I wonder, where did you get that idea from? — Banno
So I'm saying that the former are primarily quantitative in nature, and hence capable of objective validation. The latter are primarily qualitative in nature. — Wayfarer
Now I think this is enough to mark moral discussion as different to mere preference, and contrast it with statements of fact. Moral discourse is about our relations with others. — Banno
even it they are "predictions"what is the issue? The accepted principles and our extended list of examples remove the risk.Those evaluations are clearly predictions. "the effect on well-being of X will be", not "the effect on well-being of X was" — Isaac
Again Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. As I pointed out to you forbidding small children to swim alone in deep water, or playing with matches or doing drugs might limit their pleasure but NOT their well being....since well being except of being "well" also has the condition of "being" (being/staying alive).Well-being definitely drops just after being denied sweets, raises again on enjoying a healthy weight and full set of teeth in later life. — Isaac
A more extreme example is in every form of criminal punishment - the well-being of the person concerned drops during the punishment, but supposedly rises again as they enjoy being a member of a society in which their particular crime is thereby discouraged — Isaac
Again you are confusing a steady principle with fluctuating facts of different cases. The objective principle will allow objective evaluations independent of how different random cases are.No. That's not what underderemination describes. — Isaac
-I will try, once again to bring some facts in this conversation of abstracts by listing two acts that are objectively immoral.That's what I'm saying. All such acts do in one timescale and do not in others. It cannot be determined. they all cause harm in the short term to individuals with the intention of reducing harm in the long term to society, but since the term is not fixed it cannot ever be demonstrated that they do, in fact, achieve this end. — Isaac
-I feel like we are talking about two different things and the problem is that none of the interlocutors in this thread is willing to test the principle by checking whether well being is a common denominator in all our moral judgements.!It's not about the metrics, it's about what we do with the uncertainty over their application. even if I were determined to cause no harm, such determination would not be sufficient as I would not have any way of knowing which behaviours avoided harm over any given timescale. — Isaac
Can we not think of mind-to-world statements about our relations with others that are still not moral statements? Perhaps "we ought to speak loudly enough to be heard". Not a mere preference — Isaac
Do you care about your well being, are you ok with acts by others that affect it? — Nickolasgaspar
How can you call acts that endanger your well being ? — Nickolasgaspar
Can morality be absolute? — PhilosophyRunner
If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover
"Can morality be absolute? — PhilosophyRunner
-The correct answer for the initial question is No since moral declarations ignore different situation and cases.
-"Sure, in two ways: internally and externally... — bongo fury
If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover
But rape is something that moral language has made an obvious example of "not good". So no, the language doesn't have to allow disagreement on the issue — bongo fury
even it they are "predictions"what is the issue? — Nickolasgaspar
Again Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. As I pointed out to you forbidding small children to swim alone in deep water, or playing with matches or doing drugs might limit their pleasure but NOT their well being....since well being except of being "well" also has the condition of "being" (being/staying alive).
So limiting the sugar intake of children only affects instant pleasure, not their well being. — Nickolasgaspar
A criminal is consider an enemy of society and this is why he is isolated from it. They are people who undermined the well being of others and society's as a whole. — Nickolasgaspar
The objective principle will allow objective evaluations independent of how different random cases are. — Nickolasgaspar
-I will try, once again to bring some facts in this conversation of abstracts by listing two acts that are objectively immoral.
1. a society that allows kid raping
2. a society that allows owning other people as property
Can we agree that ending up as a slave or being rapped during our childhood years are both immoral under any context?
Can we agree that a society allowing such acts will reduce the well being of its members.
Can you identify any other metric that would be affected and that could be used as a principle in our evaluations on what is moral or immoral? — Nickolasgaspar
there may remain mind-to-world statements that are about others that are not moral. It's just that moral statements are at least mind-to-world statements involving others. I see what I said before could be misinterpreted. — Banno
without defining the aspect the spatial designations you use. — Nickolasgaspar
Now if one asks Is sex without consent immoral (rape) then the answer is yes for that specific situation. — Nickolasgaspar
because we are talking about a "job" called reason and wisdom.? — Nickolasgaspar
The history of the world is but the biography of great men (sic). — Thomas Carlyle (Great Man (sic) Theory)
-And I've already explained why that is irrelevant to a system based on a core principle that enables objective evaluations on any given evidence.The issue is as I've described it, one of underdetermination. — Isaac
Obviously moderate sugar intake is not a problem but since we are in a middle of an obesity epidemic (for decades) any intake adds to the problem. In addition to that the mechanism of sugar in the brain resembles that of opioids.Sugar intake is not fatal, so excess does not limit 'being'. — Isaac
I'm not in need of an explanation for criminal punishment, I'm pointing out that it harms the well-being of some in the short-term to benefit the well-being of many in the long term. — Isaac
-Again no, underdetermination addresses evidence ,not moral evaluations based on an objective principles. There is a reason why our morality has being evolving for thousands of years....because we constantly have being dealing with new evidence (and old minds). The issue is more with outdated minds and biases than completely new evidence. I.e. there aren't any evidence that could render the act of owning other people as property moral. We are done with that.Well, no. Again, that's what underdetermination describes (did you read the link?). The 'evaluations' will always support more than one course of action in any moral dilemma (in your system) because the data on well-being will always underdetermine the theory (what course of action is most 'moral'). — Isaac
To the first question, yes. We can agree, but that's just because you and I already think that way. — Isaac
We might say "keeping slaves harms the well-being of the slaves and so is immoral". Someone else might say "keeping slaves does cause that harm, but it is outweighed by the greater benefit to society's well-being brought about by the increased economic growth, so the slaves ought to put up with their bonds for the greater good". — Isaac
-This notion of "greater good" is your artifact. I don't use it since, as I said before it sound like a political excuse used to undermine the well being of the society and all its members.If, on the other hand, you say that no-one's well-being should be harmed at all for the greater good, — Isaac
All moral dilemmas involve some sacrifice in well-being either at the individual level, or the short-term. — Isaac
Societies have all kind of rules that t put limits on human behavior, especial to those who don't have the brain to deal with more mature decisions (kids) and those who can become a victim of addiction. — Nickolasgaspar
To the first question, yes. We can agree, but that's just because you and I already think that way. Others disagree and we cannot persuade them objectively, by using your 'metrics'.
We might say "keeping slaves harms the well-being of the slaves and so is immoral". Someone else might say "keeping slaves does cause that harm, but it is outweighed by the greater benefit to society's well-being brought about by the increased economic growth, so the slaves ought to put up with their bonds for the greater good". Both arguments use the same metric - the well-being of society - just over different timescales. We might say "but look at societies with slavery, they perform no better than societies without, that disproves your theory" and they could reply "wait another twenty years, the benefits take time to accrue". — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.