Right, Wrong, and Moral.................

[Truth OT]

What is right? In the dictionary it's defined as morally good, justified, or acceptable. Defining it is easy, but determining the who and the how behind what is considered good, justifiable, and acceptable is where we have issues. For millennia men have argued and reasoned in the hopes of finding an applicable moral philosophy that is the be all and end all to no avail. Whether it has been the divine command theory, utilitarianism, or an Kantian approach, all seem to have some holes and each's attempt at nailing down something objective has a situation where holes can be poked in it. All that said, my goal here is to attempt to best define what the framework for what is good is from the perspective of human beings with good being defined as that which is desired or approved of.
What do we almost universally desire as people? Things like safety, fairness, pleasure, the reduction of suffering, appreciation and love, security, improving the quality of the human experience, as well as being respected are desired and approved of. Actions that yield these results are generally regarded under the category of good while actions that adversely impact the above are generally consider as bad.

 

[quietthinker]

You want it in the compact version?....The Ten Commandments covers every base......its implications reach into every nook of reality....dare we see it? or is the preference to argue about it rather than explore it??

Any treasure not searched out stays hidden. Any treasure not valued, any treasure not guarded will be lost, stolen or forgotten.

 

[marksman]

You want it in the compact version?....The Ten Commandments covers every base......its implications reach into every nook of reality....dare we see it? or is the preference to argue about it rather than explore it??

Any treasure not searched out stays hidden. Any treasure not valued, any treasure not guarded will be lost, stolen or forgotten.

A good answer. I was going to say whatever is the will of God on the basis that the scripture says there is none that are good.

 

[Truth OT]

You want it in the compact version?....The Ten Commandments covers every base......its implications reach into every nook of reality....dare we see it? or is the preference to argue about it rather than explore it??

The Decalogue was part of the Sinai Covenant between Jacob's descendants and their god, not an overarching moral law. No need to read things into it that the text doesn't support.

 

[quietthinker]

The Decalogue was part of the Sinai Covenant between Jacob's descendants and their god, not an overarching moral law. No need to read things into it that the text doesn't support.

It is by this Law that humanity will be judged at the appointed time.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... with good being defined as that which is desired or approved of......

Yup. You are being consistent with relative/subjective moral "good" and "bad". At least no one can accuse you of being inconsistent .

And re.: the Above quote : Sure, and Hitler's Nazi Germany defined , desired, and approved of various things. Eh ? Then : On *your* view, you can not look back in time and say they were "wrong". Since, after all, it was "defined" and "approved" of by their society.

The same can be said of Jim Crow laws in the recent USA history. That was "desired, approved, and defined by popular vote over large swaths of the USA. So *on your view*, you can not look back and say they were "wrong". Same for slavery, which at one time in the world was seen as normal.

Let this test drive of your views sink in Truth OT.

... . Actions that yield these results are generally regarded under the category of good while actions that adversely impact the above are generally consider as bad.

Again you are confusing ontology vs epistemology . How do we *know* something (like murder) is wrong, versus WHY is it wrong. The example I keep pointing out to you is speed limits: We can both know it's wrong to exceed 35 mph, because we can both say that the sign says "35 mph" and that it appears to be a good idea. But that's not addressing WHO made the speed limit. It's debating whether or not a speed limit exists, and perhaps you and I might even agree on the logic of it. But it's still not addressing that someone, at some time MADE that speed limit that is NOT you nor me.

And if you try to point to social contract as the origin of moral good vs bad rules, then presto: You're right back to where you started from. And you have no right to look back on an episode of popular vote history, and say they were "wrong". The most you can do is to say you (and/or your present country of residence) don't "prefer " it. Also you can not avail yourself to the "problem of evil" argument to argue against God's existence. Since, on your view, there's not *really* any *true* right or wrong. Since moral rights and wrongs are merely subjective, on your view.

Ok now Truth-OT, since you're seeing the failure of the test drives of your view, can we now assume you will re-label your avetar signature to drop the "agnostic" view ? Or are you still going to furiously hold on to subjective relative morals ? If you are still going to hold on to subjective relative morals, then please do us all a favor and admit that it wasn't *really* absolutely wrong, for what the Nazi's did. Only subjectively wrong to other people. If you do that, then you can hold on to your agnosticism. However, ..... let that sink in what you are claiming :/

 

[Truth OT]

Again you are confusing ontology vs epistemology . How do we *know* something (like murder) is wrong, versus WHY is it wrong. The example I keep pointing out to you is speed limits:..................

We know that in our shared reality, this concept called murder exists (ontology). When we bring it under the microscope of morality we show the method used to illustrate the REASON we deem it wrong. It's about the how and whys WE HUMANS classify actions as either good or bad.
Now, remember I said the following:

my goal here is to lay out the framework for what is good is from the perspective of human beings with good being defined as that which is desired or approved of.

I used obtaining a sense of safety, fairness, pleasure, appreciation and love, security, improving the quality of the human experience, as well as being respected, and the reduction of suffering as examples (measuring sticks) for how WE DETERMINE whether something is desired and approved of (e.i. considered good). When we take this for your "test ride" and apply these desires to big things like genocide and slavery what do we discover? It's pretty easy to separate the bad from the good. The perpetrators of bad behavior don't have to state that behaviors they engage in aren't bad, what they do instead is seek ways to JUSTIFY which humans generally consider bad by DEHUMANIZING the party they wish to offend.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

We know that in our shared reality, this concept called murder exists (ontology). When we bring it under the microscope of morality we show the method used to illustrate the REASON we deem it wrong. It's about the how and whys WE HUMANS classify actions as either good or bad .....

Well then PRESTO, you DO believe in objective moral absolutes. (At least as far as murder goes) We're getting somewhere ! So now can you PLEASE acknowledge that, contrary to your earlier statements, that morals are NOT subjective and relative to societies, times and cultures. And that instead, you DO acknowledge objective moral absolutes.

And I'll bet that with some more arm-twisting, I can add many more things to your list of objective moral absolutes, instead of only-just murder. For example, can we now add rape ? And how about racism ? How about theft ? The list goes on and on. But for now, you've admitted that murder is an objectively always-wrong moral . I've done a pretty good job at converting you, eh ? No, ... don't thank me ... It's the least I can do for a fine fella like you

Please acknowledge that we've come this far, and then I will develop this further. But for right now, I need this admission on your part. Lest you "rush back to subjective relative morals", when you see the direction this conversation goes. Hence I need you to admit, that you now believe in objective moral absolutes , via your above quote. And that these absolutes cross continents and ages/times and cultures and societies. That exist NO MATTER how the society votes or believes. Ok ? You ready to go this direction now ?

Or are you going to retreat back to subjective relative morals, because perhaps you see that admitting otherwise will bring problems to your agnosticism ?

 

[Truth OT]

Well then PRESTO, you DO believe in objective moral absolutes. (At least as far as murder goes) We're getting somewhere ! So now can you PLEASE acknowledge that, contrary to your earlier statements, that morals are NOT subjective and relative to societies, times and cultures. And that instead, you DO acknowledge objective moral absolutes.

Again to reiterate, I have consistently stated that the basis for HUMANS determining what is moral centers around what we almost universally desire. Things like safety, fairness, pleasure, the reduction of suffering, appreciation and love, security, improving the quality of the human experience, as well as being respected are desired and approved of. Actions that yield these results are generally regarded under the category of good while actions that adversely impact the above are generally considered as bad. That moral determination is from a human standpoint and is therefore subjective as I understand subjectivity. Are you defining the above is objective?

 

[Truth OT]

Now, please detail other ways a moral framework can be developed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Again to reiterate, I have consistently stated that the basis for HUMANS determining what is moral centers around what we almost universally desire. Things like safety, fairness, pleasure, the reduction of suffering, appreciation and love, security, improving the quality of the human experience, as well as being respected are desired and approved of. Actions that yield these results are generally regarded under the category of good while actions that adversely impact the above are generally considered as bad. That moral determination is from a human standpoint and is therefore subjective as I understand subjectivity. Are you defining the above is objective?

Dude, now you're back to subjective/relative. Which I figured you'd do. Because I think you know that your agnosticism is in peril if you admit to objective moral values. But then again, you turn around in the very next breaths and start talking about different various moral things as if they are objectively right & wrong . Like "reduction of suffering". You speak in clear terms that are pointing to it being objectively right to reduce suffering.

So let's just cut to the chase : Is it objectively wrong to murder innocent people ? Or only subjectively wrong ? Is it objectively right to "reduce suffering", or only subjectively right ?

To be consistent with your view (that morals are subjective/relative) you will HAVE to say that these are only subjective, not objectively true. But then oddly, you always turn right around in the next breaths, and start talking about them as if they're objectively true, that everyone "ought to do". And THAT is why I thought I'd converted you to finally see the light.

You can't have it both ways Truth-OT. You can't claim that morals are subjective and relative, but then turn right around in the next breath, and start listing various things that we should always objectively do (should reduce suffering, don't kill, etc.....). Don't you see how you are perpetually contradicting yourself when you do this ?

But to your credit, you *are* on record as saying the Nazi's weren't objectively wrong, for their their cultural norms from 1933 to 1945 [let that sink in]. So why then are you moving on to other morals (like "reducing suffering") and treating that as if it's objectively good ? The moment you do that , is the moment you are injecting an outside objective moral standard scoring card, that is NOT subjective. And the moment you do that, someone could think you're finally acknowledging moral absolutes. But then you turn right around and keep saying that they're subjective/relative. Huh ? WTF ?

But me thinks you will stubbornly hold on to your internal contradictions. Because you are on a pleasure quest, not a truth quest. And to admit that there are objective moral standards out there, would jeopardize your agnosticism .

Are you sincerely saying you don't see the internal contradictions on A) your views, but then B) turning around and listing things are are right and wrong for all the persons on earth that they should be doing. You can't do that. All you can say is that you would *prefer* that people reduce suffering. Not that they all SHOULD reduce suffering.

You seem like a very smart guy. So please please please re-read this and do an honest evaluation of this clear contradiction on your part.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Now, please detail other ways a moral framework can be developed.

Nope. Not until we've drawn a conclusion to the conversation of the test drive of YOUR views. If you continue to say you're not contradicting yourself perpetually (spelled out in post #11 ), then why on earth would I tell you what I think is the grounding of the moral scoring card ? Because all you'll do is "rush back to the retreat of subjective morals". Ie.: you can summarily dismiss any other explanation of grounding-of-morals, since, of course, you think there IS NO GROUNDING OF MORALS by any objective method.

Therefore it's not time for me to offer you my views. If you can't admit to the internal ongoing contradiction of your present view , then it won't do you or me any good to start offering alternatives. Because you still aren't seeing the internal contradiction folly of your own stance.

As soon as you admit to the pickle your view presents, and the failure of the test drive of your view , THEN I'll offer up my views. Until then, it's a red herring to ask me for an alternate view, when you seem to think your ship never sank in the first place.

 

[Truth OT]

Dude, now you're back to subjective/relative. Which I figured you'd do. Because I think you know that your agnosticism is in peril if you admit to objective moral values. But then again, you turn around in the very next breaths and start talking about different various moral things as if they are objectively right & wrong . Like "reduction of suffering". You speak in clear terms that are pointing to it being objectively right to reduce suffering.

It's like you're missing the full context of what I keep repeating. We HUMANS develop morals based on US. Things like reduction of suffering, etc. are things we find desirable, therefore the moral codes we develop will typically embody the like. WE, our preferences, desires for safety, love, etc., dictate what standards we will employ. It's quite simple actually.

I exist as a person (I think therefore I am....yada yada), I have a feelings. Some things bring me feelings of peace, love, pleasure, security, etc. (good) while other things bring me feelings of pain, dread, sorrow, etc. (bad). I live among other persons that have feelings and we must coexist. Collectively we desire (good) over (bad) and a moral structure that promotes what WE HUMANS subjectively feel is good arises.

 

[Truth OT]

Nope. Not until we've drawn a conclusion to the conversation of the test drive of YOUR views.

Car drives smoothly. Stop avoiding responsibility and defend your assertion. I have demonstrated how morals among humans arise due to being feeling beings that coexist. I'm DONE. Your turn.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It's like you're missing the full context of what I keep repeating. We HUMANS develop morals based on US....

Nope. I've not missed any of the full context. I totally *get * what you are saying. And you repeat it here: Subjective and relative based on the "we" factor. I Got it. Ok ?

But what YOU are *missing*, is that in the very next breaths, you go on to cite various things which are "wrong" . And the context is *clearly* that you are saying that these various things are TRULY OBJECTIVELY *wrong* " Eg.: failure to reduce suffering, etc....

..... Things like reduction of suffering, etc. are things we find desirable.....

Ok, perfect. Then on -your-view, various OTHER societies and cultures that decided that suffering of jews was fine and dandy, is therefore ok, eh ? Or that gay-bashing is ok because it's practiced, as we speak, in some countries. Ok ? After all, it is the "we" that find/found those things "desirable" . Ok ?

Actually, you HAVE already gone on record as giving the green light to the Nazis (let that sink in). But then why why why why why are you then, ......... in the very next breaths ..... going on to list various other moral things that you say are "wrong" ? Tsk Tsk. It's almost (say-it-isn't-so) implying that there is an objective moral code that exists outside of the collective "we". Eh ? :/

... It's quite simple actually....

Yes, it's quite simple that you perpetually imply an objective moral code. To which, yes, I agree exists.

..... I exist as a person (I think therefore I am....yada yada), I have a feelings. Some things bring me feelings of peace, love, pleasure, security, etc. (good) .....

Yup. And cessation of Jews, gypsies, gays , etc...are what brought Hitler and the Nazis "peace, love, pleasure & security". Got it. Same can be said for societies of slavery, gay-bashing, throwing virgins into volcanoes, etc..... On your view you simply can't deny them their "Peace, love, pleasure, and security". Got it.

... . Collectively we desire (good) over (bad) and a moral structure that promotes what WE HUMANS subjectively feel is good arises.

There you go again : Smuggling objective morality in "through the back-door" Truth OT. If any moral is said to be "good " vs "bad", THEN THAT IMPLIES AN OBJECTIVE MORAL SCORING CARD that is *outside* of the subjective opinion/vote based standard that you keep saying is the basis.

Why why why aren't you seeing the inherent contradiction in your view and subsequent next-breath-statements ? Oh ... yeah ... it's known as "prior commitments" . :/

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Car drives smoothly. ....

Yup. As long as we assume objective moral absolutes, I totally agree.

..... Stop avoiding responsibility and defend your assertion.....

When you say "defend your assertion", I assume you're referring to "how does Tom_in_CA ground the moral scoring card ?" Eg.: If I'm attacking truth-OT's "grounding", then pray-tell, how does Tom-in-CA ground them ?". Is that what you're saying ?

If so, then I say we're still at an impasse. Becuase so long as you see no problem with YOUR point of view (ie.: you can continue to rush back to your subjective/relative veiw), then presto, IT WON'T MATTER what alternative view I can offer. Because presto: You can continue to rush back to your relative/subjective view, claiming there's been no test-drive failure, no ship-sinking, etc.....

..... Collectively we desire (good) over (bad) and a moral structure that promotes what WE HUMANS subjectively feel is good arises. .....

Yup. The collective "we" ( continents , countries, and eras) worked *just fine* in the past , Eh ? Let that sink in .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I have demonstrated how morals among humans arise due to being feeling beings that coexist......

Perfect. Then you have nothing bad to say about Stalin or Hitler, who "co-existed just fine", expanded their borders, eliminated the obstacle people, etc.... Right ? I mean, sure, you can say "bad" or "wrong", but you would mean that in only a subjective way, not an objective way. Eh ?

And to be consistent with your view , you'd have to say "subjective". (which you've actually done with the Nazi situation . .... hmmm). Yet in the very next breaths, you'll lay out a litany of things that were "wrong" in history . Hmmmmm, Can you spell "c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n " ? :/

 

[Truth OT]

But what YOU are *missing*, is that in the very next breaths, you go on to cite various things which are "wrong" . And the context is *clearly* that you are saying that these various things are TRULY OBJECTIVELY *wrong* " Eg.: failure to reduce suffering, etc....

Please define what YOU MEAN by truly objectively wrong. When I say that something is wrong it should be obvious why base on ALLLLLLLL I have shared about the reasons for the whys. Again, the very concept of right and wrong exist because of PEOPLE assigning meaning to them. Morality, the judgments of right and wrong behavior necessarily requires an agent. If it requires and agent, it is subjective based on the agent, period. To claim morality is objective in light of this is a bit oxymoronic. Once a system is adopted, objective assessment (e.i. this is right or that is wrong) can be made from that arbitrary/subjective point. Quite simple..........

 

[Truth OT]

If so, then I say we're still at an impasse. Becuase so long as you see no problem with YOUR point of view (ie.: you can continue to rush back to your subjective/relative veiw), then presto, IT WON'T MATTER what alternative view I can offer. Because presto: You can continue to rush back to your relative/subjective view, claiming there's been no test-drive failure, no ship-sinking, etc.....

Sounds like you're being stubborn to me as I have yet to see you demonstrate how my description of how humans develop what we deem good and bad and how we apply moral judgments based on those things fail. That's why we stand at an impasse.

 

[Truth OT]

etc.....
Yup. The collective "we" ( continents , countries, and eras) worked *just fine* in the past , Eh ? Let that sink in .

It's not the collective we that was the problem but rather the fact that within the collective we of humanity there has been splintering causing the 'we' to become 'us' and 'them' where 'they' are not like 'us'. That becomes the rationalized justification groups of people considering themselves as the 'us' group use to do bad things to the 'thems'.