Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how compeletely worthless these posts are? — Baden

Do you?

Doesn't this then reduce to good intentions? What we're really describing here is expectations. Part of making a moral choice is an expectation of an outcome for a given course of action. The actor can only act on likely outcomes based on prior experience and incomplete reason. An expectation of an outcome of one's own actions is an intent. — Kenosha Kid

Another good point. Though I'm not sure it reduces the problem to good intentions, but it does pose a problem.

Since a person can never be said to be completely certain of anything, he is always to a degree ignorant, and therefore is not capable of a perfectly moral act.

Perhaps then such a perfectly moral act should be regarded as a distant ideal?

A good point, though it seems ignorance may yet encompass such errors. Let's assume they are 'unforeseen circumstances', doesn't that classify as ignorance?

Come to think of it, I wonder if the definitions I have given could be extended to include actions to hurt or help oneself as well.

I think the same applies.

However, when in business or sports one is simply trying to win, and does not have the intention of hurting or helping others, then perhaps it is not a matter of morality.

And if in such a situation one does hurt others (without any intention) it is only a matter of ignorance. Again, potentially just as destructive, but different in its nature.

128,000 covid-19 cases, resulting in 6,428 deaths, on a population of 17.28 million.

These are the official numbers shared by the National Institute of Public Health.

No amount of loud bleating is going to change these.

Zullen we een potje anecdotes vertellen spelen? Leuk!

Kijk eens wat verder dan het NOS journaal.

Do yourselves a favor and start being critical of the information you're receiving through media. I'll admit I cannot speak for the US, but covid deaths in the Netherlands have initially been grossly misreported, because covid was being stated as cause of death for any and all who had traces of the virus in their body upon death. Furthermore, many of such diagnoses were done with equipment that now is suspected of having great error margins. So make of those numbers what you will. But even if they were a multitude of what is being reported, it still would not justify the way our government has abused and is abusing its power to control the lives of people. Consider that there also exists a death toll of the measures taken against covid. People who are not being diagnosed or treated for serious diseases like cancer, elderly people dying of neglect, people developing serious depression or anxiety, etc.

That covid isn't the killer virus that everyone had expected is painfully clear here, and the only ones still maintaining that it is, are in the sitting government who is being torn to shreds by the opposition for it. Meanwhile, the population has been in a state of lockdown for half a year, and legislation is being passed which gives the government power over people's private lives which is simply unconstitutional.

Funnily enough, where I live (Netherlands) covid has been put on the same level as the somewhat severe influenza epidemic of last year by the statistics of the National Institute of Public Health itself, and with deaths being almost exclusive to the elderly with underlying health issues.

Turns out I was right. Overblown hysteria, fueled by corrupt media.

So, crawl back under your rock, please. It's disgusting that you think you have any moral standing here. — Baden

Hadn't even noticed this.

What I find disgusting is that these words are coming from a moderator of a philosophy forum that has no less than 10,000 posts made. That's a lot of time spent with very little wisdom to show for it.

You support the guy whose lies resulted in 200,000 Americans dead. — Baden

Then you know more than I.

I don't support Trump any more than I support the infantile behavior with which this thread is filled.

Realize that this type of aggression towards anyone who even looks like they might have a different opinion than you, is exactly the reason figures like Trump get so much support.

I honestly can't tell if you all are joking or actually serious. I'm hoping for the former.

You'd expect that on a philosophy forum people would have some reservations about wishing death upon others.

Being hungry is what causes me to desire food. Being in pain is what causes me to desire it’s alleviation. — Pinprick

Upon inspection, isn't a desire to continue living at the root of being hungry or feeling pain?

Interesting discussion for sure, though when I read your post I am a little unsure what part of this problem you'd like to discuss. Maybe you could give a little direction to the discussion you'd like to have, perhaps by asking all of us a question you'd like to see answered.

So the “force of Evolution” can be defeated. But that is always going to be a pyrrhic victory of man over nature. — philosophience wordpress com

Why is that? I see physical existence, and evolution as a part of it, as the great enslaver of the mind of man. How can the breaking of such chains be anything other than a triumph of the mind?

You note their offspring may be less successful, but successful by what standard? Hasn't the standard of evolution been rejected by the individual? And would someone who is truly free of the bonds of their physical existence be concerned about siring offspring in the first place?

I doubt that a desireless person has ever existed and I doubt that even if existed, she/he would be happy. — philosophience wordpress com

Consider a person who is meditating. Let's also consider that they are adept at it. When their mind is empty, do they desire? And if this practice did not make said person happy, why does the sage keep returning to this state?

But is it true that this always occurs? Do good people always end up happy? Do bad people always end up unhappy? — petrichor

Goodness is one prerequisite for happiness, but it is not the only one. Wisdom is another, for example.

As for "bad" people, I would say they will always end up unhappy. As I said, goodness is a prerequisite for happiness. If one possesses no goodness, they will not be happy.

When we see people suffering, is it always because they did something bad and so deserve it? — petrichor

I don't think so.

The idea that goodness produces happiness, and badness produces misery.

Only mosquitoes and idiots don't go away when you ignore them. When any bible puncher is ignored they eventually figure out that they are wasting their time and go away. If you get upset by them I think it says more about you and your agenda than theirs. — Sir2u

Here, here!

Anger attempts to hide vulnerability. Whenever one gets angry at the words of another, one should ask themselves why those words are making them feel vulnerable.

When approached as such, emotion can lead to great personal insights, so I don't see why it cannot have a place on this forum.

Sounds more like a way to bully people with unpopular opinions into leaving the forum.

Nope. I don't see how this could positively effect a forum like this. Shouldn't those with intellectual pursuits be interested in viewpoints that contrast theirs? (And hopefully be mature enough to deal with the fact that such viewpoints exist)

I recommend you read some of my conversation with .

Okay then. Show me this person that routinely makes people miserable on purpose and is happy at the same time.

The answer to a moral question in your theory cannot be equivalent to 'he must be unhappy deep down because otherwise the answer comes out wrong'. — Kenosha Kid

It is true though. People that want others to be miserable are miserable themselves. If that has to be the basic assumption on which my theory is built, then so be it. It seems like a reasonable assumption to me, which I have seen confirmed plenty of times through experience.

Hold up. Both my replies to you have been about the nature of true happiness and not yet about morality.

The assertion that my theory amounts to "it causes harm to others, thus it is immoral" is way too hasty.

So what is inner peace or true happiness? Sorry if you already defined these terms, but I can't continue this discussion without knowing. — Aleph Numbers

Understandable.

I think the concept is too intricate to describe in a forum post. I'll give you a few terms that I relate to inner peace and I hope you can fill in some of the blanks yourself: Inner deconfliction, freedom of fear, openness to love and compassion, guided by reason.

Perhaps true happiness is achieving a happiness that is free of the constraints of one's maladaptive tendencies, experiences, and base desires? But what makes tendencies and experiences maladaptive? — Aleph Numbers

When properly examined, much problematic behavior stems from fear.

What are base desires? — Aleph Numbers

When fears are properly examined, much of them are related to our desire to continue our physical existence. Fear of soical isolation, fear of poverty, fear of not procreating, etc. Perhaps that is a good definition of base desires.

Deriving pleasure from something is not necessarily related to true happiness or inner peace.

So one can derive pleasure from something whilst at the same time not moving any closer to becoming truly happy. In fact, it may even move them away from such happiness.

For sure, but in a moral theory that depends entirely on personal happiness, if you assume everyone to be lying about their happiness if the wrong moral fact is derived, you don't have a workable theory: it is circular. It is not a question of completeness: you have precisely demonstrated that you have not answered anything, merely deferred the question. — Kenosha Kid

I disagree. I think there's a workable theory, however there is no simple 1+1=2 type of proof. But I've no desire to impose this system upon others. I use it to make sense of my own experiences and what I see in others.

Human beings have both selfish and social drives, and satisfying either can be a source of happiness. A less extreme example might be a guy running off with a woman he's infatuated with, leaving his wife and five young children unsupported and none the wiser. This is unconstrained hedonism: the man is doing exactly what he wants undeterred by considerations of responsibility and consequences for others. The harm he causes far outstrips the benefit he enjoys; nonetheless I'm sure he's having a wonderful time. — Kenosha Kid

In this situation there are a few options:

1. The man carries out this act without regret, thus must be ignorant of matters such as love, compassion and the harm he inflicts upon others. One so ignorant, cannot be truly happy.

2. The man caries out this act and regrets it in the end, meaning the act did not contribute to his happiness.

This actually seems like the no true Scotsman fallacy: If one acts in a way that is sadistic in order to achieve happiness, you say they never were actually pursuing true happiness. — Aleph Numbers

More accurately, they would be pursuing true happiness (as do we all), but not achieving it.

We seem to be working with a hypothetical person who is both extremely malicious and truly happy. I don't necessarily believe such a person exists, but if you know any I'd love to hear about them.

But how is it known if doing sadistic things works against one's true happiness? Couldn't it be behavior unrelated to their happiness and thus not be immoral according to your third claim? — Aleph Numbers

Ok, if I'm correct your question here, "Can one be sadistic without it affecting their efforts of achieving true happiness?", and I would answer no.

To carry out sadistic acts one either has to act in complete disregard of well-being, or be completely ignorant of well-being. If one, at some later point in life, gains insight into well-being, then they must see the pain they inflicted upon others and they will atone through guilt. This is karmic, in a way.

Then you don't have a moral theory. You're merely deferring a moral judgement to one about happiness, while insisting that a person is not the judge of their happiness but rather you are. You can bypass the middle man of happiness entirely and just insist on what is moral and what is not on a case-by-case basis, which is what you're doing with happiness. — Kenosha Kid

Maybe.

Like I said, I haven't really gotten the chance to get into details yet.

Ultimately it is only the person themselves that can judge whether they are truly happy, and only they themselves that can validate the trueness of such a statement. I, on my part, can choose to believe them or not. If I see a truly miserable person state they are happy, I am going to doubt that statement, obviously.

What is central to my theory is that while every person desires to be happy, very few people actually know what it is that will make them truly happy. They may spend their lives chasing dreams of wealth and success (or have darker pursuits, as mentions) and end up unfulfilled and miserable. In fact, they may live their entire lives staying completely ignorant of what true happiness means for them!

What then becomes a central question is, why do people have such a hard time recognizing what it is that truly makes them happy?

And the answer seems to lie in the many layers of mud that are cast upon the individual's psyche from birth. Opinions of others (parents, society, school system, politicians, etc.) that have become internalized, and have formed the bedrock of our worldview, even though they may directly counteract our attempts at finding happiness.

What if someone derives inner peace from torturing small children? From causing immense amounts of suffering? I've known sadistic people, and they genuinely revel in others' suffering and misfortune. — Aleph Numbers

Then they are not truly happy, no matter what they may tell themselves. Or maybe they are mentally defect, in which case there's an argument to be made for them not being moral agents.

You're obviously playing the devil's advocate for the sake of doing so. It's not going to lead to anything productive. As I said, is a blind person truly blind, or is it all some elaborate ruse to fool people? Maybe they are seeing, we cannot look into their minds after all. It's very easy to play this game, but also pointless. Let's have a serious discussion.

So being immoral prevents one from achieving true happiness because you say that if one doesn't achieve true happiness one is acting immorally. — Aleph Numbers

We haven't delved far enough into the idea to really start explaining how it works in detail, but this isn't what I've said. Let me state it clearly:

Acting in a way that works against one's true happiness is immoral.
Acting in a way that works towards one's true happiness is moral.
Acting in a way that works neither towards nor against one's true happiness is not a matter of morality.

If one does not achieve true happiness, one isn't necessarily immoral.

That might be true of some people who murder, rape and torture but not all of them. Some people might do it just because they enjoy it, and those are the people im talking about. How would you exclude these people from being moral? — DingoJones

Enjoying something and true happiness are not the same. True happiness is a prolonged state of being, and not some short-term gratification of base desires. Perhaps inner peace would be another term to describe it.

The Nazi’s thought they were creating a better world, they were in the pursuit of true happiness, they thought they were doing good. — DingoJones

And they were wrong. Simply pursuing true happiness is not enough to be moral. One must achieve it for oneself. And if one actively works against it, then one can be said to be immoral. Thus, immoral actions lead to destruction of oneself, either physically or psychologically.

Some people are born or conditioned by experience to derive true pleasure and happiness from inflicting pain or rape or whatever. — DingoJones

A blind person cannot see, no matter how much they believe it so. Similarly, a malicious person cannot find love or true happiness.

One may play the devil's advocate and ask how do we know that a blind person is truly blind and not simply acting to be, but I fail to see the point of that.

Exactly!

Quite simply by pointing out those things in fact do not contribute to a person's happiness. Isn't it so that people who commit such acts are deeply troubled or even mentally ill individuals?

They are driven by a need to resolve childhood trauma, slavish obedience to their basic impulses, or mental defects. All sorts of things that need to be resolved before an individual can understand what true happiness means for them.

Without pretending to have any definitive answers to these questions, I wouldn't mind making an attempt to spark some discussion:

what do [you think] constitutes an act which is moral? — god must be atheist

An act which leads towards the true happiness of the individual that commits it.

The core here is the first Socratic paradox "All men desire the Good"; in other words, everyone does those things that they think will make them happy. The sad part is, what we think makes us happy is more often than not based on fears, ignorances, delusions, etc., many of which are deeply engrained since childhood.

The more one exposes these matters which cloud our judgement, the closer one will be able to see what it is that will make them truly happy, and thus learn to act morally.

It totally is the opinion of the majority of people, yes — Aleph Numbers

Then how does this view produce anything objective? I'm asking, since that is the goal you seemed to have set out at the start of this thread. This seems about as subjective as it comes.

Doesn't that make circumstances and motivations irrelevant? It seems to me that under that definition the sole determinant is the opinion of other people!

You make a good if obvious point: circumstances and motivations are important. — Aleph Numbers

But how does this all relate to making the determinant of a moral action being a ratio of people who approve versus disapprove?

Alright, then what about the second part?

Motivations and circumstance, rather than the action itself, are, in my eyes, way more important in judging the morality of a certain action. In what way can it ever be said that the motivations and circumstances of all a groups' members are exactly the same? — Tzeentch

I don't see how one could seperate the two. If we were to agree that groups are not moral agents, it would follow that calling groups (rather than the individuals they are comprised of) immoral is meaningless.