I don't think groups of people can be moral agents. Groups are after all comprised of individuals, the actions of which, taken together, may be (strictly speaking, incorrectly) generalized as actions of the group.

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?

Are we talking about moral agency or just the philosophical concept?

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.

I agree, groups can't be agents. But nowhere did I call a group immoral; I just said that they hold immoral opinions.

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

You make a good if obvious point: circumstances and motivations are important. But these things would often be "baked into" the moral axioms that would arise. For instance: some people believe that torture is never okay. However some people think it is okay in very rare circumstances. If the majority believes it is rarely, but sometimes, justified, one could merely ask what circumstances it is justified under, or use rational discourse concerning the pre-existing moral axioms, to come to a conclusion as to what circumstances under which torture is justified. Additionally, one could do the same for the motivations behind the torturer: is it to save a young child locked away in the basement of a killer? Or is it to satisfy a sadistic hunger? One need only devise more and more complex axioms, or just rationally apply them on the spot, if one is analytical enough. Maybe a computer could do it. :chin:

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?

I'll summarize what I have posted previously: if one defines morality as "what is considered good behavior for most people some of the time" then it becomes moral to act according to the consensus about what behavior is approved of, which is expressed as a ratio of people who approve over total people. Furthermore, any majority approved action would correlate to what should be done in a given circumstance with appropriately acknowledged motives.

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!

It totally is the opinion of the majority of people, yes, but the laws we currently abide by are implemented based on popular opinion or, even more often, the profits of corporations; you cannot just shoot someone in the face or not pay taxes. Sorry to overload your classical liberal brain. That being said thanks for engaging with me thus far.

Alright, that's the last time I'm going to be snide. I mean it when I say thanks, Tzeentch, you make me think. Besides, circumstances do matter, along with motivations, in the moral system I propose; the action is matched up with the circumstances and motivations.

"If 6 billion people claim that torture is justified in certain contexts, by way of majority it must be true." - Argumentum ad populum.

Whether you say ratio or percent it makes no difference. You're still appealing to the majority. Which means you are harming your own argument which is probably being made out of intuition. If it is being made out of intuition, trust that intuition but figure out how to make your points without making a logical fallacy if you can. If the argument is logically sound then it should speak for itself and convince me of its strength, despite my skepticism. It's extremely difficult for me to adhere to a principle of charity and adhere to a principle of healthy and reasonable skepticism at the same time when your conclusion itself is a fallacy.

You also assume 7 billion+ humans are the majority. We declaw cats, we forcefully and without consent sterilise domesticated and wild animals. Sometimes not even for medical reasons like Ovarian or testicular cancer either, the medical consensus in terms of ethics here is that even if I have testicular cancer, I can opt to refuse all specific ball removing treatments in favour of something less mutilating if I want to. Whether that is successful or not I don't know. The point is, the consensus or ratio here among medical professionals, it's above 0.5 within that field, (at least functionally it is but I've not specifically polled that question in either that or a global demographic.) is I have the right to refuse this treatment even if adhering to a principle of retaining human dignity, which might ultimately lead to my death. Retaining Human Dignity in this case could be viewed by others as unjustifiable pride. Which would mean my death would be my fault and so would the emotional consequences of the fallout, for my loved ones and for my potential to help humanity which would be lost due to my own arrogance.

Maybe a computer could do it. :chin: — Aleph Numbers

While I did previously infer this, not the ones you or I have at the moment. Which operate algorithmically and heuristically, not axiomatically, as do me and you on a conscious level. There might be arguments to be made for axiomatic thinking on the subconscious level. In programming a group of algorithms can work axiomatically to some extent but conflicts, fallibility and bias of designer and data inputter doesn't help. Hence computer glitches and crashes etc.

Now as for Quantum Computing... Whole other ball game but might be slightly less fallible than it's designer, might be. However I suspect that even that will have shortcomings and whatever might be next after that too.

The reason conscious level thinking can't be axiomatic is something I'd like to be able to explain, but I haven't got the Time. ;) enjoy that riddle haha.

This might help explain.

your conclusion itself is a fallacy. — MSC

I'll say it again then: if I define morality as "what is considered good behavior by most people some of the time" that means that if most people believe something is the correct thing to do morally it is the moral thing to do in the appropriate circumstances. Not a fallacy.

You also assume 7 billion+ humans are the majority. — MSC

That is an interesting problem: animals are people too. I guess humans just need to advocate for better treatment of animals.

Hey, guys and gals, what do yout thing constitutes an act which is moral?

I am asking because there has been examples of what we call good and what we call bad. But there has no discerntion between good and right and between bad and wrong. If it's bad, it's wrong, and the right thing to do is to do something that is good for everyone.

Where is the moral compass? What can you say about something bad that is still moral? Something bad that is still moral, yet it contains no good that counter-effects the bad?

This is what I need to hear before I can seriously engage on a talk about morality. Morality exists, but we never touched upon what its hallmarks are. Please tell me what it is about morality that makes it different from everything else, and most prominently different from good and bad.

Literally just defined what morality would be in the post right before you: what is considered appropriate behavior for most humans some of the time. Do some reading next time, please, before barging in and demanding we answer your questions so we can have a "serious" engagement on morality.

discerntion — god must be atheist

Brah, are you drunk? I have no idea what you are talking about here either:

Please tell me what it is about morality that makes it different from everything else, and most prominently different from good and bad. — god must be atheist

I'll say it again then: if I define morality as "what is considered good behavior by most people some of the time" that means that if most people believe something is the correct thing to do morally some of the time it is the moral thing to do in the appropriate circumstances. Not a fallacy. — Aleph Numbers

Yes it is. If every animal on Earth wanted to destroy the potential for life on Mars and destroy Mars with a death star it wouldn't make it right. You'd be missing the whole point of the idea of majority consensus in a biocentric model.

Why should anyone have to engage with a definition of morality is majority rules? What if the majority rules to kill the minority out of an extremely incorrect assessment of that minorities ability to destroy the whole community of life?

Let's look at the Infinite Gauntlet Thanos issue, lets Say Thanos offers to let us have a vote. The first question being. Should we have a meaningful vote on whether or not thanos should kill whomever is in the minority on this question? You'd essentially consign that entire minority ti death whether they are a moral relativist or not and you assume the majority is smart enough to know what is and isn't right and wrong in any given situation. It might seem moral in the moment because everyone voted it so, but if we have a vote 30 years later to punish the majority in the last two votes for enabling thanos to kill the minority, then there is a contradiction. Time makes the difference. It doesn't matter what the majority might vote for if a later majority can find the same context and the same principles morally abhorrent later. This is why it is a Fallacy, because it leads to a contradiction.

Listen, everyone makes fallacies and you're not expected to be perfect all the time. Fallacies are what they are for a reason.

Now, it would be also be a fallacy of me to assume that because you argument has a fallacy in it, it might not have merit. The point is you have to show me that merit. So far you have in some ways but not by clinging to fallacy by majority. That's just my honest observation. You can not agree if you want but unless you have redefined a number of the words you used then what you said to me does not mean what you want it to mean. If that is the case, then you'll need to delineate on a few of your definitions in order for it to not appear as a fallacy because you've given me no good logical argument as to why I shouldn't see it as a fallacy.

All I'm really asking of you; is this your best philosophical argument? Now be really honest with yourself. Is this the best you can do?

Yes, this is the best I can do, I'm not a professional philosopher; I just like to dabble on occasion.

what is considered appropriate behavior for most humans some of the time. — Aleph Numbers

who is doing the considering? The same people that act the way they consider appropriate behaviour? Or in fact there are people who act against their own best judgment, and are considered to be behaving appropirately by at least one person outside that group?

The additonal qualifyer "some of the time" completely obliterates any usefully tangible meaning in this attempt at a definition of morality. Thanks for putting that in.

Brah, are you drunk? I have no idea what you are talking about here either:

Please tell me what it is about morality that makes it different from everything else, and most prominently different from good and bad.
— god must be atheist — Aleph Numbers

Obviously it is not I who haven't read your 2+ pages of posts, but it is you who were too lazy or inept to read my only one post.

I barged in and asked a dead serious question. So far nobody I know has come up with a notion that discerns morality from non-morality. Yet we discuss morality to death, as it were a tangible, known quantity or quality. My question was aimed to throw light upon the fact that morality, though it may exist, is not something humans can agree on as to its true nature.

Alright, I'll engage with you, even if you are exceedingly acrimonious.

who is doing the considering — god must be atheist

The majority of humanity.

The additonal qualifyer "some of the time" completely obliterates any usefully tangible meaning in this attempt at a definition of morality. Thanks for putting that in. — god must be atheist

It actually makes it considerably more cogent: certain acts are only moral at certain times, depending upon the situation and the agents' motives. Surely you do not believe that any given act could be moral in every situation?

So you believe in divine command theory, eh?

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.

So you believe in divine command theory, eh? — Aleph Numbers

Absolutely not.

Surely you do not believe that any given act could be moral in every situation? — Aleph Numbers

You are answering a question I did not ask. Which is fine. I don't mind if you exercise your right to free speech. Just saying that you are hedging, but I can't fault you for that. To wit: My question is, what is it about morality that ultimately, unambiguosly, and clearly delineates it from other human considerations? I ask, because my point is that though it may exist, humanity has not found out what it is, and therefore all speeches and conversations about morality that purport to make a point are futile.

Obviously it is not I who haven't read your 2+ pages of posts, but it is you who were too lazy or inept to read my only one post. — god must be atheist

@Aleph Numbers

Here's an example of an argument that although contains a fallacy, kind of rings true, since if pressed they would use your own linguistic reactions to honest criticism as the premises for this conclusion.

You cherry pick from parts of my responses too and ignore everything that you don't seem interested in trying to refute. Which means you're not being charitable to me and are trying to misrepresent my own words back to me even though I can literally observe you missing all the detail and nuance I didn't have to take the time to carefully craft, for you. You are literally getting a lot of what I perceive to be my and everyone elses most valuable resource, time.

You are answering a question I did not ask. Which is fine. I don't mind if you exercise your right to free speech. Just saying that you are hedging, but I can't fault you for that. To wit: My question is, what is it about morality that ultimately, unambiguosly, and clearly delineates it from other human considerations? I ask, because my point is that though it may exist, humanity has not found out what it is, and therefore all speeches and conversations about morality that purport to make a point is futile. — god must be atheist

I second this question. I'd like to know too.

I'm not a professional philosopher either. So you can do better. Which you should take as a compliment. Your problem is fixable and it's relatively easy. Take more time to respond. No one here is going to rush you or take offence (at least I won't) if you don't respond immediately. We aren't a clingy facebook girlfriend you have to be prompt with to avoid a guilt trip. Just relax, set yourself goals on how much time you're willing to contribute to a creative endeavour. If your responses are based on the best you can do promptly then your philosophy will only suffer for it. Take your time.

If I gave you an hour to paint something and you gave me a half assed drawing of a stick figure I'd know you spent five minutes doing it and 55 minutes fucking around. That's the only principle I'm trying to convey to you right now. Respect your use of time.

This isn't even about being fair to others but about being fair to yourself. It didn't take Leonardo Davinci five minutes to do the Mona Lisa and Rome was not built in a day.