God at all, and so I am not using the existence of God to demonstrate that morality is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the fact that you think there is a god, prejudices you to the disposition of objective morality.
If you were open to the possibility of a natural universe you would see the absurdity of your position immediately. God and morality are human conceits.

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first.
— Samuel Lacrampe — BlueBanana

This is a laudable aspiration, but plays no part in 99% of morality.

How do you now judge the merciful act to be morally good? — Samuel Lacrampe

It's interesting that you ask such questions, yet still see morality as somehow objective.
It's not only "how", but "who" and through which arbitrary set of criteria.

The sense of sight always belongs to a subject, and yet it does not follow that the object seen is not objectively real. — Samuel Lacrampe

This is such a poor response. Morality is not "OUT THERE". You can't see it, and get agreement from others that only see a house or a car. Morality has no physical substance. It's all conceptual, and emotional.

We can stand in front of an object and agree it will persist after we walk away. Moral matters we take with us in our minds.

You cannot make a single moral statement that can get an agreement of all people and remain constant after they walk away.

Morality is all about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. All such criterion are existentially contingent upon subjects. All such criterion are established by subjects.

Morality is codified behaviour; the rules that 'moral' behaviour follows and 'immoral' behaviour does not. These rules are subject to individual, historical, familial, and cultural particulars... Therefore...

Why would you believe morality is not subjective?

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Why? The only reason I can see for that is one's selfishness resulting in that they don't want to be the one in the worse situation. — BlueBanana

How can the demand for justice rise from selfishness? And if injustice is present, then what becomes the measure of the net gain?

Mercy is an expression of love towards another person, and love has an intrinsic value. Alternatively, moral intuition. Moral theories should be made to fit the applications, not another way around. — BlueBanana

Let's take the example of mercy to the extreme. Out of mercy, we set Hitler free over and over again, and each time, he kills more and more jews, and yet we continue to set him free regardless. This act is no doubt merciful, according to your definition; yet, would you still judge such an act to be morally good? I take it you are an extreme pacifist, since this consists in mercy towards everyone and under all situations.

To generalize: "Equality in treatment in all men" means that for a given situation, a just treatment is determined such that all men must follow it for others and themselves, as well as from others. This is really nothing more than the golden rule. — 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 — Samuel Lacrampe

If they are both derived from the golden rule then then golden rule would differ from justice. In which case I'd be back to your original definition --

Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men. — Samuel Lacrampe

In which case I'd say that my principle is derived from your notion of justice. Or, at least, is compatible with what is stated by your definition of justice. So if I treat everyone as some sort of means to whatever happens to please me, then everyone is treated by the same rule, and would at least count as equal treatment.

Your counter-example to this was a person who wanted to kill a person who wanted to live. But this doesn't show that my principle isn't derived from your definition of justice. It's in line with it just as much as the golden rule is. Unless any conflict in desire counts as a counter-example?

In which case the golden rule also wouldn't count. What if I don't want to be treated like you want to be treated, after all? Or, in the so called platinum form of said rule, what if treating me as I want to be treated goes against what you want?

I'd like a massage, after all. Why aren't you giving it to me?

No, I don't think a mere conflict in desired outcomes would be enough to invalidate a principle, given the principles you've lain out here. After all, even if it is a just war, we both want to win it once it starts.


Which is just my way of saying that you need a more robust theory of justice than the preservation of the equality of treatment. It is too permissive to count for justice.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the fact that you think there is a god, prejudices you to the disposition of objective morality. — charleton

For the sake of argument, suppose that what you say is true, that my belief in God prejudices me. So what? It would not change the validity of the argument in the OP, and you would still have to refute it. Suppose that Einstein was a nazi and discovered the formula "E = mc^2" for evil purposes. It does not follow that the formula is false.

[...] You cannot make a single moral statement that can get an agreement of all people and remain constant after they walk away. — charleton

Not everybody agrees that the Earth is round (surprisingly). Does it follow that the shape of the Earth is subjective? Furthermore, I do not know a single person that likes injustice done to them, and so it is universally perceived as bad when done to us. It's a start.

Theory bites the dust as soon as morality is proved to be separate from justice.

Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men. — Samuel Lacrampe

Meaning equal punishments, but also that everyone lives in equal circumstances? That there is no occasion for 'moral accident'? Because otherwise we would be punishing an act of theft by a starving person the same way as an act of theft by a greedy one.

Mercy is part of the Golden Rule in that we would like others to extend the same understanding to us, because we can imagine circumstances where we might also act the same way. This is incorporated in justice systems, for example we do not have a single crime of killing with a single punishment, but a variety of crimes that reflect intention and circumstance, and also some defenses (insanity, self-defence) that admit the act but excuse it from punishment.

To put it another way, Nazis have often featured in this thread. We would like to think that if we had been born a German in the same epoch as Hitler and the others we would have not gone along with the Nazis. However the chances are that we would. Born earlier we would probably have seen nothing wrong with slavery, or beating wives, either. It is only the 'moral luck' of having been born later that means we do not share the guilt for such things.

For the sake of argument, suppose that what you say is true, that my belief in God prejudices me. So what? It would not change the validity of the argument in the OP, and you would still have to refute it. Suppose that Einstein was a nazi and discovered the formula "E = mc^2" for evil purposes. It does not follow that the formula is false. — Samuel Lacrampe

1) You have not presented ANY argument. All you have done is to assert a falsehood, which is definitively so.
2) Analogies as to the facts of physical reality are not relevant. Morals are about how people feel. People feel differently about various things. Morals are value judgements, not facts.

Not everybody agrees that the Earth is round (surprisingly). Does it follow that the shape of the Earth is subjective? — Samuel Lacrampe

Let me ask you this?
Can you prove that the round earth is good or bad?
You can demonstrate that the sun appears circular. You can even make 'circle' as defining by the shape of the sun. But can you demonstrate that the sun is evil or good?
Morals are not factual.
The closest you can get to objective morality is Law.

Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men. — Samuel Lacrampe

No it is not.
You obviously have a blind spot and have forgotten women AGAIN.
This indicates to me that you are not to be trusted with moral judgements.

I agree that your conclusion is valid given your postulates, however I, and I'd imagine others who believe morality is subjective, would disagree with your first postulate below:

(1) The criteria or standard to evaluate the moral value (goodness or badness) of an act is justice. I.e., if the act is just, then it is morally good, and if unjust, then morally bad. It is nonsense to speak of an act which is morally good yet unjust, or morally bad yet just.

My view is that it just so happens that most acts we consider to be moral are just, but this isn't a given. I therefore disagree with your assumption that this is the way one ought to distinguish between morally good and bad acts.

akljsgnlkaugsnflakusjgfhalfalksjfasf

Hello. You post is merely an opinion or position. It needs to be backed up by reason to be a complete argument.

Why would you believe morality is not subjective? — creativesoul

As per the OP.

If they are both derived from the golden rule then then golden rule would differ from justice. In which case I'd be back to your original definition -- — Moliere

Not quite. Both the golden rule and the Just War Theory are derived from justice. The golden rule differs from justice inasmuch as an effect differs from its cause, but they are directly linked.

In which case I'd say that my principle is derived from your notion of justice. [...] — Moliere

As mentioned above, the golden rule is directly linked to justice; so much so that one cannot be followed without the other. Your behaviour of "treating everyone as some sort of means to whatever happens to please me" clearly breaks the golden rule because you would not want this behaviour from others onto you. And if the golden rule is broken, then the behaviour is unjust.

"But selfishness is unjust." Your prejudice is showing. — Vaskane

Justice: equality in treatment in all men.
Selfishness: treating yourself above others.
Therefore, by definition, selfishness is unjust.

Let's say we have culture A and culture B that don't interact with each other. Both cultures value different things.

In culture A, if you steal, you get your hand chopped off. This happens to everyone in this society. And people truly believe that anyone who steals truly does deserve to get their hand chopped off, including themselves if they were the thief.

In culture B, if you steal, you get sent to prison. This happens to everyone in this society. And people truly believe that anyone who steals truly does deserve to go to prison, including themselves if they were the thief. Yet, people in culture B don't think that a thief deserves to get their hand chopped off and find it too cruel.

Wouldn't both of these cultures be acting just?

How can the demand for justice rise from selfishness? And if injustice is present, then what becomes the measure of the net gain? — Samuel Lacrampe

Because the only rational reason to demand for justice is the fear of being the one that is in the worse situation. If one wants altruistic good, they'll prioritize the good and not its equal distribution.

This act is no doubt merciful — Samuel Lacrampe

I can't agree with that, for the reasons stated before. The concept of mercy just doesn't apply to means of crime prevention.

On any grounds (hence objective). It means that no matter how one may justify wilfully killing an innocent child, it is wrong, regardless of anyones subjective feelings towards the killer. It can under no circumstances, be considered morally good to commit such an act. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

... according to your subjective opinion on the matter.

As mentioned above, the golden rule is directly linked to justice; so much so that one cannot be followed without the other. Your behaviour of "treating everyone as some sort of means to whatever happens to please me" clearly breaks the golden rule because you would not want this behaviour from others onto you. And if the golden rule is broken, then the behaviour is unjust. — Samuel Lacrampe

Leaving aside what I want for now, and whether the golden rule follows from justice...

I would say that on the formal level, if not in spirit, my maxim follows your definition of justice. But that's what I was trying to get at in the first place; what you state justice is -- the equality of treatment of men -- is not robust enough. The formal statement is too permissive, because it clearly allows for things which are not just, at least as yours and my intuitions would have them (since I don't think that the maxim I produced is exactly just, either, merely something which follows from your formally stated definition of justice). There must be more to justice, in that case, than merely the equality of treatment between persons.

Justice: equality in treatment in all men.
Selfishness: treating yourself above others.
Therefore, by definition, selfishness is unjust. — Samuel Lacrampe

This conclusion is false. It is no conclusion at all.
I think women are more important than men since men are incapable of giving birth. Different roles in society require different treatment. You can't even bring yourself to mention women. You have failed this simple test again and again.
To some degree we all have to treat ourselves before others since we would be incapable of working for others were we to not first look after ourselves.
If you were to stay hungry before ensuring the rest of humanity were properly fed, then you'd be dead before you got very far.

You can't even bring yourself to mention women. You have failed this simple test again and again. — charleton

For Christ's sake give the guy a break.

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'man' - "2A human being of either sex; a person."

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'man' - "2A human being of either sex; a person." — Pseudonym

He did not use this form of definition, which is, incidentally about 40 years out of date. Not "MAN" but men.

Firstly, unless you are a mind reader you cannot possibly know what definition he had in mind. Secondly I think you made it quite clear in your comments about the use of the term American Dream, that you set little store by statistics about the usage trends of certain words. Thirdly, seeing as the term was still ambiguous enough at the time of Miller and Swift's instructional on Non-Sexist Writing (1988) to require instruction to the layman, I can't see how it could have dropped out of common usage ten years before then.

Firstly, unless you are a mind reader you cannot possibly know what definition he had in mind — Pseudonym

Yes I can: the context.
The mention of the phrase "American Dream" is not relevant. My query about that was how the data was gathered.
1988 is a long time ago, and the use of "Man" is now defunct. Try using it at college and see how far you get. In fact it's been anathema since at least as long ago as 1990 in academic circles and throughout the media.

You obviously have a blind spot and have forgotten women AGAIN. — charleton

Oh ffs not this again, it has been made clear what OP meant and that you're for some reason blatantly misinterpreting what has been said.

He did not use this form of definition, which is, incidentally about 40 years out of date. Not "MAN" but men. — charleton

So now you can claim someone's opinion to be whatever because of grammatical errors they make?

Yes I can: the context. — charleton

You've shown nothing in the context to imply your opinion.

Yes I can: the context. — charleton

Ah yes, I'd forgotten your supernatural ability to divine a person's deepest intentions from just 6 lines of rhetoric, and with such confidence that even just asking them what they meant to confirm would be a waste of your time. For the rest of us not so magically endowed perhaps you could explain exactly what it was about the context that lead you to uncover Samuel's secrect misogynist agenda.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten your supernatural ability to divine a person's deepest intentions from just 6 — Pseudonym

Childish straw man!! LOL
Unless Mr banana is a Victorian gentleman, or both of you are pair of misogynistic twats - would it hurt you to use a gender inclusive word like the rest of the people in the English speaking world: human, human being, people..
Maybe you two are from Texas or something?

Theory bites the dust as soon as morality is proved to be separate from justice. — Thrifclyfe

My view is that it just so happens that most acts we consider to be moral are just, but this isn't a given. I therefore disagree with your assumption that this is the way one ought to distinguish between morally good and bad acts. — Kenshin

You may be right that, in theory, we cannot prove that morality is about justice. But I think we can in practice. Morality is about "what-ought-to-be", or in other words, duty. I mean here real duty from conscience, not legal duty from your country, as in during the nazi regime. In practice, no one can experience a sense of duty in accomplishing an act that they believe to be unjust. One may experience pleasure doing injustice (in a twisted way), but not duty.

In order to validate the claim that morality is separate from justice, we would need to bring up an example where duty from conscience demands for injustice. Note, it may be futile to bring external examples like Hitler, because we cannot conclude from his acts if he was motivated from duty or something else like pleasure. I am instead asking for your own personal experience here.

Meaning equal punishments, but also that everyone lives in equal circumstances? [...] Because otherwise we would be punishing an act of theft by a starving person the same way as an act of theft by a greedy one. — Londoner

As per example (2) in the OP, justice is equality in treatment, but relative to the situation. It is reasonable to not punish theft motivated from starvation, because health and safety are objective values. Greed, or desire, is not. So the factor that determines the punishment is rational. Then justice is preserved if, under the same situation (whether starvation or greed), we give everyone the same treatment.

Mercy is part of the Golden Rule in that we would like others to extend the same understanding to us, because we can imagine circumstances where we might also act the same way. [...] — Londoner

Agreed. But this does not opposes my position, because the Golden is derived from the same concept of justice.

[...] We would like to think that if we had been born a German in the same epoch as Hitler and the others we would have not gone along with the Nazis. However the chances are that we would. Born earlier we would probably have seen nothing wrong with slavery, or beating wives, either. It is only the 'moral luck' of having been born later that means we do not share the guilt for such things. — Londoner

The behaviour from the nazis breaks the Golden Rule, because they would not want to be treated as they treated their victims. Thus the behaviour is unjust.