Morals

[syo]

morals.

Misused. And became vomit.

 

[Nakosis]

Misused. And became vomit.

Ok, how should they be used?

 

[syo]

Ok, how should they be used?

In this society??? I don't know.

 

[Nakosis]

What's obvious is that you cannot justify the examples I gave so you ignore them. The moral system you are describing is shallow and doesn't address the few individuals who can do a lot of damage.

Have you justified your morals?
Do you think morals ought to be justified?

Yes, you are condoning murder, rape, kidnapping and anything else imaginable as good so that morality can be made simple.

Repeating a statement over and over will not make it true.
I can only assume you keep repeating this as you have no way to justify you argument except by poisoning the well.
Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

In this case, simple is stupid.

Justifying one's morals is stupid?

I asked for details, justification, necessity. Your answer is, "they did it", and "others did it to". So good and bad for you is a popularity contest. A crowd of rapists are good? Nonsense.

How do you think group morality comes about?

What would have been the "bad" results of skipping on the rape? How did rape help win the war? If you're raping someone, you have total control over them. They were already conquered. The rape did what precisely to help win the war?

Terrorize and demoralize the enemy. A tactic often used historically to win wars.
rape - Rape as a weapon of war

BTW, you are condoning rape.

Still poisoning the well.

They make moral decisions which are not good.

Not for your goals or my goals but good for their goals.

I notice you have back-peddled away from calling their actions "good". This was the flaw in the argument in the OP. Now, if only you would admit the flaw, then we could move on.

Not good from my perspective and obviously not your perspective but still good from their perspective.

And now you're talking about a justice system. Remember how I mentioned that earlier as necessary in society? Your simple method of determining "good" and "bad" actions needs a justice system as you are admitting here.

Group justice based on group goals alters nothing stated in the OP. Same process scales to the larger group. The only difference is the scale of enforcement made possible by the larger group.

Mob-rule. Might = right. The ends justify the means. None of these define "good" actions. They are rationalizations for "bad" actions. That's what you're doing. Justifying harming people.

So if I say the sky exists, do you thinks that means I am justifying the sky's existence? Or am I simply pointing out something obvious?

 

[Nakosis]

In this society??? I don't know.

Ok, well if you think of something, I'd be interested.

 

[dybmh]

Have you justified your morals?

Not murdering, not raping, not kidnapping are absolutey justified. Why? In each of these crimes, the criminal uses their physical advantage to over power someone weaker. The success of a murder, rape, or kidnapping implies that the stronger one has more value and their goals should be deemed "good"? No. Physical strength does not accurately define the value of a person. This can be seen from a purely material aspect. Examples in history are overwhelming. Individuals who have greatly impacted the world do so with ideas, with their brains.

Ideas can come at almost any age, in almost any physical condition. These ideas can even come from criminals, which introduces an argument against the death penalty. Conversely, when someone is very ill and very old and unable to communicate or care for themself in any way, this introduces an argument for euthenasia.

So yes, my morals are justified.

Do you think morals ought to be justified?

Actions which harm need to be justified. Morals? A person can believe it's good to murder until they do it. This is because they may change their mind at any time. Thoughts are not crimes.

Repeating a statement over and over will not make it true.
I can only assume you keep repeating this as you have no way to justify you argument except by poisoning the well.

And your repeated denial is equally worthless. I have quoted you. Several other posters noticed the same thing.

Condone - accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

You have accepted rape in WWII as an acceptable weapon of war because at one point the group did it and others use terrorism to further their goals. All you need to do is admit that you do not accept rape as "good".

The simple truth is you cannot, in any way, describe rape in WWII as good. That defeats the premise that good actions are defined by goals.

How do you think group morality comes about?

Right and wrong are deteremined by evaluating help vs. harm not by evaluating goals. Morals come about by postualting on help vs. harm. Good morals help more than harm. Bad morals harm more than help.

Group morality can come from a variety of sources. Yes one of them might be shared goals. But there's also mass hysteria, shared delusions / superstitions, prejudice / stereotypes, fear, anger, jealousy... the list is rather large. It's not only goals.

Terrorize and demoralize the enemy. A tactic often used historically to win wars.
rape - Rape as a weapon of war

Rape did not win the war though.

"The war in Europe concluded with the liberation of German-occupied territories and the invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, culminating in the fall of Berlin to Soviet troops, Hitler's suicide"

World War II - Wikipedia

You need to show how rape was needed to forward the invasion. By the time the soldiers were raping, they had already conquered the city/town/village and the soldiers can move on. Arguably the raping slowed them down.

"The most infamous Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which fifty to three hundred thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered"

See here ^^, they raped and murdered, murder would have accomplished the goal. Rape was unjustified. The details matter, that's why I asked for details. Try again.

Still poisoning the well.

You have not been able to support the claims of good vs bad actions as defined in the OP. The quotes have been given. You have taken a neutral stance on murder, rape, and kidnapping. All you have to do to correct the record is admit that the examples I gave for murder, rape, and kidnapping are wrong. Why can't you do that?

What is good about murder, rape, and kidnapping? It's possible to come up with extreme examples where these actions are justified, but then they aren't accurately described as murder, rape, or kidnapping, so you're stuck. And it shows.

There's only 3 options for you: denial ( which is what you're doing ) , avoidance ( you've stopped talking about good vs. bad ), or admission that you were wrong.

Not for your goals or my goals but good for their goals.

Good for their goals is not morally "good". Self interest does not define "good". Good is defined as helping without harming. You are ignoring the harm.

Again, the easiest way to discuss it is with 2 hermits. That way group dynamics are not a factor. If good morals are defined purely by self interest, when there is a conflict it's always a draw. Neither side is more correct. All actions are condoned or accepted. This is the implication of a moral system based on self-interest / goals.

Group justice based on group goals alters nothing stated in the OP. Same process scales to the larger group. The only difference is the scale of enforcement made possible by the larger group.

Sure it does! Without a justice system, the group's goals are meaningless, and each individual's goals are driving the choices being made. With a justice system, the goals of the outliers, the crazy harmful people, are minimized. A justice system makes goal based morality possible. But there's still a list of "don'ts".

So if I say the sky exists, do you thinks that means I am justifying the sky's existence? Or am I simply pointing out something obvious?

It's obvious that people make choices based on their goals, values, and desires. Point at that all you like, no one will disagree.
The definition of "good" is not obvious, it's a complicated issue. The first order of business is to eliminate those things which are undeniably bad. Those are the low hanging fruit.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sounds like justification for selective morality.
Of course you feel that what you've selected should be the standard for everyone.
To me personally, being kind to everyone is a a goal I agree with so my moral ideas of right and wrong would reflect that.
Though it seems obvious to me not everyone agrees with this goal and would probably make different moral choices.

You said earlier you define your moral in light of your situation.

 

[Nakosis]

You said earlier you define your moral in light of your situation.

Yes, in my current situation, I see more benefit in being kind than unkind.

 

[Nakosis]

Not murdering, not raping, not kidnapping are absolutey justified. Why? In each of these crimes, the criminal uses their physical advantage to over power someone weaker. The success of a murder, rape, or kidnapping implies that the stronger one has more value and their goals should be deemed "good"? No. Physical strength does not accurately define the value of a person. This can be seen from a purely material aspect. Examples in history are overwhelming. Individuals who have greatly impacted the world do so with ideas, with their brains.

Ideas can come at almost any age, in almost any physical condition. These ideas can even come from criminals, which introduces an argument against the death penalty. Conversely, when someone is very ill and very old and unable to communicate or care for themself in any way, this introduces an argument for euthenasia.

So yes, my morals are justified.

So one of your goals is for strength not to determine value.
Another goals is to allow everyone to equally voice their ideas?
Thirdly, euthanasia ought to be legalized?

That being the case, would you be able to determine which actions are good and which actions are bad in support of these goals?

Actions which harm need to be justified. Morals? A person can believe it's good to murder until they do it. This is because they may change their mind at any time. Thoughts are not crimes.

Yes, I am referring to actions not thoughts if it wasn't clear.

And your repeated denial is equally worthless. I have quoted you. Several other posters noticed the same thing.

Condone - accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

You have accepted rape in WWII as an acceptable weapon of war because at one point the group did it and others use terrorism to further their goals. All you need to do is admit that you do not accept rape as "good".

Fallacies don't require denials. You can choose to understand that or not.

The simple truth is you cannot, in any way, describe rape in WWII as good. That defeats the premise that good actions are defined by goals.

And yet, your good actions would be defined by your goals.

Right and wrong are deteremined by evaluating help vs. harm not by evaluating goals. Morals come about by postualting on help vs. harm. Good morals help more than harm. Bad morals harm more than help.

Yes, the goal of helping someone determines which actions are good and actions that cause harm as bad.

Group morality can come from a variety of sources. Yes one of them might be shared goals. But there's also mass hysteria, shared delusions / superstitions, prejudice / stereotypes, fear, anger, jealousy... the list is rather large. It's not only goals.

No it is not only goals that determine morality. Do you think mass hysteria, shared delusions / superstitions, prejudice / stereotypes, fear, anger, jealousy, are better methods to determine one's morals?

Rape did not win the war though.

"The war in Europe concluded with the liberation of German-occupied territories and the invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, culminating in the fall of Berlin to Soviet troops, Hitler's suicide"

World War II - Wikipedia

You need to show how rape was needed to forward the invasion. By the time the soldiers were raping, they had already conquered the city/town/village and the soldiers can move on. Arguably the raping slowed them down.

"The most infamous Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which fifty to three hundred thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered"

See here ^^, they raped and murdered, murder would have accomplished the goal. Rape was unjustified. The details matter, that's why I asked for details. Try again.

The point was not whether it won the war but whether is was condoned by military leadership.

You have not been able to support the claims of good vs bad actions as defined in the OP.

Well it doesn't matter if my argument has supported it since your argument supports the OP.

The quotes have been given. You have taken a neutral stance on murder, rape, and kidnapping. All you have to do to correct the record is admit that the examples I gave for murder, rape, and kidnapping are wrong. Why can't you do that?

Sure, based on your goals given which supports exactly what I said.

What is good about murder, rape, and kidnapping? It's possible to come up with extreme examples where these actions are justified, but then they aren't accurately described as murder, rape, or kidnapping, so you're stuck. And it shows.

Yes, sadly, I'm left with no other option than to allow you to continue to prove my point.

There's only 3 options for you: denial ( which is what you're doing ) , avoidance ( you've stopped talking about good vs. bad ), or admission that you were wrong.

Or 4, allow you to continue to do the work for me.

Good for their goals is not morally "good". Self interest does not define "good".

Do you, yourself, have any interest in helping without harming?

Good is defined as helping without harming.

Not for everyone.

You are ignoring the harm.

Irrelevant, since the argument is not about me but about whether one's goal determines their moral choices.
However, yes sometimes a person's goal ignores the harm they may cause to another.

Again, the easiest way to discuss it is with 2 hermits. That way group dynamics are not a factor. If good morals are defined purely by self interest, when there is a conflict it's always a draw. Neither side is more correct. All actions are condoned or accepted. This is the implication of a moral system based on self-interest / goals.

Who is doing this condoning or accepting? See, the problem with your example is you try to factor out group dynamics but then bring in group dynamics to judge.
Try to see this example not as a third party.

Sure it does! Without a justice system, the group's goals are meaningless, and each individual's goals are driving the choices being made.

Not sure you can have a justice system without any goals. That would make the justice system meaningless.

With a justice system, the goals of the outliers, the crazy harmful people, are minimized. A justice system makes goal based morality possible. But there's still a list of "don'ts".

Because the goals of the system are defined by the people in authority or the majority. If you read the US Constitution the first thing it does is to define the goals of the authors.

It's obvious that people make choices based on their goals, values, and desires. Point at that all you like, no one will disagree.
The definition of "good" is not obvious, it's a complicated issue. The first order of business is to eliminate those things which are undeniably bad. Those are the low hanging fruit.

Yes, defining "good" can be difficult if you are not aware of the goals of the individual/group/society. However if you do know what those goals are "good" are actions which support those goals and bad are actions which obstructs those goals.

 

[dybmh]

So one of your goals is for strength not to determine value.

Objectively; the physical strength of a human being does not define it's value.

Another goals is to allow everyone to equally voice their ideas?

No, not really. Objectively ideas are more often impactful beyond an individual's physical strength.

Thirdly, euthanasia ought to be legalized?

An argument can be made in support of it as "not bad".

Fallacies don't require denials. You can choose to understand that or not.

It's not a falacy to quote your posts and point out the implications. Your falacy accusation is a dodge.

And yet, your good actions would be defined by your goals.

Repeating yourself is not an argument. The way to determine who is correct in this matter is to look for exceptions to your "simple" moral system. Exceptions exist.

The point was not whether it won the war but whether is was condoned by military leadership.

No, that's a dodge. The point is, was the raping a good action? Was it necessary? Did it actually help acheive the goal or not? If it didn't facilitate the invasion and instead hampered the invasion, it should be considered "bad action" per your definition.

And again, if "good" action is defined as "was condoned by the military leadership" and not based on acheiving a goal, then well... your example failed. You still need to come up with an example of good consequence which results from murder, rape, or kidnapping.

Well it doesn't matter if my argument has supported it since your argument supports the OP.

Nope. My argument stands in full opposition. Morality based on goals does not define good actions vs bad actions. Some actions are so heinous that they are catagorically wrong regardless of individual self-interest. I have given 3 examples, none have been refuted.

Do you, yourself, have any interest in helping without harming?

I'm more of a non-interference guy, myself.

Not for everyone.

Sure, some people value harm. Sick, evil, people. Those people cannot be trusted to make choices based on their individual goals. Do you know how easy it is for an arson to torch your house while you and your family sleep? Are those goals good? Not good for you of course, but perfectly good for the arsonist. Did the arsonist make a good choice? Was their action good? Maybe we should add that to the list?

Irrelevant, since the argument is not about me but about whether one's goal determines their moral choices.

No, once you applied good and bad it went beyond how a person makes their choices, to how should a person make their choices.

Who is doing this condoning or accepting? See, the problem with your example is you try to factor out group dynamics but then bring in group dynamics to judge.
Try to see this example not as a third party.

Looking at it as a third party is how to be objective. I have absolutely not brought in group dynamics. Like I said, the two hermit's goals conflict. How do you determine the "good" action? You can't. They cancel each other out. Now, if you don't like the example, then bring anther reason. No group dynamics/goals have been brought. It's simple. 1 hermit's goals conflicted with another. It could be over water, food, territory, whatever. Simply based on goals, there is no good/bad. That defeats he OP. Good action/bad action is not defined by goals. Choices? Sure. Choices are based on goals.

Not sure you can have a justice system without any goals. That would make the justice system meaningless.

The justice system has goals, but still needs a list of don'ts.

Because the goals of the system are defined by the people in authority or the majority. If you read the US Constitution the first thing it does is to define the goals of the authors.

If so, then the morality is based on authority not goals. It has become a popularity contest.

Yes, defining "good" can be difficult if you are not aware of the goals of the individual/group/society. However if you do know what those goals are "good" are actions which support those goals and bad are actions which obstructs those goals.

I don't think you meant for this to come out the way it did. What you're describing is not "good/bad" it is "normal/abnormal". Yes when in Rome, do as the Romans. That's not good/bad that's assimilation.

 

[syo]

Ok, well if you think of something, I'd be interested.

I can't. My brain is empty.

 

[Heyo]

I can't. My brain is empty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wouldn't achieving well being a goal?
Isn't preventing suffering a goal?

Sure. But they are the specific goals of morality.
The OP is trying to say that "any goal" would do.

That is simply not true.
If morality isn't connected to wellbeing, then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word.
Then the entire concept is meaningless.

If you get to pick the goals for everyone else, promote well being, prevent suffering only then the moral system is acceptable.

No. Only then it is a moral system. That's what the implication of "moral" is in "moral system".
That it is about well being.

Myself, I don't believe that any goals are universal nor should I dictate to you what your goals ought to be.

Then you have abandoned morality and entered the world of sociopathy / psychopathy.
Also, I dare say that you can say that, but that you don't really believe it.

Would you find it ok to legalize murder, rape, torture,... for no other reason then the perpetrator feeling like doing so? Regardless of victims and suffering?

To me, your ought to be free to determine you're own goals however

People are free to determine their goals as they please. But don't call that morality.
Morality is specifically about well-being and suffering.

Yet, I think this is exactly what happens anyway. You have determined your own set of goals and expect everyone else to have the same set of goals when in reality, they may not.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. At least not in context of this topic.
The point is that morality is specifically about well-being and suffering. That's what morality is.

If someone says they don't care about well-being and suffering and instead only care about being as rich as possible (for example), then what they are saying is that they don't care about morals. Instead they only care about money.

It's not that they have some "different moral understanding". It's instead that they simply ignore morality.

 

[Heyo]

No. Only then it is a moral system. That's what the implication of "moral" is in "moral system".
That it is about well being.

Nope.
A moral system is established through a set of moral primitives, not only a single one.
E.g. most people won't agree to a dictatorship, even if that would maximize well being. It would be against their moral primitive of liberty.
You don't have to have the same moral primitives as others and you sure don't have the same priorities.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, in my current situation, I see more benefit in being kind than unkind.

Well in Christian doctrine you are kind regardless of the benefit because God is kind to us, and expects us to be the same.

 

[Nakosis]

Well in Christian doctrine you are kind regardless of the benefit because God is kind to us, and expects us to be the same.

Yes, moral direction from authority. A theoretical stage of moral development.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure. But they are the specific goals of morality.
The OP is trying to say that "any goal" would do.

That is simply not true.
If morality isn't connected to wellbeing, then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word.
Then the entire concept is meaningless.

I would say they are the specific goals of your moral system. Others might have a different set of goals, which you may or may not see as immoral.

No. Only then it is a moral system. That's what the implication of "moral" is in "moral system".
That it is about well being.

Granted, in your moral system and perhaps most people's moral systems but not necessarily everyone's.

Then you have abandoned morality and entered the world of sociopathy / psychopathy.
Also, I dare say that you can say that, but that you don't really believe it.

Sure, even sociopaths and psychopaths can have a system of morals though probably not one you would agree with.

Would you find it ok to legalize murder, rape, torture,... for no other reason then the perpetrator feeling like doing so? Regardless of victims and suffering?

You're putting an extreme example out there. And, I'm not saying such an extreme system is not possible but trying to show the problems this extreme example would have does not negate any of the more moderate examples. However, if it makes you feel more comfortable with the idea, rule out the more extreme examples from consideration. Still curious as to where you'd drawn the line.

How wide or how narrow could a moral system be for you to still consider as moral?

People are free to determine their goals as they please. But don't call that morality.
Morality is specifically about well-being and suffering.

Morals, morals is the standard of behavior that people find acceptable on not acceptable. Well-being and suffering are things you are adding in that are not really part of the definition.
Of course people don't always define goals. Sometimes they just let their subconscious feelings determine what behavior they find acceptable vs unacceptable. Still I believe these subconscious feelings are themselves determine by subconscious goals you may not be aware of.
On the other hand one could base their moral system on a universal goal similar to you of well-being and ending all suffering. That's a possibility that falls in line with my original argument.
However someone else's universal goals you might see as immoral which is also inline with the original argument.
The contention is that you think is that your goal of universal well-being must be the goal of everyone's else's system of behavior before you would consider it moral.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. At least not in context of this topic.
The point is that morality is specifically about well-being and suffering. That's what morality is.

Yes, your moral system is. You seem unable to consider that someone else could behave according to a different universal goal than yourself.

If someone says they don't care about well-being and suffering and instead only care about being as rich as possible (for example), then what they are saying is that they don't care about morals. Instead they only care about money.

It's not that they have some "different moral understanding". It's instead that they simply ignore morality.

Actually, what they'd be saying is they don't care about your goal of universal well-being. Therefore you'd consider their morals as immoral. Which is exactly what I'd expect.
So you've supported my argument with the exception being that you are not willing to consider that someone else could have a universal goal/principle that is different from yours and still see their own moral system as moral.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Sure, but based on other goals.

I don't think a goal is developed in a void. One has a set of goals and sometimes they are competing.
Like getting rich may compete with a goal of being compassionate. There is a hierarchy of goals which is why I listed my major goals in order.
Like I might sacrifice some benefit to myself for the sake of my family since for me the survival of my family would be the higher goal.

For me, moral decisions seem more straight forward since I have a priority of goals set out. IOW, I'd have less of an internal struggle making it easier/quicker to reach the right(for me) decision with all of my priorities and goals in mind with really no moral regret.

Excellent question btw.

Kant introduced the Categorical imperative.

One of formulations:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.​

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, moral direction from authority. A theoretical stage of moral development.

There are some who think this is funny - but believe it when others tell them the universe created itself before it existed, and for no reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope.
A moral system is established through a set of moral primitives, not only a single one.
E.g. most people won't agree to a dictatorship, even if that would maximize well being. It would be against their moral primitive of liberty.
You don't have to have the same moral primitives as others and you sure don't have the same priorities.

Well-being is a broad concept and in part subjective.
The value of liberty is itself about well-being.

At times, if not most times, it's going to be a tradeoff. What is good for well-being in context of X might be bad in context Y. In order to have something like liberty, you might have to sacrifice a bit of security.

But it always comes down to well-being in the end.