Belz...
Fiend God
Which, let's be clear, is YOUR ethical code.
Which, let's be clear, is YOUR ethical code.
I never said it wasn't.
I'm not getting the "Well that's just your opinion!" variation here.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, as long as we all agree that we're just voicing our opinions, that's fine. It's when people start talking about objective morality that my BS meter goes up.
Even with questions of subjectivity vs objectivity we have come to some common ground between questions that can't be answered and questions in which "my answer is the only right one even possible for consideration."
Moral systems in which there is more pain and suffering then necessary are "wrong" and I think I should be able to at least present that on a level beyond merely "my opinion."
We can't achieve moral answers while in the same breath denying the concept of moral answers exist.
Moral systems in which there is more pain and suffering then necessary are "wrong" and I think I should be able to at least present that on a level beyond merely "my opinion."
We can't achieve moral answers while in the same breath denying the concept of moral answers exist.
angrysoba
Philosophile
So why should the Nazis morality be about that?
Belz...
Fiend God
What part of "you can't 'should' morality" did you not understand? There's no objective answer. The only possible answer one can give is subjective, namely that morality should be like their morality. In this case, mine.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Why is this is a problem? I mean, obviously(?) it's a problem for the person who is made unhappy. But why is it a moral or ethical problem?
I think that this begs the question we are trying to debate. You seem to be arguing from a universal moral standard. Something about maximizing happiness. But does this universal standard actually exist? Where does your certainty come from?
Pretty sure he did.
Actually, I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to be happy no matter what. But if he thought killing Jews would do the trick, what's immoral about giving that a try? Obviously it's going to make a lot of people unhappy. But unless we're stipulating that maximizing happiness is the universaly morality, that doesn't seem to be a real problem.
---
Say I'm a moral superman. Unhindered by the traditions and superstitions of my community. Unconcerned with the needs and wants of others. Constrained only by what is practical and profitable for me. I don't care if you're happy or sad, except in how your happiness or sadness serves my needs. If I can profit from your sadness, is it immoral of me to make you sad?
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Sorry, I still think you are making no sense.
I think the whole objective/subjective distinction is pointless.
Nobody has to claim that there are some Platonic forms of Morality in the sky to say, "Hey Nazis, you shouldn't be doing that!"
There are a few different ideas that you could take as axioms or first principles for ethics. For example, you could argue, as Joe does, that right action is what maximizes well-being for conscious creatures. Some variations have been popular from Bentham to Harris. The point of that is to persuade.
Or it could be about how to cultivate a good character, etc... or to act in accordance with the Golden Rule, etc...
You can say that people disagree. That's fine. Maybe they can argue a position without claiming that these are "objective values". They can appeal, as I talked about earlier to asking what people's intuitions are about what morality is.
At one and the same time, you are laying down shoulds and saying that shoulds are a no go.
That makes no sense to me.
If questions of morality can't even go "Killing 6 million people for no reason is wrong" without the "Just my opinion" modifier what's the bloody point? At that point it's just a creative writing exercise as detached from the real world as Star Trek fan fiction.
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I'm sorry about that and I'll try to clarify further.
Well, I don't think it's pointless when I'm point-blanked asked about what morality should be about. It sounds like an objective question to me. If it was just an opinion poll I'd find it even more pointless, to be honest.
Sure, I said that myself. Or you could conquer and force people to follow your values.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
On the other hand, nobody can claim the moral high ground when telling the Nazis not to do Nazi Stuff. Disagreeing with the Holocaust is literally just your opinion. The Nazi is just as entitled to "murder" Jews as you are to say he shouldn't.
Scare quotes because we've reached the point in this discussion where concepts like murder cease to have any useful meaning.
---
What about slavery? Do humans have innate moral value? Is it immoral to enslave them, no matter how practical and profitable it might be to do so? Or are humans just a resource, to be exploited like any other, by anyone in a position to do so?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Your argument for morality always seems to stall out at this stage in the debate.
You get as far as declaring, "making someone unhappy to make yourself happy when there were other options is certainly immoral."
But when questioned about the source of your certainty, you give up. Don't give up, Joe! Have the courage of your convictions! Say what you believe, and why!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Separately, the holocaust did have a reason. A couple reasons, actually. You might disagree that they were good reasons, but it's ignorant to say there were no reasons.
Are there good reasons to kill millions of people?
What do we mean by good? Profitable? Moral? What's the difference between profitability and morality, except opinion?
You want me not to kill millions of people, fine. But you want me to refrain, without you having to come over here and physically prevent me. You want me to refrain, without you having to figure out some way to make it unprofitable for me. You want some rational argument, that will convince me to refrain without coercion, and to my own detriment. But you have no such argument. All you have, in the end, is a weak-ass attempt to shame me with your expressions of frustration.
But I am a moral superman. I am not concerned with your "shame". Your frustration is your problem, not mine. If you have no rational argument, then you have no standing. If you cannot at least appeal to practicality and profitability, then you aren't even trying.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
So? Does the kind of guy you are have some moral significance? My cat is not the kind of guy who can see me come in the door without yelling about it. My other cat is the kind of guy who would rather bite you than speak up, when they're hungry. Should I attach any moral significance to any of this, whether you or a cat?
Also, it seems to me that withholding chemo is a fairly stable strategy for ending a cancer victim's suffering. Given the nature of cancer, and given the nature of chemo, it's probably six to half a dozen either way.
---
And it doesn't have to be about pure argumentatives. It can be about down-and-dirty public policy and your tax dollars. How much of your money should the government spend on treating cancer victims? Is your answer derived from a moral argument, or a pragmatic argument?
No it just means I don't have an answer to the question that's gonna satisfy you and no discussion, especially of one that concerns real human suffering, should stall out to the side that thinks it's the most complicated.
Last edited:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
There's nothing wrong with basing an ethical system on a "kind of guy" basis. That's pretty much what mine is. I don't commit genocide because I wouldn't like being the kind of guy that would make me. I don't steal stuff because knowing it was stolen would ruin my enjoyment of the stuff (unless I thought the victim deserved it, in which case I may well steal something). I would never copy off somebody's creative work because then I'd hate my own, every compliment ever received on it would be like a dagger, every ounce of attention would be as scalding water. Ugh. Doing bad things ruins pleasure, and I likes the pleasures very much!
As far as everybody else goes, my proposed ethical system is to give everybody the freedom to do as they like (let them be the "kind of guy" they'd like to be) provided their doing so doesn't prevent anyone else from being free to live as they like as well. Hence murder would be wrong but assisted suicide okay. Stealing wrong but selling or gifting okay. Slavery wrong, employment or volunteering okay.
It's simple, easy, and doesn't require anything beyond simply deciding to live this way. No gods needed, no logical axioms, no demonstration from nature, no physics.
And it's quite fun, actually, as I've given myself permission to indulge in all sorts of alleged sins and crimes when they hurt nobody, and I enjoy having a thoroughly evil mind while living a perfectly decent and respectable life. Order, harmony, freedom, and happiness, and all because I simply decided to live the way that makes the most sense to me.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.
I guess what confuses me is that you keep making what seems like absolutist statements, about what is a legitimate moral quandry, and what is the highest moral good, and stuff like that.
I'd like to understand where this is coming from. Are these just your opinions? Are you implying an appeal to a universal moral standard that you think we all can or should see?
I don't expect you to satisfy me. I'm not looking for a gotcha. Just trying to figure out where you think your beliefs entitle you to make moral demands on me.
Because I don't consider the concept of an "absolute moral statement" to really be a thing.
Again you can say "There are right and wrong ways to build a bridge" without declaring "the is absolutely one right way to build a bridge."
Morality and ethics, again the only parts I can really speak to because they are the only parts I consider valid, are just... applied psychology and sociology to me.
The whole "Is morality subjective or objective" thing doesn't really fit into my headspace.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Would someone who would've blocked everyone else out have owed it to the others to have chosen differently?
If no, and there are some people who don't owe that to others, then you could've made the choice to consider yourself as not owing it to others and blocked everyone else out. In other words, you're not in any way constrained by owing something to others if, by choosing to act differently, you don't owe it to them anymore in the first place.
If yes, then clearly "owing something to others" isn't the property distinguishing the behaviours. Both you and the other hypothetical person who blocks everyone out would "owe it to others" but what would distinguish you is that you have a desire to act ethically whereas he doesn't.
Last edited: