Can you describe how you think it has changed? — Samuel Lacrampe
Good that which contributes to the survival and reproduction of the species
Bad that which detracts from the survival and reproduction of the species — AngleWyrm
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
I may have misunderstood your point, but are you saying that the right factors that influence the act are not obtained objectively? Maybe an example might help.I think you are begging the question here. There might be disagreement about what constitutes 'an objective judgement' for many kinds of reasons. But here you're more or less insisting that objectivity is self-evident or that there are some objective criteria which just naturally everyone will agree on. And I don't think you've established that. — Wayfarer
Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. — The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19
I have decided to stop taking your comments seriously. With that, thanks for increasing the Replies count on this discussion. I suspect this attracts more readers. :blush: — Samuel Lacrampe
This is good. It is another way to interpret the golden rule.the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV
The criteria for moral value is justice; and justice is equality in treatment among all men; thus equality in treatment is the criteria for moral value. — Samuel Lacrampe
the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights.
— Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV — Samuel Lacrampe
Day One: All men are equal
Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too. — charleton
If by 'revenge' you mean "a desire for justice (and nothing beyond it)", then it is not immoral. — Samuel Lacrampe
To impose your desires on others against their will results in unequal treatment. — Samuel Lacrampe
if the predicted gain was equal in both options — Samuel Lacrampe
if you only help the one person, their gain from the help is greater than the combined gain of the multiple people? — BlueBanana
The practical solution is found through the Golden Rule: "How can I act in a way that I would want others to act towards me?". The golden rule is directly derived from justice, because it demonstrates an equal treatment between yourself and others. — Samuel Lacrampe
Quite the opposite. Unless you believe the content was purely arbitrary, then it is reasonable to suggest it was inspired by real morality.The reason that this had to be declared was that morality does not definitively entail it. — charleton
Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you? And yet, math is taught at school. We can all rediscover mathematical laws on our own, but it is better to teach it in order to speed up the learning process and avoid errors along the way. The same goes for the laws of morality.If morality had included this, the declaration would not be necessary. — charleton
Actually it does. See for example the Just War Theory: how to conduct war in accordance with justice (and by extension, the golden rule). To name a few criteria, a war is just if:How does the golden rule deal with injustice? [...] So the other failing of the golden rule is it does not adjudicate between actually lived conflicting principles. It doesn't tell us how to deal with enemies. — Moliere
So your morality consists in total freedom of the individual, with the exception of harm. — Samuel Lacrampe
(1) Is it morally wrong to eat animals and plants? (2) Is it morally acceptable to lie to others if they never find out? (2) Is it wrong to give an employee a raise, and another no raise, due to favoritism? — Samuel Lacrampe
Is it wrong to do harm to the nazis to prevent them from killing more jews? — Samuel Lacrampe
Sure, but why would I follow such a rule? I would only follow it if I valued it. I will only act justly if I value justice. The value of justice must come from a subject mustn't it? If the value of justice is objective, how can it connect to what I do? Why would such objective values matter to me, or indeed to any subject? — bert1
Quite the opposite. Unless you believe the content was purely arbitrary, then it is reasonable to suggest it was inspired by real morality. — Samuel Lacrampe
Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you? — Samuel Lacrampe
My point was that 'revenge', once clearly defined, cannot be just, while at the same time immoral. But we can work on a concrete example if desired.If by 'revenge' you mean "a desire for justice (and nothing beyond it)", then it is not immoral.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Circular reasoning. — BlueBanana
"Equality in treatment" means that for a given situation, whatever act you choose, you must also accept it from others under a similar situation. Now, the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition. As such, it is an unjust act.How? How is imposing everyone's desires on everyone against their will not equal? — BlueBanana
This depends once again on the net result, but for the most part, yes. What if you were on the bad end of that unequal happiness situation? Would you not wish for that slightly better equal happiness?So equal misery is better than unequal happiness? — BlueBanana
My point was that 'revenge', once clearly defined, cannot be just, while at the same time immoral. — Samuel Lacrampe
the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition. — Samuel Lacrampe
What if you were on the bad end of that unequal happiness situation? — Samuel Lacrampe
They are connected, because both are derived from justice. Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the only way to preserve equality in treatment when interacting with others. Just War Theory: how to conduct a war while preserving justice. If you are in conflict with a neighbouring country, how would you want to them to behave towards you in order to resolve the conflict? E.g., you would likely want them to first use peaceful acts before resorting to force. As such, to preserve justice, you ought to behave the same way towards them. Thus the Just War Theory is related to the Golden Rule."Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does not just automatically lead one to just war theory. [...] And even then I don't see how, of all doctrines, just war theory somehow naturally flows from the golden rule. You'd have to, at the very least, argue the case. — Moliere
I forget what example you are referring to.but if you can accept those terms, then I don't see how you would be able to dissent from the example I used earlier. — Moliere
You here speak of changes in the legal system, not changes in the moral point of view. Nobody wants to be a slave; not the masters, not the slaves. And nobody wants to be the victim of misogyny or stoning; not now, not then. Similarly to today, those victims surely would have wanted to revolt on the grounds of injustice. In general, we cannot discover a morality from historical facts, because morality is about "what-ought-to-be", not about "what-is".Say, 1500 years ago slavery, misogyny, stoning, mistreating animals, etc might just have been common everyday stuff of no particular consequence/interest, whereas today they're considered immoral or criminal. I guess the contemporary political correctness movement exemplifies emerging morals or moral awareness. — jorndoe
The trolley problem is not a moral issue but merely a rational one. I did not mention this in the OP, but one necessary component of a moral/immoral (as opposed to amoral) act is intentions. If you never intended to kill anyone, as is the case in the trolley problem, then the accidental killing of people is not immoral. At worst, you made the wrong judgement resulting in an honest mistake.Either way, not all situations are (readily/necessarily) morally decidable, as shown by the Trolley problem. — jorndoe
That's a good answer. It agrees well with your morality.Nah, the nazis forfeit their rights.
violation of the above may entail forfeiture of some or all of them — jorndoe
Golden Rule. It is a great practical way to determine if justice was intended or not.Suppose we wanted to reduce morals to something. What might this something then be? What would acceptable "moral atoms" look like? Self-interest alone doesn't do it for me (like some rules seem to suggest), but maybe that's just me. — jorndoe
If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument, then it does. Don't run away from the laws of reason just because you don't like the conclusions that follow. :wink:Only if you believe in the god delusion. — charleton
No? The formula 2+2=4 is not objective, but man-made? What about the laws of logic then? After all, mathematics is just logic applied to numbers.Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you?
— Samuel Lacrampe
No, why? — charleton
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.