectly good. I wasn't saying God necessarily would make objective morals, i was just saying that only an authority on God's level could really determine objective morals.

This would be my thought.

I actually do think God is necessarily what would make morals objective. I see beings who's existence is viewed as restricted to their individual body as implicitly incapable of discerning external existence via that perspective. Would take a being that exists and is not restricted to that type of existence to a) overcome that perspective and b) have logical ability (I'd say Knowledge) to discern Cause and Effect as it actually works, not how it appears to work (from a self limiting perspective). Presuming that such a being would be restricted themselves to 'own perspective' is I think the logical error that is made. Even by theist types. Essentially, I see such a being as having all perspectives, and that the all includes Knowledge that is not limited to singular, rather isolated, physical existence.

(Supreme) Knowledge on Cause and Effect would equal God's Authority as I understand things.

Also wish to make clear that viewing God (or even objectivity) as something that is separate from own self, would automatically set up belief that God is a outside own being. Perhaps holding to views that this being is over yonder, somewhere else, but namely not here, not now. I see this as fundamental error (in logic) being made. But perhaps that is better understood via dialogue that challenges what I'm putting forth. Though I honestly see it as self evident rather than something I could 'prove.' Though the logical aspect of it strikes me as a rational argument can be had that 'shows' this.

 

[Nous]

If the Golden Rule were a causal law, then why does it fail to cause so many people to do unto others as they would have others do unto themselves?

I don't observe it doing this (failing).

Wow! So you observe that everyone treats others exactly as they would want to be treated?

Actually, I don't think Hitler would have wanted to be sent to a concentration camp such as he sent hundreds of thousands of people to. I don't think slaveholders in the antebellum South would have wanted to be slaves and be treated as they treated their own slaves. Etc., etc.

I know of no reason to have to "appeal to a god" in order to deduce that there exist objective moral facts.

I know of no way around this. Perhaps the understanding of 'god' is your debate? I'll rephrase what I said: Without an appeal to an absolute force/entity permeating all of existence, I'm unclear on what makes for absolute / inherent wrongness for any rational thinker?

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

 

[Acim]

So you're asserting, that because we're imperfect, there's no way to deduce a simple but objective moral code? But since you're human and imperfect, on what basis can you claim such an assertion is infallible?

Your agenda is to assert the primacy of society over the individual. How do you justify that? The basic unit, the raw material of society is the individual, so when you violate individuals, you violate society as well. The whole system is made corrupt. If you don't grow your trees properly, the resulting knotty wood used to build houses is faulty, making the frame weak.

If on the other hand you assume, for the sake of a thought experiment to see if it works, that the individual is prime, then study will show that 97% (+/-) of individuals desire an environment with predictable, rational good order in which to run their lives. The other 3% are knotty wood anarchists, nihilists and despots (known collectively as moral relativists [socialists] living irrationally under a self-defined subjective moral/legal double standard), who can either be exiled, imprisoned or made to correct their knotty flaws.

??????????

I like how it's presumed that the 97% have morality, order and rationality all worked out.

One would think those knotty moral relativists, around 240 years decided to forego the predictable, rational good order the British provided American colonists. But I would guess this is the part where we get to say, "no, it was the British that were the disorderly bunch, while the colonists were the orderly, inherently moral people."

The other problem is the straw man that relativists use to denigrate objective morality by overloading the system with irrelevant behavior (e.g. masturbation, not going to church on Sunday) and calling that immorality--when those actions are nothing more than individually determined virtues. Politicians and priests have been using that straw man to confuse and manipulate their constituencies for as long as we've had self-awareness.

How would self defense not be an individually determined virtue?

Thus morality is: Honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL individuals to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. That's it. All else is individually determined virtue.
And the root of ALL evil is a moral/legal double standard.

Same question as above.

Self defense provides for moral/legal double standard, without end, or for as long as such a maxim is determined as infallible.

The above is a perfect code. Imperfection comes in when we have people, as we must, implement it, and be subject to it. We must learn that there are always those who rationalize themselves to be worthy of a double standard, and deal with them.

I honestly do think that self defense (of the violent kind) is the root of the double standard at work with regards to morality. Actual forgiveness (not the pretend kind) would be another form of self defense that doesn't rest on self justified need to perpetuate violence as way to try and overcome the (mistaken) cause at work. IOW, logic of "because they caused me to feel threatened, violence is justified toward them."

Or the inverse of the Golden Rule, trying to pretend like violence against them is solely because of their doing.

 

[Nous]

So far nobody has been able to point to the absolute standard that would quantify 'inherent wrongness'

The Golden Rule is a good objective moral standard, is it not? And violation of the Golden Rule would be a good example of objectively immoral behavior, would it not?

 

[Nous]

I don't believe any action is objectively right or wrong and that it's us who apply those judgements for ourselves. I would consider somebody who raped a child to be evil.

If you believe there are no objectively wrong or immoral acts, then why do you believe that someone who raped a child is evil? According to you, the child rapist has not done anything objectively wrong.

 

[Nous]

I agree that raping an 8 year old child is immoral and despicable in my opinion.

Why do you hold that opinion if a child rapist is not doing anything objectively wrong or immoral by raping a child?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The Golden Rule is a good objective moral standard, is it not? And violation of the Golden Rule would be a good example of objective immoral behavior, would it not?

Whether or not something is internally coherent(in this case any given 'moral' set) is neither here nor there with regards to objectivity. We are talking about 'inherent' wrongs(or the converse) which would require some 'built into the universe' morality that is the same for everyone.

All evidence seems to point to moral structures (each and every one) being human inventions, with the fact that they are each wired to, and wouldn't exist without a given culture, and that different cultures produce wildly different and often mutually exclusive moral sets, boding poorly for the idea these moral sets are anything more than arbitrary"do's" and "don'ts".

 

[Acim]

Wow! So you observe that everyone treats others exactly as they would want to be treated?

I wouldn't use the word "want" in how the Rule works.

I see the Rule as: Do unto others as you would have done unto your Self.

Actually, I don't think Hitler would have wanted to be sent to a concentration camp such as he sent hundreds of thousands of people to. I don't think slaveholders in the antebellum South would have wanted to be slaves and be treated as they treated their own slaves. Etc., etc.

I don't see the Rule as concerned with form of intent. Though I understand that is how the Rule appears questionable. I see that as (obviously) mistaking effect for Cause.

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

Objective mathematical facts rest on Knowledge which is the absolute force/entity permeating all mathematical existence. If this Knowledge did not permeate all of mathematical existence, facts and objectivity would, I imagine, cease to exist. With mathematics, I don't see how any of it is assumed to exist external to human thinking. But I, as human, like to imagine it can/does.

 

[Nous]

The Golden Rule is a good objective moral standard, is it not? And violation of the Golden Rule would be a good example of objectively immoral behavior, would it not?

Whether or not something is internally coherent(in this case any given 'moral' set) is neither here nor there with regards to objectivity. We are talking about 'inherent' wrongs(or the converse) which would require some 'built into the universe' morality that is the same for everyone.

All evidence seems to point to moral structures (each and every one) being human inventions, with the fact that they are each wired to, and wouldn't exist without a given culture, and that different cultures produce wildly different and often mutually exclusive moral sets, boding poorly for the idea these moral sets are anything more than arbitrary"do's" and "don'ts".

Explain why it isn't objectively right to treat others as you wish them to treat you. Obviously that isn't a rule that only applies to or is expressed by a particular society.

 

[Nous]

I wouldn't use the word "want" in how the Rule works.

I see the Rule as: Do unto others as you would have done unto your Self.



I don't see the Rule as concerned with form of intent. Though I understand that is how the Rule appears questionable. I see that as (obviously) mistaking effect for Cause.

I have no idea what you are saying here, or what point you are trying to make. The Golden Rule commands a person to treat others as s/he would have or would want others to treat him/herself. There is obviously no distinction between how one "would have" someone else to oneself, and how one "wants" someone else to treat oneself. Those two phrasings mean the same.

Objective mathematical facts rest on Knowledge which is the absolute force/entity permeating all mathematical existence. If this Knowledge did not permeate all of mathematical existence, facts and objectivity would, I imagine, cease to exist. With mathematics, I don't see how any of it is assumed to exist external to human thinking. But I, as human, like to imagine it can/does.

I don't know whether you disagreed with me here or not. Again, I know of no reason that the existence of objective moral facts requires "an absolute force/entity permeating all of existence" any more than the existence of objective mathematical facts requires such a thing.

 

[Erebus]

If you believe there are no objectively wrong or immoral acts, then why do you believe that someone who raped a child is evil? According to you, the child rapist has not done anything objectively wrong.

I can call them evil, because to me they have committed an evil act. Believing that morality is subjective doesn't automatically make me completely amoral, nor does it prevent me from having opinions on what is or isn't moral. It does however mean that I don't view my own sense of right and wrong as universally applicable or objectively correct.

Another person might be apathetic to rape. Another might be amused by it. Another might be aroused.

Pick whatever horrible act you like and I can guarantee there's somebody out there who rather enjoys the idea.

 

[columbus]

Explain why it isn't objectively right to treat others as you wish them to treat you. Obviously that isn't a rule that only applies to or is expressed by a particular society.

Because you can't always empathize with, or even understand them. Sometimes the Golden Rule isn't an appropriate guide at all.

It is a bit of a rule of thumb. When in doubt about a choice, ask yourself, "If I were them, would I be OK with this?" If not, maybe it is not a good choice. But it is nothing like an objective moral code.
Tom

 

[Acim]

I have no idea what you are saying here, or what point you are trying to make. The Golden Rule commands a person to treat others as s/he would have or would want others to treat him/herself. There is obviously no distinction between how one "would have" someone else to oneself, and how one "wants" someone else to treat oneself. Those two phrasings mean the same.

I disagree. Wanting yourself to be treated a certain way is just that wanting. It really compels no effect to occur. Would have is what is actually occurring. I see the Rule as closer to: what you do to others you are in actuality doing to your Self. The other way of thinking of the Rule is akin to: if you think about how you'd like to be treated, perhaps you could treat others in similar fashion. Maybe.

You probably can't, but maybe you could try.

I don't know whether you disagreed with me here or not. Again, I know of no reason that the existence of objective moral facts requires "an absolute force/entity permeating all of existence" any more than the existence of objective mathematical facts requires such a thing.

Your use of "objective" and "facts" is literally the requirement you are seeking, but seemingly ignoring the obvious 'absolute force' at work. There is nothing external to human thinking that makes mathematics objective or factual. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.

 

[Nous]

If you believe there are no objectively wrong or immoral acts, then why do you believe that someone who raped a child is evil? According to you, the child rapist has not done anything objectively wrong.

I can call them evil, because to me they have committed an evil act.

Evil
adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.

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

If you don't believe that raping a child is an objectively wrong or immoral (evil) act, then why do you believe that it is a wrong or immoral (evil) act?

Is someone who says, "Now, I know the sun is not objectively green, but I just believe it is green," expressing a coherent opinion? It seems that you're saying something akin to "The sun is not objectively green, but I believe it is green."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

??????????

I like how it's presumed that the 97% have morality, order and rationality all worked out.

No no no no no, read wtf I wrote, they just want good order. That's not to say some or even many aren't going to game the system if they think they can get away with it.

One would think those knotty moral relativists, around 240 years decided to forego the predictable, rational good order the British provided American colonists. But I would guess this is the part where we get to say, "no, it was the British that were the disorderly bunch, while the colonists were the orderly, inherently moral people."

The British had the power and abused it and you knew that before you typed the first letter of that irrational screed. Now if you're determined to delude your own self, there's little I can do or say.

How would self defense not be an individually determined virtue?

Same question as above. Self defense provides for moral/legal double standard, without end, or for as long as such a maxim is determined as infallible.

Self-defense is defending oneself from violation of the other three rights, either by threat or in progress. Self-defense can also be exercised by proxy via the military or police, or by bystanders; but again, only in order to protect life, liberty and property. Where's the moral/legal double standard if it is so limited?

I honestly do think that self defense (of the violent kind) is the root of the double standard at work with regards to morality.

Huh? You've got it backwards. If you kill someone who's trying to murder you, there's no double standard except the perpetrator's, who valued his desires above your life. Someone who tries to violate the rights of another, forfeits his own.

Actual forgiveness (not the pretend kind) would be another form of self defense that doesn't rest on self justified need to perpetuate violence as way to try and overcome the (mistaken) cause at work. IOW, logic of "because they caused me to feel threatened, violence is justified toward them."

Someone is coming at you with a knife and just before he cuts your throat you say I forgive you, really? The first step for forgiveness is that they ask for it, and the second is repentance. Except for a few wacko pacifists, nobody believes that turn-the-other-cheek crap. MLK's civil disobedience worked because he knew there was a moral element in our society. Try that with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, ISIS et al, and you'll just have a bunch of dead bodies, or slaves.

Or the inverse of the Golden Rule, trying to pretend like violence against them is solely because of their doing.

Inciting others to violate your rights, isn't a violation. Name calling, being offensive or behaving in a sexually provocative manner are not immoral acts, but they are fair game for social pressure.

 

[Nous]

Explain why it isn't objectively right to treat others as you wish them to treat you. Obviously that isn't a rule that only applies to or is expressed by a particular society.

Because you can't always empathize with, or even understand them.

One doesn't have to empathize with or understand a person in order for it to be objectively moral and right to treat that person as one wishes to be treated.

Sometimes the Golden Rule isn't an appropriate guide at all.

When have you not wanted for someone to treat you as s/he would want to be treated?