It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[Moonbeam]

I dont think that was his argument though. The whole reason the left pushes for sex ed that is not abstinence only is that teens have urges and they will have sex even if its a bad idea. I happen to agree that we should give out condoms and have sex ed. The point though is logical. If teens are going to make bad choices and sometimes have sex when they should not, then they are giving in to their biological urges. Sometimes those urges are consensual and sometimes they are not.

I see your grip on logic is weakening. Good. Urges are never consensual; they are always individual. What is consensual is when the urges are for the same thing.

 

[buckshot24]

You are trying to twist this into something I did not argue. I said morality can be explained as a function of utility, and does not need religion. Regardless of the fact that most dont think that way, its still true that you can find morality through logic.

The fact that nobody thinks about "utility" when we make moral choices should tell you something about your premise.

At this point. I'm out.

Have a good one.

 

[realibrad]

The fact that nobody thinks about "utility" when we make moral choices should tell you something about your premise.

At this point. I'm out.

Have a good one.

I am using utility in the economic sense, and in that case yes they do. When someone decides between a stake or a lobster, they are thinking of utility. If the lobster is twice as much as the steak, but they wont enjoy the lobster twice as much, any will say "its not worth the price". That is an utility judgement.

I figured you would give up, because you put yourself in a illogical corner. You can explain morality through long term utility maximization. You want to believe that morality can only be divine.

But, you have the right to give up.

 

[realibrad]

I see your grip on logic is weakening. Good. Urges are never consensual; they are always individual. What is consensual is when the urges are for the same thing.

How is it illogical? My urge to express my affection by cuddling her is consensual because she wants me to cuddle her. She has the urge to be cuddled and its consensual with my urge. Thus, consensual urges no?

 

[Moonbeam]

How is it illogical? My urge to express my affection by cuddling her is consensual because she wants me to cuddle her. She has the urge to be cuddled and its consensual with my urge. Thus, consensual urges no?

Obviously not. When two people want the same thing what is consensual is the object of desire. Neither party consented to the other having that desire. Desires arise out of feelings and nobody has to give you permission to feel. But this does illustrate how easy it is for a logical mind like the one I have to divert things off on an irrelevant track, which reminds me a lot of you.

 

[OCNewbie]

Instead people your this shit like it is he fault of everyone else in life.

Huh?

 

[chipwitch]

... its still true that you can find morality through logic.

If you mean that a moral code of conduct can be determined by logical means, then what you said is TOTAL BS.

Charge a computer with the task of authoring a "morality", code of conduct with no other data input. Since computers excel at logic, it should be an easy task, if what you say is true. But it isn't. It's wishful thinking that morality is "logical."

For a computer to author a code of conduct, it would first need some directive. "The survival of humans is paramount." "The survival of Christianity is paramount." "The survival of Islam is paramount." Any directive given to the computer would be based on some kind of personal value of the "programmer." Such as, "Humans are the most important matter for consideration of any matter," for example. Even with that value, how BEST to achieve it is debatable as there are many ways, ways that often are diametrically opposed to one another, to carry out the primary directive (sorry Star Trek fans). Like, "human life is to be protected at all costs," may not be possible when exists two warring factions bent on annihilation of the other. In either case, the complete annihilation of one or the other may be necessary in order for "the human race to continue."

Further, the concept of religion was set up specifically to answer those philosophical questions that "logic" and "empirical evidence" couldn't answer... morality being the key concern of religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

..........................Further, the concept of religion was set up specifically to answer those philosophical questions that "logic" and "empirical evidence" couldn't answer... morality being the key concern of religion.

Actually, religions are the detritus of a system designed by an awake human being to awaken others based on the time the place and the quality of the illusions shared by those the guide is trying to share his wisdom. The real purpose of religion, then, is to use a common language of stories that encapsulate various means of shocking consciousness to awaken, to cause the desired effect. When the guide dies the deterioration and mechanization into an organization devoid of genuine wisdom, is what you are referring to as religion, including the notion that morality is a condition for awakening, but only a condition, not the whole reality. The problem is that we do not know what we feel and as a result can't see the unconscious assumptions we make that keep us from awakening. It is very rare for the awakening to happen without a guide or close identification and practice of one of the old dead systems that even though devoid of the light of the guide, still have much wisdom within them.

Real morality exists, but it requires transcendence of the notion there are such things as good and evil. Everyone who is, who experiences the love of being, is morality itself in every action, while all those who sleep in the past or future created by thinking.

 

[chipwitch]

Actually, religions are the detritus of a system designed by an awake human being to awaken others based on the time the place and the quality of the illusions shared by those the guide is trying to share his wisdom. The real purpose of religion, then, is to use a common language of stories that encapsulate various means of shocking consciousness to awaken, to cause the desired effect. When the guide dies the deterioration and mechanization into an organization devoid of genuine wisdom, is what you are referring to as religion, including the notion that morality is a condition for awakening, but only a condition, not the whole reality. The problem is that we do not know what we feel and as a result can't see the unconscious assumptions we make that keep us from awakening. It is very rare for the awakening to happen without a guide or close identification and practice of one of the old dead systems that even though devoid of the light of the guide, still have much wisdom within them.

Real morality exists, but it requires transcendence of the notion there are such things as good and evil. Everyone who is, who experiences the love of being, is morality itself in every action, while all those who sleep in the past or future created by thinking.

Funny how many hundreds (thousands?) of these religions want to share their "wisdom" and "awakening to transcendence" yet are almost always mutually contradictory. I hear in you the same dogma I hear in every other bullshit religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny how many hundreds (thousands?) of these religions want to share their "wisdom" and "awakening to transcendence" yet are almost always mutually contradictory. I hear in you the same dogma I hear in every other bullshit religion.

Perhaps you suffer from the delusion that consistency means anything. Time place and people implies inconsistency.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What is AT P&N's thoughts on this ingenious rational?

Next time, don't editorialize in your title, link to a source, and provide your thoughts on the matter in your OP. Other than that . . .

Perknose
Forum Director

Really? You consider a single picture of a note taped to a glass block window worthy of starting a thread? Without a source or rational comment?

 

[chipwitch]

Perhaps you suffer from the delusion that consistency means anything. Time place and people implies inconsistency.

Perhaps YOU suffer from the delusion that any of this has a point.

 

[realibrad]

If you mean that a moral code of conduct can be determined by logical means, then what you said is TOTAL BS.

Charge a computer with the task of authoring a "morality", code of conduct with no other data input. Since computers excel at logic, it should be an easy task, if what you say is true. But it isn't. It's wishful thinking that morality is "logical."

For a computer to author a code of conduct, it would first need some directive. "The survival of humans is paramount." "The survival of Christianity is paramount." "The survival of Islam is paramount." Any directive given to the computer would be based on some kind of personal value of the "programmer." Such as, "Humans are the most important matter for consideration of any matter," for example. Even with that value, how BEST to achieve it is debatable as there are many ways, ways that often are diametrically opposed to one another, to carry out the primary directive (sorry Star Trek fans). Like, "human life is to be protected at all costs," may not be possible when exists two warring factions bent on annihilation of the other. In either case, the complete annihilation of one or the other may be necessary in order for "the human race to continue."

Further, the concept of religion was set up specifically to answer those philosophical questions that "logic" and "empirical evidence" couldn't answer... morality being the key concern of religion.

Now you seem hostel, but I can show you that you are wrong.

First, we will work off the assumption that some things are good and others are not to establish what is moral. Murder is bad. Defending yourself is not typically murder depending on how you react and what the situation is.

So, imagine there are 2 societies that exist. One society does not care about murder and the people are only out for themselves. The other society works together and dislikes murder.

The society that accepts murder will have people that logically do not invest in things that they might not get if they are murdered. Why invest in something that takes 20 years if the average life is cut way short because of the murder rate. Short term spending will cut long term productivity.

The society that does not accept murder will create a culture that is far more wiling to invest in the long term. The murder rate would likely be lower and thus they can reap the benefits of the long term benefits.

The 2nd society will likely out grow the other society. Its really just evolution of a society. Those societies that accumulate ideas that benefit them in the long run will compound their growth faster and be more powerful. Those that do not will grow slower and not be as strong.

So, murder then becomes something that holds back long term growth of society and thus immoral.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps YOU suffer from the delusion that any of this has a point.

One that even a child can see. Most people, when they seek treatment for some disease don't expect the doctor to consistently prescribe aspirin because the causes of sickness vary as can be ascertained by the knowledge of symptoms. But then we don't expect a knowledge of symptoms and their treatment from a quack, now do we.

 

[chipwitch]

Now you seem hostel, but I can show you that you are wrong.

First, we will work off the assumption that some things are good and others are not to establish what is moral. Murder is bad. Defending yourself is not typically murder depending on how you react and what the situation is.

So, imagine there are 2 societies that exist. One society does not care about murder and the people are only out for themselves. The other society works together and dislikes murder.

The society that accepts murder will have people that logically do not invest in things that they might not get if they are murdered. Why invest in something that takes 20 years if the average life is cut way short because of the murder rate. Short term spending will cut long term productivity.

The society that does not accept murder will create a culture that is far more wiling to invest in the long term. The murder rate would likely be lower and thus they can reap the benefits of the long term benefits.

The 2nd society will likely out grow the other society. Its really just evolution of a society. Those societies that accumulate ideas that benefit them in the long run will compound their growth faster and be more powerful. Those that do not will grow slower and not be as strong.

So, murder then becomes something that holds back long term growth of society and thus immoral.

You just proved my point in your first sentence. You have to "assume there is good." YOU are the one establishing a moral by doing that.

Why do you think I'm hostile?

 

[chipwitch]

One that even a child can see. Most people, when they seek treatment for some disease don't expect the doctor to consistently prescribe aspirin because the causes of sickness vary as can be ascertained by the knowledge of symptoms. But then we don't expect a knowledge of symptoms and their treatment from a quack, now do we.

Are you intentionally vague and ambiguous or just lacking the concrete grasp of the concepts you're trying to convey to verbalize them?

 

[realibrad]

You just proved my point in your first sentence. You have to "assume there is good." YOU are the one establishing a moral by doing that.

Why do you think I'm hostile?

I assume there is an established definition to the word good. If you want, we can dive down the meta rabbit hole of what the real meanings of things are, but I though it was safe enough to assume an agreement on good.

So, there are 2 definitions of good in its noun form.

that which is morally right; righteousness.

benefit or advantage to someone or something.

The first would be circular logic and thus would not work. The 2nd actually fits quite well in this context and it was the one I assumed you would agree with. Apparently I was wrong as you seemed to take contention with that use.

Good in this case is something that is a benefit to society aka benefit or advantage. A society that murders blah blah blah and then you see how my point fits.

As for why I believe you are becoming hostile, it has to do with your bolding of total bs. Normally when someone emphasizes the idea that another persons point is "total bs" its to imply a bit of hostility. I left open the possibility that I might be wrong as denoted when I used seem. In choosing your method of saying you thought I was incorrect, you picked a method that is most often implicitly hostile.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good in this case is something that is a benefit to society aka benefit or advantage. A society that murders blah blah blah and then you see how my point fits.

Wait a minute..... The apprehension of a value requires the presence of an evaluator. the a priori existence of a capacity for moral judgement. The concept of utility isn't some abstraction out there that I extract from a situation, but something I impute into what I observe. I am the yardstick because I have been marked with inches. You are coming at this upside down. You know what is good because you are created in the image of God.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you intentionally vague and ambiguous or just lacking the concrete grasp of the concepts you're trying to convey to verbalize them?

Please, you laid out a false statement as to the purpose of religion which I corrected, explaining that the purpose of religion is to cure mental illness. You then explained that idea away as absurd because every religion is different, to which I replied that I had already said that every time and place and people have a variation on the disease, have different forms of bigotry that blind them to the Way. I made that point perfectly clear by stating that the practice of healing has always been about different treatments based on different diseases, why medical knowledge exists. Now you tell me I am unclear. I think the problem is not on my end. I see my points as devastatingly accurate and profoundly clear and that's not sitting too well on your end.

 

[MongGrel]

...

Nah, I'm out for the moment.

 

[chipwitch]

Good in this case is something that is a benefit to society aka benefit or advantage. A society that murders blah blah blah and then you see how my point fits.

Look, it isn't an argument of semantics. We agree on the definition. "Morality" has been debated at length for centuries. It always leads to the conclusion that good is relative to something, that "something to be benefited or advantaged."

YOU are assuming I would assume that we shared the same view that society was of prime importance. THERE is where your error is. Others, will argue that god is the most important and "good" is anything that will benefit or advantage him.

Still, other will argue that it is the individual, not society, that should be advantaged and benefited.

See? I'm not arguing what "good" means. I'm arguing that what YOU think is "good" isn't the same as me or the next person. People will only agree with what you deem "good" IF they share your opinion that society is the most important thing in the universe.

As for why I believe you are becoming hostile, it has to do with your bolding of total bs. Normally when someone emphasizes the idea that another persons point is "total bs" its to imply a bit of hostility. I left open the possibility that I might be wrong as denoted when I used seem. In choosing your method of saying you thought I was incorrect, you picked a method that is most often implicitly hostile.

Take it on faith. I'm not a hostile person.I only bold, italicize, underline, and capitalize for emphasis.

 

[chipwitch]

I made that point perfectly...

Now you tell me I am unclear. I think the problem is not on my end. I see my points as devastatingly accurate and profoundly clear and that's not sitting too well on your end.

LOL... The fact I don't understand the mutterings of madmen isn't a deficiency in my listening/reading comprehension.

 

[realibrad]

Look, it isn't an argument of semantics. We agree on the definition. "Morality" has been debated at length for centuries. It always leads to the conclusion that good is relative to something, that "something to be benefited or advantaged."

Okay, on the same page there.

YOU are assuming I would assume that we shared the same view that society was of prime importance. THERE is where your error is. Others, will argue that god is the most important and "good" is anything that will benefit or advantage him.

This is strange to me. I seem to be using the understanding of the word morality differently than you. The definition of morality is as follows.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I said that morality can be explained as "utility maximizing long term gain." Its not that promoting a societal growth is good, but rather the people that make up society. If the size of society were to be so large that it was hurting people, then that would be bad, and thus the promotion of the growth of society would not be moral.

People can argue that god is important, but that was not the argument I started down.

My point is that most of what people consider to be moral like not murdering, or raping ect can simply be explained as behavior that would benefit society. If you disagree, then feel free to explain how that is incorrect.

[/B]

Still, other will argue that it is the individual, not society, that should be advantaged and benefited.

This is where we need to dig into semantics. Society is not really used in an easy to understand way. If the individuals in society are better off, then society is better off. If society as a whole is better off, its likely that the individuals are better off, but not always. Sometimes society extracts utility from individuals to benefit the whole in an unfair way. That is a much much larger conversation though, and not really the point we are on here. They are connected so when individuals feel the system of the society is unfair, they will fight the system and thus reduce productivity. That would thus be bad.

See? I'm not arguing what "good" means. I'm arguing that what YOU think is "good" isn't the same as me or the next person. People will only agree with what you deem "good" IF they share your opinion that society is the most important thing in the universe.

I am arguing that good is what benefits people and society. Morality is the distinction of good and bad inherently. Your argument seems to be that good is subjective, and unknowable. I am saying that good is a function of utility. If people are not able to be as productive as they could have been otherwise, then people will not be benefited. That is bad. If an action promotes an increase in utility, then its good.

What I am giving is an objective measure of good vs bad. If someone wants to make the argument that good is what ever god says, then they first must establish evidence for god. If that is the arbiter of good and bad, and everything is predicated on it, then it must need to be proven or evidence provided. If not, then morality can be derived from my method of utility maximization.

Take it on faith. I'm not a hostile person.I only bold, italicize, underline, and capitalize for emphasis.

You emphasized calling my point total bullshit and not just incorrect. That typically is a method of conveying some hostility. The juxtaposition of how you spoke coupled with the capitalization is a typical way of conveying hostility. Again, I cant prove otherwise that you were not, but it is rational that it seems that way.

 

[realibrad]

Wait a minute..... The apprehension of a value requires the presence of an evaluator. the a priori existence of a capacity for moral judgement. The concept of utility isn't some abstraction out there that I extract from a situation, but something I impute into what I observe. I am the yardstick because I have been marked with inches. You are coming at this upside down. You know what is good because you are created in the image of God.

It takes an evaluator to apprehend, but not for it to be a benefit. Water to a fish is a benefit is most cases, and the fish will not understand that its needed for it to live. An evaluator is not needed for it to be a benefit. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[chipwitch]

I said that morality can be explained as "utility maximizing long term gain." Its not that promoting a societal growth is good, but rather the people that make up society. If the size of society were to be so large that it was hurting people, then that would be bad, and thus the promotion of the growth of society would not be moral.

Here's what you're missing. "utility maximizing long term gain," is still subjective. The world has gained in population. The world has gained in technology. The world has gained in monetary earning. The world has gained in human comfort and increased leisure time. BUT, it has LOST SO MUCH! Entire species are now extinct as a direct result of human gain. Climate has changed. Morality, by many, is seen to have steeply declined. Society is fracturing. What one person calls "gain," another will find to be a detriment. THAT is the subjectivity to which I'm referring. What YOU insist on labeling as good, someone else will feel just as strongly that it is bad. It's a matter of opinion. By definition, that makes it NOT objective.

People can argue that god is important, but that was not the argument I started down.

I know. I wasn't attributing it to you. I was trying to show that there are MANY arguments about what is most valued. Most of them disagree with yours.

My point is that most of what people consider to be moral like not murdering, or raping ect can simply be explained as behavior that would benefit society. If you disagree, then feel free to explain how that is incorrect.

It's not that I disagree. I don't know why most people believe murder is wrong. I also don't know how you can presume to with such certainty. It seems to me that you are trying to support your notion of objective morality.

This is where we need to dig into semantics. Society is not really used in an easy to understand way. If the individuals in society are better off, then society is better off.

Really? Better off by what standard? Sure, Fidel Castro is better off. He went from a little man in a medium sized army to a King. Of course, he robbed from his people, threw his enemies in prison, if he didn't kill them, and ensured his people had only enough to eat and no more.

I am arguing that good is what benefits people and society.

And this is where I'm arguing it isn't an absolute. If your purpose is to proclaim your opinion. Okay. Fine. But, recognize that it is just an opinion and not the basis for some kind of "objective morality".

Your argument seems to be that good is subjective, and unknowable.

Subjective? EXACTLY! Unknowable? No. I can know that murder is a bad thing... for me. I can't know that it is a bad thing for you too unless you tell me. Even so, I wouldn't know why you feel it's bad. It could be for an entirely different reason than mine. There are people who would disagree and say that murder is not bad. This is the nature of ALL things subjective.

What I am giving is an objective measure of good vs bad.

No, you are not. "Objective" means "without" bias. You have a bias. YOU are biased towards people and/or society (it's a little vague exactly which). You have many other biases too. I don't presume to know what they are or how strongly you feel about them. The one about society/people should be enough to prove your morality (what you are calling "good" or "bad" based on "utility") CANNOT be

To be clear, I'm not telling you're wrong for believing that murder is bad. I'm also not telling you're wrong for how you came to that conclusion. I couldn't even if I wanted to.

What I CAN say is that you ARE wrong for calling it objective morality. Call it what it is. You've in essence created an algorithm by which you conduct your life. I might even go so far as to call it a philosophy. But it is NOT what everyone else bases their conduct on regardless of how similar everyone's conduct may appear.