Are you suggesting that moral claims can be true or false? I can believe that I am justified in telling you that you are a moron because you say something moronic, but is it moral despite it appearing sensible?

Whether it's right or not your moral character is the only metric that is truly measurable, paradoxically it doesn't always end with the best moral outcome.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to think of examples but can't come up.with anything. Seems well have to play by ear.

The context is a part of the action. Actions don't exist in a vacuum. That stealing is wrong is a generalization; if you steal to feed a homeless family the action is not just stealing but stealing to feed a homeless family, which may be interpreted to be morally right.

Given that morality, as well as reality is entirely subjective the right or wrong of anything is entirely contextual.

BUT the context requires a firm grip upon what reality might be, our closest approximation to same. For an action to be 'effectively' right or wrong it need only be in keeping with a sound understanding of Natural Laws.

Moral equivocation of any kind is a consequence of an imprecise or self serving understanding of Natural Law. In this sense morality as it pertains to human beings does not really exist, all that exists is the human capacity to operate outside of natural law, and the capacity of others to condemn or approve of same.

Why not come up with an example... of a moral choice/dilemma that cannot be dispelled by adherence to the Principals of 'Natural Laws' And let us see where reason might take us when it is aligned with Natural Law?

M

Whether it's right or not your moral character is the only metric that is truly measurable, paradoxically it doesn't always end with the best moral outcome. — Sum Dude

How is your moral character measurable?

Through your actions hopefully, but it's impossible to know the future, you can only make an educated guess.

That's what character is, just good intentions. The only way it's measured is once you are dead and other's essentially give you your moral high score.

I know that's reductive but I'm must being cheeky, but the kicker is, they all might be wrong.

"What is good?"

You know it when you see it, it is self evident.

Are there things that appear good but are able to be made bad? Yes, this is called perversion, meaning twisting that which is good into the bad.

There is no opposite of good, evil is simply a good act with evil intentions or the absence of good. I'll attribute the later to Goya

"All that is required for evil to spread is for good men (Human Beings my...emphasis) to do nothing" - Goya paraphrased.

By an educated guess you imply rational thought and so how can you ascertain the sincerity of your moral claims as transcending some mere expression of your desires or beliefs that have been constructed by society?

Rational thought is actually a dirty word to me, given it may not be for everyone.

You can rationalize bad behavior.

You can't be reasonable with bad behavior unless that behavior leads to a good end.

No one says "you're just reasoning your behavior" when they mean rationalize

The word rational is morally ambiguous, so is logical. Think of them as diametrically opposed similarly with thought and feeling. Reason is the best of both the logical and the rational in my opinion. If this is incongruent give me a good reason, not ration, why it isn't. :cool:

Yes, your beliefs are largely influenced by society, but this doesn't mean you can't learn to separate truth from falsehood.

You know it when you see it, it is self evident. — Sum Dude

Nope. Ever heard of a wolf in sheep's clothing? If it were self-evident, there would probably be no such thing as philosophy.

Setting aside the fact that you write like a neurotic receptionist on crack, how can you separate "truth from falsehood" when you are comparing this moral system to the very values prescribed by society? You cannot abandon rationalism if your focus is on how appropriate your motivations are since it is reason that regulates our understanding.

I'll rephrase, it's self evident once it is seen.

"What does that mean" I don't know exactly, but neither do you so we are on the same page.

The receptionist comment is rude, but I won't insult you in return. :smile:

I will admit that saying thought and feeling as diametrically opposed was a bit much. Thank you for the feedback.

How can you separate truth and falsehood, (notice there are no parenthesis, meaning I know there are truths and falsehoods and your parenthesis indicate you don't believe in either) when you can never have a moral system that is separate from values prescribed by society?

Lastly motivation is never a question of what is appropriate. The want for food or sex is neither appropriate or inappropriate, it vastly precedes it in nature.

I don't believe in "isms." I take what I find useful in schools of thought and disregard that which isn't succinct. Is this stupid? Maybe, but I can live with the fact I'll never perfectly understand morality.

Edit: The term moral comes from the word mores, as in social mores, similar to norms.

Mores are just a measurement of what is moral.

I'll rephrase, it's self evident once it is seen. — Sum Dude

Seen, how? Like that "good" girlfriend of yours who has manipulated you, where your self-esteem is so low that you conform and do what you are told, like how your desires make you overlook who she really is, like how the praises and accolades by others for being with her makes you think it is "good" because everyone else tells you that it is? Self-evident, how?

So, I could be the most loving, righteous woman on earth, virginal and charitable all hidden from everyone, but I could tell you to go fuck yourself and wear a bikini, does that make me "bad"?

And are you only "good" because you have yet to be given the chance to prove the authenticity of your motivations?

I don't believe in "isms." I take what I find useful in schools of thought and disregard that which isn't succinct. Is this stupid? Maybe, but I can live with the fact I'll never perfectly understand morality. — Sum Dude

That type of indifference lacks cognitive rigour and as a consequence you lose the opportunity to broaden your intellectual horizon and ultimately your moral compass to thus find adequate solutions and calculations that are forward thinking, or what you referred to as an educated guess. May as well say "meh" and be done with it so yes, it is stupid. It is defeatist and the moment you anticipate failure, the likelihood you will become one.

There is always validity in learning about things that appear wrong or even useless in order to provide that suitable contrast, to give you insight into ideas and thoughts that others may have, breaking down those barriers by enabling relativism. Indeed, no one should believe in beliefs or "isms" because that is simply a person who mirrors their identity to something socially constructed and so ultimately they are not really thinking but merely rearranging their prejudices. But, one should always be willing to learn it. The world is not you.

Lastly motivation is never a question of what is appropriate. The want for food or sex is neither appropriate or inappropriate, it vastly precedes it in nature. — Sum Dude

Instinct is different to motivation.

How can you separate truth and falsehood, (notice there are no parenthesis, meaning I know there are truths and falsehoods and your parenthesis indicate you don't believe in either) when you can never have a moral system that is separate from values prescribed by society? — Sum Dude

Not sure what you mean here, care to further explain?

The receptionist comment is rude, but I won't insult you in return. :smile: — Sum Dude

No, it wasn't. It was a funny way of saying that you type fast. Interesting how your ego can interfere.

The context is a part of the action. Actions don't exist in a vacuum. That stealing is wrong is a generalization; if you steal to feed a homeless family the action is not just stealing but stealing to feed a homeless family, which may be interpreted to be morally right. — BlueBanana

While for all intents in purposes, this answers the question posited in the OP, there is one glaring question that remains. Namely, why is there a discrepancy between moral actions that are 'wrong' and contextually right ones?

Why the gap, and if so, shouldn't the singular focus be on making sure that all moral actions fulfill a if and only if conditional to their contextual merit?

Yes, when there are two different ultimate values, and there's some confusion between which value is being held as ultimate.

IOW, you can have an action that's morally wrong from one (ultimate) point of view but contextually right from another (ultimate) point of view (which simply means that it's morally right from that other point of view).

This was the essence of Tragedy in the old sense: two different senses of what's morally right clashing, two forces acting for the good as they see it and coming to blows. The best villains have a plausible motivation.

Morality is objective but not intrinsic. This is a nice but important distinction. Nature herself offers no reason to favour one point of view over any other - so no particular morality is intrinsic to Nature, no point of view is "Nature's own" point of view - but once a point of view has been taken on, the world automatically divides into things' being objectively good or bad from that point of view.

e.g. I can look at the world from the point of view of the survival and flourishing of the human race, or from the point of view of the survival and flourishing of bunny rabbits, or from the point of view of the continued existence into the future of my old, worn-out shoe. Nature is indifferent to which I choose, but honours my evaluative act by instantly having her parts stand in objectively good or bad relation to any of those points of view.

So you can have objective moralities that clash.

Now of course in reality, human beings have bell-curve distributions of preference for a basket of closely-related ultimate goals - e.g. one's own personal happiness and flourishing, the flourishing of family, kin, race, the human race in general, the individual qua individual. Under most ordinary circumstances, what is to be done will be roughly similar from the point of view of all these closely-related moralities (e.g. to take one extreme, it's in none of these interests to have a social rule that commands, "Kill everyone you meet.") But sometimes there's a clash in edge cases, and one has to figure out what one holds as the higher value.

The relationship between "is" and "ought" isn't as fraught as people think: obviously if you are born with a particular preference for a particular ultimate value, or you've been trained in it, and took to the training, that's your birthright, you don't need to further justify that preference. And to some extent, the "nesting" of values (from self, to family and friends, to kin, clan, town, nation, race, human race) gives good enough reason to follow most social rules because most social rules will redound with benefit at all those levels. But, again, sometimes there's a clash and one has to think through seriously what one's deepest values are. That's when you have "the struggle in the human heart," which Hemingway and GRR Martin assure us is the key to good storytelling - and which, again, makes heroes and villains interesting, and their clash weighty.

I feel as though I've brought up a very important ethical dilemma. How does one assure that every moral action fulfills it's merit in every contextual instance? Or perhaps this line of reasoning is flawed in trying to assume absolute standards? It seems like an optimization problem...

You don't know whether I have a girlfriend or not, and even if you did or didn't you have no context for understanding that potential relationship.

Manipulation and influence are the same thing, with different intentions.

I dont understand why you have such a hangup with the word good, you sound like a Determinist steeped in cultural relativism.

Telling me to fuck myself while being a woman and wearing a bikini is just rude (not the bikini part, I'm not sure why you added that necessary detail), it's not really a moral transgression, it just means that person would be kind of a dick. There's nothing wrong with being kind of a dick unless you accelerate it to the point of lambasting someone with slander.

Even if this was a moral transgression it would be a very minor single act, rather then the collection of experience people have and act in their lives.

"Who can be slandered and who can't?"

People with more cultural capital can be "slandered" but culture receives it as parody or satire if they have the foundations of free speech. People that are just run of the mill and have no higher influence then their job will allow shouldn't be slandered because in truth most people can't handle it and could end up committing suicide or worse attacking people. Criticized? Yes, but not slandered.

There is no "authenticity of motivations" because we all have the same motivations, security, love and fun.

Perhaps you mean authenticity of intentions, which are not the same thing as motivation. Motivation is the primordial precursor to intentions, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves as best then can given the restraints of their society and worldview what is right and wrong to do. Is accident of birth a thing? Yes, but it isn't the only thing, by a long shot.

I'm not indifferent, I just know from experience I can't go down that rabbit hole again. I choose to know that I will do what I think is best in the future. Am I wrong? Yes, at times I'm sure I will be, but you can't just program your moral compass to be right everytime, it's hard enough to think about what could be potentially moral or immoral even most of the time. What you are proposing is quite honestly, really short sighted.

When did I say the world is me?

I am part of the world and the world is a part of me. My identity is inseparable from the time and place of my existence.

You say instinct and motivation aren't the same thing.

Me: Instinct/Motivation precedes intention(s)/moral compass

You as I am interpreting your post: It's actually instinct then motivation. I don't remember seeing you write anything about intentions, but I could be wrong.

It's semantics at this point so I don't think we really believe our primordial natures are any different, your wording is just different compared to mine.

The you was bold, meaning Timeline the poster, specifically.

You claim to understand your moral compass but seem to like to type good in quotations, which indicates you are uncomfortable with that term. Further, the final part of that statement asserts that NO ONE's moral compass is distinct from their environment.

My understanding is that you think somehow a moral compass can exist totally outside of structure and context.

"Your understanding of my assertions is wrong."

Ok, so prove yourself right.



There is none, neither structure or context are totally knowable in the future. There is only the summation of your acts in trying to be the most moral you can be.

You don't know whether I have a girlfriend or not, and even if you did or didn't you have no context for understanding that potential relationship. — Sum Dude

That was not the point. The point is how do you know that what you see is actually real since your perceptions themselves can be contaminated by manipulation, desire, social constructs etc You could meet a woman who merely behaves in a way that is representative of the socially constructed idea of an ideal woman and compelling you to believe that she is virtuous and honourable by publicly being charitable, but is that moral behaviour if her intention or motivation is simply getting attention? Like those people who pray in front of everyone, it is a show or a display, a game that people are playing in order to receive the congratulations from others and the underlying motive is egotistical because it is about receiving, getting the attention through feelings of popularity and being appreciated for obedience to the norm.

I dont understand why you have such a hangup with the word good, you sound like a Determinist steeped in cultural relativism. — Sum Dude

Determinism and free-will are not mutually exclusive and being intellectually fluid is essential if you want to really understand the complexity of the world, otherwise you end up a stubborn child who listens to no one because he thinks he is absolutely perfect, erstwhile everyone else is like what a dipshit.

Good is synonymous with moral... the point of the thread, brah.

Manipulation and influence are the same thing, with different intentions. — Sum Dude

How does that work? How can different intentions produce the same result? Manipulation is intended for evil; influence is you just being you and people admiring you for it. You don't have any intention other than being you. Manipulation is subtle and done well - otherwise it would not be manipulation - making you feel guilty when you shouldn't, shifting the blame and the responsibility, the intention being to control you in a way where you don't even realise. If you knew you were being manipulated, you would not be manipulated. You know when you admire someone. It is the difference between being in love with someone and deeply happy, or being dependent on someone and deeply miserable.

Telling me to fuck myself while being a woman and wearing a bikini is just rude (not the bikini part, I'm not sure why you added that necessary detail), it's not really a moral transgression, it just means that person would be kind of a dick. There's nothing wrong with being kind of a dick unless you accelerate it to the point of lambasting someone with slander. — Sum Dude

I believe in modesty and higher virtues so if I wear a bikini and if I swear and if I behave in a manner that others would consider contradictory to this, am I no longer virtuous? Is being 'virtuous' only when other people tell me that it is? That is the point, what Camus was explaining in his story The Outsider. I challenge myself all the time by intentionally breaking down those social constructs and flipping it the other way around because I hate the show or the game. I hate how people use it and manipulate their way through life when underneath their intentions or will is immoral. Some people spend decades with someone before realising that they are not who they say they are.

There is no "authenticity of motivations" because we all have the same motivations, security, love and fun. — Sum Dude

They are each paralleled with fear, social constructs and conformism. What you call "love" could merely be some socially constructed ideal that you unknowingly conform to and the happiness it produces is because you are doing what you think you should - along with everyone else - and therefore you feel security because you think that you are somehow connected. It is why people feel anxiety or depression because who they really are is attempting to speak through emotions that tell them something is wrong but they cannot articulate using language as to explain why since their delusions are so embedded that they almost cannot escape except for that feeling compelling them otherwise. Authenticity is when those motivations are genuinely you. I want security, love and fun but I will never do it at the expense of who I am; I will never be with a man who follows the herd, never have fun by going clubbing and drinking, never try to manipulate in order to have security. I follow me, my heart, and not the crowd and I can do that because I have learnt to be on my own, learnt to take care of myself. There is authenticity in our motivations.

You claim to understand your moral compass but seem to like to type good in quotations, which indicates you are uncomfortable with that term. Further, the final part of that statement asserts that NO ONE's moral compass is distinct from their environment.

My understanding is that you think somehow a moral compass can exist totally outside of structure and context. — Sum Dude

That is what free-will is, that language is a tool but that the belief in some sort of unity or connection with society or other people is really just psychological and not real. Morality is the very 'you' as someone who has embraced their separateness and transcended those psychological barriers and while much of what we have learnt is a part of that structure, the point is that we don't blindly follow but begin to process information independent from that structure; we become self-aware and that cognitive process enables us to transcend.


--

Just a side note, can you quote my comments, it gets confusing.

Yes, like murder is wrong but if you killed a pedophile who was trying to kill and rape your child I cant say you are wrong.