Right or wrong?

[Isegrim]

can I have some of that sh^t you guys are on?? :D

 

No i wouldnt...... seems to be bad stuff. :D

[Flagrum]

No i wouldnt...... seems to be bad stuff. :D

Aww, no no ... it's great! It's called "boredness while waiting for a new aircraft to be released" ...

[Isegrim]

Aww, no no ... it's great! It's called "boredness while waiting for a new aircraft to be released" ...

 

No this is not nice....i like the new Aircraft is released stuff more.:smilewink:

 

>>>>>> Short thread interruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCrLl7a6aVE

Edited July 23, 2014 by Isegrim

[eurofor]

As for objective and subjective discussion, you can have subjective discussion, but there isn't really an end to it. Go back to math. pi is an objective value, but we're still finding all the digits. There's more to "discuss" there. There is a lot to discuss in physics

 

But you cannot conclude whether a digit is correct or not in a discussion based on opinion because that is not a matter of opinion. Mathematics is part of nature. It exists and gives the same result regardless of anyone's opinion. Morals are dependent on opinions and can't exist without someone having an opinion.

 

But eurofor found it wrong anyway. I don't see how it can be wrong if it's subjective.

 

It is what the observers say it is. It only matters to those that observe it.

 

So a vote to establish slavery is fine? I'm not asking for your personally feeling there, but in general.

 

There is no objective answer but ask people and you will get different subjective answers. Again, there is no objective right and wrong.

 

That would mean that if you don't like something you can respond in any manner you want, which basically says killing, theft, damaging property, etc is fine. That's not really much of a morality. They're acting on their feelings, with no objective base. It doesn't really make sense.

 

Now it's true that people will be affected and have their own subjective thoughts, etc. That's a fact (so it's objective that people will X,Y,Z). Do we agree there?

 

If so let's go to the next step > if people's thoughts are subjective, we can't choose some and say they are better than others. This means that no one has a right to force their will on someone else. All the wills are subjective afterall. Due to that, we can say that objectively, no one should be forcing their will on someone else. To force your will on someone else is unjustifiable, so it's wrong.

 

In someone's opinion anything may right or wrong. Someone else's opinion may the opposite. There is no way to objectively say one is right and the other one is wrong.

 

Yes (though I wasn't totally clear on your wording - read on). Terrorist and freedom fighter conflict. Logically, no one can be both. If someone is called both, one of the people doing the labeling is wrong. I think it's easy to determine who is wrong.

 

Is the is person violating rights?

 

Yes >then this is not a freedom fighter

 

No > then this is not a terrorist

 

The existence of rights (and obligations) is dependent on people's opinions. Someone has to accept and respect those rights for them to exist. They do not exist independently of people's opinions. So to determine if a right is being violated one must first determine if there is a right and that can only be done subjectively. Therefore one can only subjectively determine if there is a violation which basically means you can only determine if it's right or wrong subjectively.

 

Suppose no one exists. If someone hypothetically existed and did 2+2 correctly, would the answer be 4?

 

If someone hypothetically existed and robbed a second hypothetically person, would the first person be guilty of a rights violation?

 

Say there is no life on earth. A rock in free fall would according to the laws of physics accelerate because of gravity until the resistance of the atmosphere stops it from accelerating. That is mathematics at work. It would always be the same regardless of anyone's opinion.

 

Let's make this more abstract. Imagine a lifeform as a blob of matter in the same way a rock is a blob of matter. The only thing that would make them different is the lifeform's view on itself as it can consider itself to have a right that the rock does not have. For that it is required to have an opinion. Nature does not give it a right. The rock does not have an opinion so it does not respect the right that the lifeform considers itself to have. The rock cannot know about it because the concepts of rights and morals exist inside the mind of the lifeform, not as a law of nature. It is subjective. Mathematics applies to the rock as well because that is objective.

 

I think morality is the same.

 

So in your opinion there is a nature's law of morality? If you look at the world do you observe all lifeforms adhering to this supposed law without exceptions?

[Flagrum]

So in your opinion there is a nature's law of morality? If you look at the world do you observe all lifeforms adhering to this supposed law without exceptions?

This is where I have my problems with as well.

If I understood Exorcet correctly, then "rights" can be derieved directly from "something" by applying objective logic. I am not sure what this "something" might be exactly. But it must be something that is objective and existing independently from humans and their subjectivity. I can only conclude that this "something" must be describable by other laws of nature.

 

An apple can be described objectively - it has a size and it has a mass. Same is true for the earth. We found out, that bodys attract eachother and by applying logic, we can conclude that if an apple falls from a tree, it will be attracted by the earth and eventually collide with it.

 

This law of nature is universal. It is appliable to apples, rocks and also humans and lions.

 

Exorcet's "natures law of morality" seems to be different here. A lion that kills the offsprings of his rival is neither good nor evil. But if a human does the same, it is suddenly a whole different story ...? Because the lion just follows its instincts, but a human has a free will ...? And that is not totally subjective then?? :o)

[Isegrim]

Hey ahm....what exactly is this Discussion about ????????

[Flagrum]

Hey ahm....what exactly is this Discussion about ????????

Ethics, philosophy about "good" and "evil", about "good" and "bad".

 

Exorcet claims that there is an universal, objective principle to determine what is "good" and what is "evil". He says, by applying logic one can derive which ("nature given"? my wording) "rights" a human has and if someone else violates these rights, then he is doing wrong or evil.

 

eurofor and I believe instead, that there is no objective, independently existing concept of "good" or "evil". We rather believe that this distinction is merely made up by humans by inventing subjective rules - which can differ from location to location and from time to time.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Flagrum

[Exorcet]

Exorcet, you say, animals must _understand_ logic and the rights that are derived from that to actually have that right?

 

They must understand that, if they harm someone else that they could as well be harmed in the same way and if they don't like that, they also should not do it, correct?

I might word it differently, but I think that comes close to the idea. It's not so much about not wanting to be harmed in return though as it's about realizing that putting one will above another is not justifiable. That's how I define harm, forcing your will on someone else.

 

The consequence of putting your will above another is opening yourself to the same treatment. This realization is part of the motivation for respecting rights, but it's not why rights exists. I hope that's clear.

 

But as they don't really understand that concept, they do not have the right of an unharmed live. And we humans can kill them without violating any of their rights - as they have none?

Yes. Since they don't realize that putting their will first is wrong, they don't have rights. A lion that is hungry will kill you because it's hungry it won't (can't) consider that you are a high enough life form to have a will so it's in the same class as an unjust human killer in who kills for whatever reason.

 

But animals are living creatures with feelings, which can experience pain and which can suffer. Same as we humans do. In fact, there are severals laws that aim to prevent unnecessary harm to animals, that say cruelty against animals is bad, etc. because of that. People DO think, animals have rights.

Then the question is, are these people right? People do think the world is flat, even if it's a very small number. They're wrong, but they think otherwise.

 

Now I will say that the ability to feel pain and such does bother me, but logic says that's not enough to give animals rights. I don't want to see animals tortured, but if I can't form a logical basis to protect them I can't objectively say it's wrong to hurt them*. I'd love for someone to reason an argument protecting them from pain though.

 

*Note however that torturing animals to the point where they're a threat to humans or something and releasing them is a crime. You'd be harming other humans.

 

And that is even according to your point of view the right thing. Logic does not need to be understood to be true. So animals must have right, even if they don't understand them.

Yes, but this isn't a problem. Just as math is true while it remains completely beyond the reach of a bacteria's mind(?).

 

So, imo you are contradicting yourself here a bit if you deny that animals have rights. And my question about the behavior of the alpha male lion is therefore still open.

I hope what I say above clears it up.

 

 

About NA vs euros:

In order to realize that both parties were doing something wrong, to realize that the euros might not like if the NA take away some of their belongings, they would first have to understand that the concept of property as such. But how can they do that if they don't know that different understandings of "having and using stuff" even exist.

The logic exists regardless. It just wasn't realized by the people there. That is the problem. That property doesn't exist is custom the NA's came up with that they agreed to and such only applies to them. They probably didn't completely disagree with the idea of property (the most basic property is yourself and that allows other property to exist) in the first place, and it was an unfortunate case of cultural differences causing misunderstandings.

 

You say, it does not matter as the logic exists independently from the understanding of it.

 

But there is no logic that indicates that there might exist different concepts, there is no right that can be derieved from any logic that plausibly explains that "stuff can be possessed by people" nor that "stuff belongs to everyone". So how can violating these concepts be considered as "wrong"?

Don't you belong to you?

 

The main question here would be, where would objective morals come from?

My answer is logic, which is also where math, etc, comes from.

 

A God? Unlikely, as he would also be a subject and would only enforce his subjective rules on us, as is evidence by religion, which tries to claim that moral objectivity can only come from its supernatural deity.

 

The physical rules of our universe? Again, no moral objectivity here, as the physical laws that govern our universe are no sentient beings and therefore can't care about morals and can't enforce them.

 

Right now I can't see evidence of an objective moral law giver, as any of those things would have to have sentience and a certain understanding of things to create morals, which in turn would make it a subject and that subject would only infuse its subjectivity into the moral code.

There is no law giver, that's the thing.

 

Many of the moral behaviours we as human species exhibit can also be seen, albeit to a lesser extent, in animals. Usually there are very specific cases when one being of a species kills another one of its own. Usually it has to do with culling those that are not of its own genes (male lions for example) or it is ingrained in the species (certain female spiders eating the males after sex). You have birds that have strong alpha males that give food to weaker or less successful males to garner favor with the females. Most of the things we do, that end up as one part of our moral code, have to do with the continuation of the species as a whole.

We're a result of evolution, yes. Morals didn't evolve, but the ability to recognize them did. Birds helping birds is a result of it being better for their survival, it's not really a moral thing. Humans helping humans is the same, but humans can also interpret their own actions and test them to determine if they're right or wrong.

 

Each individual being has his own set of moral rules that are influenced by genetics, the community, life experiences and other things. A lot of individuals that share similar (not necessarily the exact same) outlooks on certain deeds like killing or taking something agree on a set of rules, those rules are then made into laws for that society and most of the time the effort is made to make them as objective as possible, yet we still need judges and juries to determine a sentence in the case one of the laws has been broken, as each case is again a very subjective matter.

 

To say that slavery or killing or stealing are wrong in an absolute manner is just a very untrue statement in my opinion, as absolutes never cover everything. There are exceptions to each an every case. Killing in self defence or the defence of others are examples when killing is seen as a necessary 'evil'. Stealing bread from the rich might not be 'right', but then again, how did the rich get their money? Often by exploitation of those that were less crafty than them, which, by the way, still is the case. Now certainly two wrongs don't make one right, but still, in the hearts and minds of the exploited a person like Robin Hood is a hero, he may that even be to some of the law enforcement, even though they might not admit it, yet he is a menace to those he takes from.

Self defense killing is in no way evil. Killing is not a moral concept. Someone killed my lunch yesterday. Someone killed Hitler (Hitler did). Many kill innocents in terror attacks. The first killing is fine. The second is fine (not because Hitler was evil, but because Hitler was Hitler's property, if someone else killed Hitler in self defense that would be fine because Hitler was evil). The third killing is wrong.

 

It is here just the concepts of right and wrong are ingrained in us from our childhood onwards. We are able to change our view of things, but many things we do pick up from our parents and the society we live in. Our 'enlightened' western society sees killing someone for adultery as a bad thing, in certain islamic regions it is just and right to stone adulterers to death.

And I think it is a pressing issue to question both ideas rather than just say "well it's my culture I'll follow it". If it turns out that morality is subjective, then carry on stoning people for no reason. If morality is indeed objective, some culture have major issues - they're condoning crime.

 

There are so many more examples that you could show that morality is both subjective to individuals as well as to a certain type of society and that it has and will change with the circumstances and pressures put on those individuals and societies. This does even extent to less intelligent beings such as animals, as even they do form societies with rules and regulations, which certainly are not as complex as human societies, but they are there.

There are different ways of doing things, but they aren't correct by existence. Correctness required objectivity. I understand the bits about subjective society and where it all comes from, but that's kind of a side issue.

 

Exorcet, I believe our main point of disagreement is that certain rights can be logically derieved from ... well, what exactly?

Logic.

 

X is black

 

Y is white

 

X cannot be Y

 

There is no argument otherwise. We all agree that logic exists, we've already agreed that math is objective. You need to look at morals as you do with math. It gives you a single answer that you arrive at through facts and logical constraints.

 

If I understood you correctly, then you say that every human is born equal. No one is "better" than any other, no one is inherently superior to some else. And therefore every human has the right to be treated as any other. Because humans tend to like staying alive, nobody may end the life of another without consent.

I'm not sure if I agree here. It may be wording. Everyone is equal (we're all subjective wills) but that doesn't mean we need to be treated the same. It just means no one can put their will above anyone else's. I shouldn't expect to be well liked and popular like a super athlete, but if me and the super athlete are competing for the last parking spot in the stadium and show up at the exact same time there is no objective way to decide who should get it.

 

But the deduction, the "therefore" part, is somehow missing a step imo. There is no direct dependency between "because this" and "therefore that".

 

"Because creatures have legs, therefore they can walk." --> legs are necessary to walk, there is a logical dependency.

 

But what you say sounds to me similar to "Because creatures have extremities, therefore they can fly." No, not necessarily...

If I broke it down:

 

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified

 

can I have some of that sh^t you guys are on??

 

I think it's called DCS. But I might be taking more than the recommended dose while also suffering istheF-86outitis.

 

 

================================================================

 

My first "this post is too long" message

 

To be continued:

[Exorcet]

But you cannot conclude whether a digit is correct or not in a discussion based on opinion because that is not a matter of opinion. Mathematics is part of nature. It exists and gives the same result regardless of anyone's opinion. Morals are dependent on opinions and can't exist without someone having an opinion.

I don't see what morals has to do with opinion. I can see someone having an opinion on morality. That opinion can be right or wrong, but it doesn't impact morality itself.

 

It is what the observers say it is. It only matters to those that observe it.

Then objectively it's nothing. Someone is upset that their sister was murdered, but it only matters to them and there is no appropriate action to take. They could seek legal justice, kill for to make other people feel like them, or also die at the hands of the murderer and it's all the same. In a subjective morality, it's all fine.

 

Objectively though, all subjective ideas are equally valid. No one is going against that in the first case (legal justice). In the second case I'd assume most people don't want to suffer losing a loved one so the victim of the first murder is putting unjustifiable priority to his will. He's condoning a will overtaking another and if other people will to stop him and then do stop him, he has nothing to complain about since those other people were adhering to the same rules as him. The last case is similar to the second, the murderer was wrong the first time and is wrong the second time as well.

 

 

 

There is no objective answer but ask people and you will get different subjective answers. Again, there is no objective right and wrong.

That's saying that slavery is justifiable though. In that case the objective answer is that anything goes since there is no objective measure of correctness.

 

Let's work through what happens, not looking at morality for the moment.

 

One person says yes, the other says no. The person who sides with yes tries to enslave the person who said no (or anyone). Then you get the person who said no fighting back unless he agrees to go into slavery.

 

The person advocating slavery is pretty much left to face the problem that his way of thinking leaves him vulnerable to wills outside of his own. In other words he has no rights. The person denouncing slavery has no such issue, he's not imposing his will and will respect the will of others. This is objective right and wrong at work.

 

 

 

In someone's opinion anything may right or wrong. Someone else's opinion may the opposite. There is no way to objectively say one is right and the other one is wrong.

If all wills are subjective then they are all equal. If they are all equal, no will can be placed above another. If someone does place their will above another, they must be wrong, logically. It's literally not correct because their will is merely subjective.

 

 

 

The existence of rights (and obligations) is dependent on people's opinions. Someone has to accept and respect those rights for them to exist.

They exist regardless. They actually don't need to be respected. Rights exist for the case where they are violated so it's possible to determine who is in the wrong. If you walk up to a mad gunman and say

 

"Ha, you can't shoot me because I have the right to live!"

 

You're probably going to die. But everyone will know that you were in the right (and maybe a bit dull). The right to live won't protect you from death, but it makes it clear that someone is wrong for killing you.

 

They do not exist independently of people's opinions. So to determine if a right is being violated one must first determine if there is a right and that can only be done subjectively. Therefore one can only subjectively determine if there is a violation which basically means you can only determine if it's right or wrong subjectively.

If that would the case rights would fall apart.

 

Do you agree with this:

 

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified

 

 

 

Say there is no life on earth. A rock in free fall would according to the laws of physics accelerate because of gravity until the resistance of the atmosphere stops it from accelerating. That is mathematics at work. It would always be the same regardless of anyone's opinion.

 

Let's make this more abstract. Imagine a lifeform as a blob of matter in the same way a rock is a blob of matter. The only thing that would make them different is the lifeform's view on itself as it can consider itself to have a right that the rock does not have. For that it is required to have an opinion. Nature does not give it a right. The rock does not have an opinion so it does not respect the right that the lifeform considers itself to have. The rock cannot know about it because the concepts of rights and morals exist inside the mind of the lifeform, not as a law of nature. It is subjective. Mathematics applies to the rock as well because that is objective.

What the blob thinks of itself doesn't matter. Now if this blob can think (like a person) then there is quite a big difference between it and the rock, and it's an objective difference. It can think. Given that logic is independent of life (2+2 = 4, even before Earth existed) the ability to think allows the blob to discover logic. Logic says no subjective idea is better than another, so the blob can't put its will above another. If there is no one around but the blob and the rock, no worries, there is no other will to bend. If a second blob showed up, there is a second will. Each blob realizes that they can't put their will first and in doing so recognize the rights each have.

 

 

 

So in your opinion there is a nature's law of morality? If you look at the world do you observe all lifeforms adhering to this supposed law without exceptions?

Yes, but remember only humans can recognize logic (so far) and rights don't act as unbreakable shields. You can violate rights, maybe people do, but when they do it's clear that they are wrong because they're making their will more important than it really is.

 

 

 

 

PS - auto log out is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally annoying lol

[Flagrum]

"If I broke it down:

 

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified"

 

No idea is better than another. I agree. But the conclusion that follows from this is that there is no possibility to distinguish between opposing ideas or even weighting them on a scale from "good" to "bad".

 

A has the idea to hit B in the face.

B has the idea to be left in peace.

Both ideas are equivallent, none is better than the other.

 

But still, A here is "evil" and B is not? Why is B not the evil guy? He says "NO! I do not want that, A!" and thus forces A to refrain from his own idea how to live his life.

[ericoh]

Illegal/Legal does not reflect right or wrong. The world is not black and white. Laws are nothing but a guideline of what a few people have agreed on would be right or wrong.

 

Cultural differences are often stronger then a belive to right or wrong (mindless patriots, radicals etc.).

 

We all have our own moral codex, some are stronger guided by culture some are less. The key is an open mind for other cultures and ideas. With that you can almost never go wrong.

 

Of course everything has a limit.

[Isegrim]

Human being acts only for its own advantages in its own opinion.

This counts for everything and it doesnt matter how the action of the Human being will look like(Good/Evil).

[Schnittertm]

My answer is logic, which is also where math, etc, comes from.

 

There is no law giver, that's the thing.

 

We're a result of evolution, yes. Morals didn't evolve, but the ability to recognize them did. Birds helping birds is a result of it being better for their survival, it's not really a moral thing. Humans helping humans is the same, but humans can also interpret their own actions and test them to determine if they're right or wrong.

 

Self defense killing is in no way evil. Killing is not a moral concept. Someone killed my lunch yesterday. Someone killed Hitler (Hitler did). Many kill innocents in terror attacks. The first killing is fine. The second is fine (not because Hitler was evil, but because Hitler was Hitler's property, if someone else killed Hitler in self defense that would be fine because Hitler was evil). The third killing is wrong.

 

And I think it is a pressing issue to question both ideas rather than just say "well it's my culture I'll follow it". If it turns out that morality is subjective, then carry on stoning people for no reason. If morality is indeed objective, some culture have major issues - they're condoning crime.

 

There are different ways of doing things, but they aren't correct by existence. Correctness required objectivity. I understand the bits about subjective society and where it all comes from, but that's kind of a side issue.

 

 

Logic.

 

X is black

 

Y is white

 

X cannot be Y

 

 

Your answer to where do morals come from is logic and then you post a formula? Let's go by that then:

 

X is right

Y is wrong

 

X can't be Y

 

X is killing

Y is not killing

 

X can't be Y

 

Therefore:

 

Killing is right

Not killing is wrong

 

Killing can't be Not killing

 

There is a problem with logic as a basis for morals, because logic just is.

 

1 + 1 = 2

 

That is something that will never change, no matter how much we would like it.

 

Morals on the other hand, are something quite different.

 

Killing yourself is, by your Hitler example, therefore a moral thing to do, yet many do not see it thusly, mainly because death in and of itself is seen as a very bad thing and because we evolved into a social species that would at least like to try to help someone that has thoughts of killing themselves. That is the current moral standard.

 

Someone killing Hitler in self defence or defence of others is okay, yet what to do if not killing Hitler in self defence was the right thing to do, because the person that would have replaced him would have been 20 times worse.

 

Someone just killing Hitler for the heck of it, well, knowing what we know now about him, it might have been acceptable from our viewpoint if it could have prevented several tens of millions of deaths, but at the time of the deed it would have been looked at with a very harsh view and as bad.

 

Another example, torture, it was widely accepted as a means of getting an admission of guilt for a very long time and was used as that. Many were maimed and judged guilty because of that, yet at the time it was the moral, the right thing to do, as if one was not guilty, then even under torture he would not have to confess to something that that person clearly did not commit.

 

The problem with logic is, that it usually is binary, it deals with absolutes and morals, as I pointed out with the example of Robin Hood, are not absolute. If they were, then every killing, regardless of circumstances would be wrong, otherwise it would look like this:

 

X is wrong

unless Y happens

or Z happens

but not if A is involved

though possibly if B is there

 

If morals where logical and ingrained in the nature of the universe, then you would have something that you could explain by mathematical formulas. Yet moral behaviour is still deeply subjective. Some of it comes from our evolution, it makes us look for ways to survive, which is why someone that is hungry and can't afford food may know that by the standards of human society it may be wrong to steal food, but he still thinks it is morally right, because the death of himself, of a fully grown, consious and sentient being would be wrong. Lets just forget for a moment in this case that food was free for the taking a few ten thousand years ago, first come, first served.

 

Usually it is just assumed that killing or stealing is wrong, because it is something that we ourselves would not want to have done to, but to derive from this circumstance the point of argument that therefore there is an objective set of morals is, in my opinion, quite wrong and certainly not logical.

 

If morals were logical you'd have no philosophical arguments about them, no tests to see how people would react, like the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). In the case that morals were logic no one would hesitate to state that shoving off the fat man to stop the trolley would be moral, however it is not seen like that by most people (the need of the many outweighs the need of the few). It is a very ambiguous problem that serves to show that morals are a case were logic fails.

 

Therefore I can not, in good conscience, share your thought of morals being logcial, objective or absolute.

[Schnittertm]

Human being acts only for its own advantages in its own opinion.

This counts for everything and it doesnt matter how the action of the Human being will look like(Good/Evil).

 

Even the soldier that jumps on the grenade to save his team mates? Killing yourself doesn't look like such a big advantage to me.

[Isegrim]

Even the soldier that jumps on the grenade to save his team mates? Killing yourself doesn't look like such a big advantage to me.

 

Got your point, but im not talking about movies here.:smilewink:

 

The advantage for Rescue teams as example is to save life. And getting much of Honor. And its more the Honor they give to their own....other Peoples honor is just a nice side effect. But at the end they are doing this for their own to feel pride.

 

And for sure, sadly this goes wrong sometimes.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Isegrim

[slowhand]

IF some one kicks in your door and wants to steal all your hard earned stuff and Harm your loved one's is it Wrong to Blow them out of there boots? :smartass:

[ericoh]

IF some one kicks in your door and wants to steal all your hard earned stuff and Harm your loved one's is it Wrong to Blow them out of there boots? :smartass:

 

You cant evaluate that on the run can you? Say you would have a 100% chance to simply knock him out, then killing him is definetely wrong. :D

 

But honestly, that whole issue is much more complicated and also related to certain other "problems" in certain other countrys. lol. I dont wanna start an arguement.

 

P.S.: If someone is armed and threatning your family by my moral codex it is fine to "blow him out of his boots".

Edited July 23, 2014 by ericoh

[Flagrum]

Even the soldier that jumps on the grenade to save his team mates? Killing yourself doesn't look like such a big advantage to me.

In a way, yes. This situation is extreme and the decision has to be made in fractions of a second, but basically it is the decision between two alternatives:

a) to die

b) to live with the memory that your friends died and suffered.

For some, b) is the worse of both alternatives ...

 

I believe that so called altruism is just a special form of egoism - when we break it down to, let's say the biological standpoint. People don't do good deeds because it helps other people. Instead they do good deeds because they like the warm fuzzy feeling that it gives them. Or at least, because they feel better when doing these than when not doing it.

[Flagrum]

An other indication that morale is not absolute and can not be deduced by applying the rules of logic: we fairly well understand mathematics and also logic. And yet, we debate about the nature of good and evil, right and wrong. If morale would follow the principles of logic, why don't we just calculate the morale? There would be no need to talk about it at all - it would be provable by scientific means.

[Schnittertm]

An other indication that morale is not absolute and can not be deduced by applying the rules of logic: we fairly well understand mathematics and also logic. And yet, we debate about the nature of good and evil, right and wrong. If morale would follow the principles of logic, why don't we just calculate the morale? There would be no need to talk about it at all - it would be provable by scientific means.

 

I guess mainly because in the case of the trolley experiment it would be the logical way to have one person die, no matter how that is achieved, to save five other people. Yet, somehow, when we would have only one way to do it and that is by shoving someone in front of the trolley, it feels to us wrong, even though logic would say it is right.

[ericoh]

An other indication that morale is not absolute and can not be deduced by applying the rules of logic: we fairly well understand mathematics and also logic. And yet, we debate about the nature of good and evil, right and wrong. If morale would follow the principles of logic, why don't we just calculate the morale? There would be no need to talk about it at all - it would be provable by scientific means.

 

Right, moral doesnt follow logic.

 

Good example for that is looking at long gone times. Lets take Japan 400-500 years ago, it was moraly acceptable to use prisoners for "blade sharpness tests". :D

 

Lets debatte if thats still moraly acceptable. lol

[Flagrum]

Right, moral doesnt follow logic.

 

Good example for that is looking at long gone times. Lets take Japan 400-500 years ago, it was moraly acceptable to use prisoners for "blade sharpness tests". :D

 

Lets debatte if thats still moraly acceptable. lol

Well, Exorcet will argue, that it was wrong back then as it were wrong today. That is his point - just because people accepted it does not imply that it is right..

[Flagrum]

I guess mainly because in the case of the trolley experiment it would be the logical way to have one person die, no matter how that is achieved, to save five other people. Yet, somehow, when we would have only one way to do it and that is by shoving someone in front of the trolley, it feels to us wrong, even though logic would say it is right.

What would the logic say in this case:

Track 1: 5 adults, track 2: one child?

 

Or even more delicate:

1 adult vs. 1 child - this one is easy, eh?

2 adults vs. 1 child - still somewhat easy to decide?

3 adults vs. 1 child?

...

5 adults vs. 1 child?

10 adults? 20?

 

Childs lifes are deemed "worth more" perhaps? How much more? When would the scale be weighted down in favour for the adults? How does one "calculate" that?

[eurofor]

I don't see what morals has to do with opinion. I can see someone having an opinion on morality. That opinion can be right or wrong, but it doesn't impact morality itself.

 

So who determines who is right and who is wrong? There is no equation you can use to get the answer.

 

(...)

 

Objectively though, all subjective ideas are equally valid.

 

(...)

 

 

If all wills are subjective then they are all equal. If they are all equal, no will can be placed above another. If someone does place their will above another, they must be wrong, logically. It's literally not correct because their will is merely subjective.

 

(...)

 

Equal when? Each individual has a his/her own personal (subjective) opinion on which view is right or wrong. There is no external perspective from which all views are always equal.

 

They exist regardless. They actually don't need to be respected. Rights exist for the case where they are violated so it's possible to determine who is in the wrong. If you walk up to a mad gunman and say

 

"Ha, you can't shoot me because I have the right to live!"

 

You're probably going to die. But everyone will know that you were in the right (and maybe a bit dull). The right to live won't protect you from death, but it makes it clear that someone is wrong for killing you.

 

By "someone" I don't necessarily mean someone else has to acknowledge a right. It's enough with the individual itself that claims to have the right.

 

So tell me why the UN has set up a document specifying the human rights and not a document specifying the laws of physics? Why would it need a document that needs to be signed by all countries if it's part of nature and cannot be questioned?

 

If that would the case rights would fall apart.

 

Rights do not need to be objective to be respected. Humans are full of subjectivity to cover for any lack off objectivity.

 

Do you agree with this:

 

Logic exists

 

Yes.

 

Humans understand logic

 

I think most can understand basic logic, yes.

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

No (as I said previously, there exists no perspective from which all are always equal).

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

No, any value put on the ideas would be by those individuals exposed to them and they would rank them by their own subjective opinion. There is no external perspective where they are always equal.

 

Humans understand the above

 

No offence but I don't think you do.

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified

 

Anything can be justified if someone is of the opinion that it is right.

 

Yes, but remember only humans can recognize logic (so far) and rights don't act as unbreakable shields. You can violate rights, maybe people do, but when they do it's clear that they are wrong because they're making their will more important than it really is.

 

What's your definition of logic? Logic can be as simple as "is there food? if yes, then I will eat. if no, then I must look for food" and probably any living organism is capable of making some type of decision.

[Exorcet]

"If I broke it down:

 

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified"

 

No idea is better than another. I agree. But the conclusion that follows from this is that there is no possibility to distinguish between opposing ideas or even weighting them on a scale from "good" to "bad".

 

A has the idea to hit B in the face.

B has the idea to be left in peace.

Both ideas are equivallent, none is better than the other.

 

But still, A here is "evil" and B is not? Why is B not the evil guy? He says "NO! I do not want that, A!" and thus forces A to refrain from his own idea how to live his life.

 

No subjective idea is better. You can distinguish between good or bad subjective thoughts. Objective ideas can be evaluated.

 

Red is ugly, true or false?

 

I think red is ugly, true of false?

 

Subjective ideas are equal, true or false?

 

If the last one is true, no subjective idea is better than another. A is "evil" because he disagrees and then acts on that disagreement. B isn't forcing anything on anyone. If A just holds the idea but does not act, then nothing is wrong.

 

Your answer to where do morals come from is logic and then you post a formula? Let's go by that then:

 

The formula was not the formula for morals, it was an example of logic that always holds true.

 

X is right

Y is wrong

 

X can't be Y

Logically consistent

 

X is killing

Y is not killing

 

X can't be Y

This works too by itself

 

Therefore:

 

Killing is right

Not killing is wrong

 

Killing can't be Not killing

 

There is a jump here, that killing is right. That does not follow from killing not being not killing (true) or X not being Y (true). It is merely stated.

 

There is a problem with logic as a basis for morals, because logic just is.

 

1 + 1 = 2

 

That is something that will never change, no matter how much we would like it.

 

Morals on the other hand, are something quite different.

 

Killing yourself is, by your Hitler example, therefore a moral thing to do, yet many do not see it thusly, mainly because death in and of itself is seen as a very bad thing and because we evolved into a social species that would at least like to try to help someone that has thoughts of killing themselves. That is the current moral standard.

Killing yourself is moral by being not immoral. Killing yourself certainly isn't bad, because killing is not bad. People stopping suicide are incorrect if the person who wants to kill themselves wants to die. It's their life. This doesn't mean that stopping suicide is always wrong though. Suicide, like killing is a wider term. That's why it looks like logically applying morals doesn't apply to it. It's because you're trying to apply morals to various things, some contradictory.

 

To say suicide is wrong is to put someone with a mental illness killing themselves because a voice in their head told them to and someone who is in their senses but in great pain in the same bucket. That doesn't work. The ill person is misguided by their disease. They don't actually want to die. The person in great pain does.

 

Someone killing Hitler in self defence or defence of others is okay, yet what to do if not killing Hitler in self defence was the right thing to do, because the person that would have replaced him would have been 20 times worse.

Not killing Hitler in self defense would never be the "right" thing to do. Hitler violated rights, self defense vs him is fine. If after he is killed, the next person 20 times worse comes along, you defend yourself against that guy.

 

Someone just killing Hitler for the heck of it, well, knowing what we know now about him, it might have been acceptable from our viewpoint if it could have prevented several tens of millions of deaths, but at the time of the deed it would have been looked at with a very harsh view and as bad.

Killing Hitler is unjust until he violates someone's rights, no matter what hindsight we have. The best you could do is find a time machine and stalk him until he tried to kill his political rivals, at which point you could put him and his followers in jail. Going back to his birth and killing him them would land you in jail.

 

Another example, torture, it was widely accepted as a means of getting an admission of guilt for a very long time and was used as that. Many were maimed and judged guilty because of that, yet at the time it was the moral, the right thing to do, as if one was not guilty, then even under torture he would not have to confess to something that that person clearly did not commit.

Torture is wrong for getting an admission of guilt, you have no right to torture someone innocent and if you don't know that they did it in the first place, they're innocent.

 

The problem with logic is, that it usually is binary, it deals with absolutes and morals, as I pointed out with the example of Robin Hood, are not absolute. If they were, then every killing, regardless of circumstances would be wrong, otherwise it would look like this:

Why would objective morals make killing always wrong?

 

X is wrong

unless Y happens

or Z happens

but not if A is involved

though possibly if B is there

 

This sounds like an issue we had on the forum a couple of days ago

 

F-15 supercruising is wrong

Unless it in clean configuration

But not if it's really hot and the engines lack thrust

though possibly if it uses afterburer to get to Mach 1

 

The various circumstances aren't an indication of a lack of objectivity. It's an indication that you're not using sufficient wording. X is not a single thing, but a variety of things, some conflicting. This dooms the argument from the start.

 

If morals where logical and ingrained in the nature of the universe, then you would have something that you could explain by mathematical formulas.

That sounds right.

 

Moral = 1 (true)

 

Immoral = 0 (false)

 

Person A kills B. Is A wrong?

 

Person A:

 

is an organism that can understand rights: 1

 

has no right to put his will above others: 1

 

Person B:

 

is an organism that can understand rights: 1

 

has no right to put his will above others: 1

 

Respected the above: 1

 

Person A:

 

Did respected the above: 0

 

1^5 * 0 = 0

 

Person A is not morally correct. Notice that it only takes one immoral action to make a person wrong, while any number of moral actions leads to the same outcome (1, moral correctness).

 

Yet moral behaviour is still deeply subjective. Some of it comes from our evolution, it makes us look for ways to survive, which is why someone that is hungry and can't afford food may know that by the standards of human society it may be wrong to steal food, but he still thinks it is morally right, because the death of himself, of a fully grown, consious and sentient being would be wrong. Lets just forget for a moment in this case that food was free for the taking a few ten thousand years ago, first come, first served.

His idea that his being alive is important is subjective, so it can't be more important than the other person's idea of having bread. But I'll go on.

 

Usually it is just assumed that killing or stealing is wrong, because it is something that we ourselves would not want to have done to, but to derive from this circumstance the point of argument that therefore there is an objective set of morals is, in my opinion, quite wrong and certainly not logical.

Indeed. The idea that we don't want our stuff taken is subjective and is no basis for the idea that having it stolen is wrong. Instead we need to look at the fact that all subjective ideas are equal, which means there is no justification for putting one will above another.

 

If morals were logical you'd have no philosophical arguments about them, no tests to see how people would react,

D'Almber's paradox, Schrodinger's cat, Zeno's arrow, etc. We can argue over concrete facts because we can make mistakes or find things unintuitive. It doesn't make those facts wrong.

 

like the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). In the case that morals were logic no one would hesitate to state that shoving off the fat man to stop the trolley would be moral, however it is not seen like that by most people (the need of the many outweighs the need of the few). It is a very ambiguous problem that serves to show that morals are a case were logic fails.

 

The answer is to do nothing. To pull the level means that you value the 5 people more than the one person, which cannot be justified. That's what logic says.

 

From a subjective standpoint, well, it's do what you want. You could kill that one person and it wouldn't matter, no matter how much that person wanted to live.

 

Therefore I can not, in good conscience, share your thought of morals being logcial, objective or absolute.

I appreciate the counter points. I still disagree with you, but feedback as provided is a good way to show any holes in my thoughts I might otherwise miss and I'd really rather not be wrong about this.