Making decisions relative to an emotion alone isn't as reliable. When decisions are large enough people have to put forward some type of reasoning or risk being seen derelict of a duty for due diligence. — Cheshire
Well, if I can approach a problem that shows a moral judgement can be reasoned from a neutral position; then it contradicts the notion that morality of a win is side dependent.That's just it. You could ask a number of things, and they could answer a number of things. — god must be atheist
Yes, production would slow down, workers would lose their jobs, and would buy even less. Less bought, production would plummet deeper down. Bunch of workers fired again. ETC. This is the prescription for the overproduction crisis, and this was the reason behind the Great Depression.But wouldn't production naturally slow down if people weren't buying things and there was no tremendous military industrial complex draining the economy — ToothyMaw
Well, if I can approach a problem that shows a moral judgement can be reasoned from a neutral position; then it contradicts the notion that morality of a win is side dependent. — Cheshire
How do you distinguish between an emotional reaction and moral calculation? If I am angry, does that mean some one did something wrong? — Cheshire
You are implying they are all equally valid?That's just it; my examples showed that there is no neutral side in some moral questions. By the multitude of answers to the multitude of questions I aimed to demonstrate that any rationalization can be fabricated to support one's position. — god must be atheist
What if we just organized a vigorous infrastructure revitalization plan? Maybe that would drain enough to avoid the overproduction crisis? — ToothyMaw
Ok, what else is contained in a moral calculation.All moral calculations contain some emotional reaction, but not all emotional reactions are part of moral calculations. — god must be atheist
You are implying they are all equally valid? — Cheshire
Ok, what else is contained in a moral calculation. — Cheshire
Wouldn't this dissolve the meaning of the word "bias". We recognize the degree to which a person's interest can mistakenly be injected into their perception. It's the reason some decisions are made best by a neutral party. A bias decision shouldn't be as equally valid as an unbiased decision.They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist
I was simply verifying your point. Proclaiming all positions equal simply because they are positions is rather bold. You did verify it in a qualified sense, so I wasn't too far off the trail. Is it an immoral question, because of how you feel? Why not?I don't like that question, because it shows to me you haven't been getting my point. — god must be atheist
So where does that even leave us? — ToothyMaw
Seems contradictory. If anything can be framed by how much suffering it causes, then it seems to follow that every metric can be converted. All that's required is to measure the suffering caused by it's valence. — Isaac
The OP is available for confounding this demonstration. — Cheshire
I don't see how. Smashing the painting would be morally wrong. It would be wrong because doing so would make you the kind of person who could destroy beautiful things without revulsion and removing that revulsion which prevents you from doing so could lead to suffering in future as you're no longer held back when feeling the urge to destroy something. — Isaac
Is it an immoral question, because of how you feel? Why not? — Cheshire
So you wouldn't consider, for example, masturbation a moral issue? — baker
Many moral duties are about cultivating good moral sense to protect people from harm later on, they're not necessarily about harm at the time. — Isaac
The question I did not like because it showed you did not get my point. I never said because it was immoral. I never said because how it made me feel. I did not like it because -- you know. Because it revealed that you did not get my point. — god must be atheist
If any of those invented concerns were the real reason why I did not like your question, I either would have said so, or admitted to them. But I don't admit to them, because... because the reason I did not like your question was that it revealed you did not get my point. — god must be atheist
1. In general, yes. You are harming those who would have otherwise enjoyed and benefitted from the painting. And you are harming the painter, who invested part of their life in the creation.
2. In this case, you are only harming yourself. If you hate the painting, destroy it.
3. Here only the first harm of 1. applies, not necessarily the second. — EdgarAllenDoh
It's strange to me; if I was watching this event I wouldn't be thinking about the people that would never see it or the painter. I believe I would consider the act immoral based on the direct injury to the object. I think a momentary faux personhood by virtue of it's ability to possess and deliver meaning would be the subject of harm. — Cheshire
In your answer to number 2, you dropped the painter. I was wondering why. — Cheshire
If I can show that an immoral act can be against an object; then I've demonstrated an objective morality is more likely to exist? — Cheshire
Sounds like a different meaning of "objective". — hypericin
Here we've taken away the ability to measure a human reaction and still made a determination. — Cheshire
I firmly believe things are right or wrong apart from who does them. But, I can't account for how this could be; — Cheshire
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.