|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 21:51:46 GMT
So as long as they judge it to have zero benefit for them, they judge themselves to be worse off in every way for it, and it doesn't make them feel good, then it can be selfless, as could any act. Do you agree with that? I guess so. Now all you have to do to disprove my point is prove that such acts exist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 22:20:57 GMT
So as long as they judge it to have zero benefit for them, they judge themselves to be worse off in every way for it, and it doesn't make them feel good, then it can be selfless, as could any act. Do you agree with that? I guess so. Now all you have to do to disprove my point is prove that such acts exist. Well, you'd just need any arbitrary person to say that's how they think about any arbitrary act. I could say that that was how I thought about buying the olive bread I just bought at the local market and it would be selfless if indeed I feel that way about it.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Oct 24, 2017 8:45:51 GMT
tickingmask Likely what's throwing you off in reading my comments is that my views about this aren't something you're used to. Let me explain again what my views are in a nutshell, and maybe it will help you understand my comments: What makes something moral or not is that an individual feels that some "interpersonal" (in quotation marks because it can be "one towards oneself" too) behavior is permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.--there's a whole host of relevant terms like that, where we're talking about behavior that the individual considers more significant than mere etiquette. This point is extremely important: an individual can feel any possible way in that regard towards any possible behavior, and that's ALL that makes anything moral or immoral. So, for example, it's not the case that, say, the act of murder is immoral, context-independent. And it's not the case that, say, helping a little old lady across the street is moral, context-independent. What makes it the case that murder is immoral is that some individual feels that murder is impermissible. Murder is immoral to that person. Morality is always context-dependent, at least in this way: the context of what a particular individual feels toward some particular behavior. If a person felt that murder was permissible instead, then murder would be moral to that person. So objectively, murder isn't moral or immoral. Nothing is moral or immoral objectively. Morality is always to individuals, and anything imaginable can be moral or immoral to arbitrary individuals. So when I say that everyone, barring the exception of people with extremely unusual brains, has moral views, that everyone (barring that exception that I'm not going to keep typing out every time) has some behavior that they feel is permissible and some that they feel is impermissible, I'm not implying that everyone feels the same way about any particular behavior. Just that for every person (barring the exception), there's going to be some behavior that they're okay with, and some that they're not, and the specific behavior in question can be very different for different people. This is what morality is. Beyond that, some moral views wind up codified into laws or at least cultural mores. The way that happens is simply via either (a) some views contingently being very common, or (b) some people having enough power that they can codify their moral views into laws regardless of whether most people agree with them or not. So, (1) everyone (barring the rare exception) has moral views, and (2) there are also moral views that are reflected in laws or cultural mores. Because of the above, (1) and (2) might have very different content with respect to what's considered moral. For example, Joe might feel that it's moral to commit murder, but because most people do not, there are laws against murder. So Joe choosing to not murder is a case of Joe acting in Joe's self-interest, because Joe doesn't want to wind up in prison. Everyone (again barring rare exceptions) is going to have some moral stances that are different than the moral stances reflected in laws and cultural mores. People often act differently than their moral stances in those regards because of the social repercussions. That's an example of acting in self-interest. So "the good life," by the way, is always "the good life to S" (to some particular individual). An "obligation to live the good life" doesn't make a lot of sense in this context, because each individual is going to want to live according to their moral views as much as they can. There doesn't have to be any obligation about it (even though part of a particular individual's moral views might include "I have an obligation to live the good life"), because wanting (yourself and) others to live per the behavior that you feel is permissible, obligatory, etc., while avoiding the behavior you feel is impermissible, etc. is a fundamental way that our brains work (unless there's something severely unusual about the physical structure and function of our brains). Of course, what I consider the good (moral) life may be very different than what you consider the good (moral) life. It's not that one of us is right and the other is wrong, because there is no objective right/wrong, true/false, etc., in this realm. I didn't want to type all of this out initially, because (i) it's kind of laborious to do so, even in what is a very abbreviated version of it, (ii) not many people are likely to be interested, and (iii) often the only people who are interested are the people who want to argue about it, and 9 times out of 10 they can't seem to understand sentences more complex than "The dog went outside," so it's kind of pointless to bother. No offence, but I think what's throwing me off is that you are really, really shit at explaining things! I mean, when you look at what you wrote above, do you ever think to yourself "I wonder whether I could have phrased this better"? It doesn't help that your manner tends to be condescending, nit-picking, pompous, long-winded and positively Arlonesque - something you might want to work on, but perhaps, like Arlon, you do it deliberately to get a rise out of people. I don't know.
Anyway what I think you wrote above can be boiled down into three simple statements:
1. Morality is relative, everybody has their own idea of right and wrong.
2. Because of this, some fucked-up individuals think that murder is moral, i.e. that they are 'living a good life' by murdering people. (Question: do you think murder is moral or immoral? Or are you on the fence about this like you are about everything else? I'm just curious.)
3. The aforementioned fucked-up individuals don't commit murder because they don't want to go to prison.
Did I get that about right? I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm 'not reading well' because I can't understand complex sentences.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Oct 24, 2017 9:33:50 GMT
I meant finding a way to do so illegally and not get caught. Let me make my situation clearer. I personally believe that I should live a morally good life because I have a conscience. Oh ok, thanks for the clarification.
It's probably been said several times already, but I believe that if you choose to live within a certain free society you have a moral obligation to abide by the laws of that society, regardless whether you agree with them or not.
Of course we'd then have to clarify what 'free society' means and I'm not sure I'm qualified to do that. No doubt there are societies which have tyrannical laws that conflict with the dictates of one's conscience and plenty of movies where the hero has to wrestle between the two, but I don't think the banning of embezzlement is a particularly good example of that particular scenario!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 24, 2017 9:38:28 GMT
tickingmask Likely what's throwing you off in reading my comments is that my views about this aren't something you're used to. Let me explain again what my views are in a nutshell, and maybe it will help you understand my comments: What makes something moral or not is that an individual feels that some "interpersonal" (in quotation marks because it can be "one towards oneself" too) behavior is permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.--there's a whole host of relevant terms like that, where we're talking about behavior that the individual considers more significant than mere etiquette. This point is extremely important: an individual can feel any possible way in that regard towards any possible behavior, and that's ALL that makes anything moral or immoral. So, for example, it's not the case that, say, the act of murder is immoral, context-independent. And it's not the case that, say, helping a little old lady across the street is moral, context-independent. What makes it the case that murder is immoral is that some individual feels that murder is impermissible. Murder is immoral to that person. Morality is always context-dependent, at least in this way: the context of what a particular individual feels toward some particular behavior. If a person felt that murder was permissible instead, then murder would be moral to that person. So objectively, murder isn't moral or immoral. Nothing is moral or immoral objectively. Morality is always to individuals, and anything imaginable can be moral or immoral to arbitrary individuals. So when I say that everyone, barring the exception of people with extremely unusual brains, has moral views, that everyone (barring that exception that I'm not going to keep typing out every time) has some behavior that they feel is permissible and some that they feel is impermissible, I'm not implying that everyone feels the same way about any particular behavior. Just that for every person (barring the exception), there's going to be some behavior that they're okay with, and some that they're not, and the specific behavior in question can be very different for different people. This is what morality is. Beyond that, some moral views wind up codified into laws or at least cultural mores. The way that happens is simply via either (a) some views contingently being very common, or (b) some people having enough power that they can codify their moral views into laws regardless of whether most people agree with them or not. So, (1) everyone (barring the rare exception) has moral views, and (2) there are also moral views that are reflected in laws or cultural mores. Because of the above, (1) and (2) might have very different content with respect to what's considered moral. For example, Joe might feel that it's moral to commit murder, but because most people do not, there are laws against murder. So Joe choosing to not murder is a case of Joe acting in Joe's self-interest, because Joe doesn't want to wind up in prison. Everyone (again barring rare exceptions) is going to have some moral stances that are different than the moral stances reflected in laws and cultural mores. People often act differently than their moral stances in those regards because of the social repercussions. That's an example of acting in self-interest. So "the good life," by the way, is always "the good life to S" (to some particular individual). An "obligation to live the good life" doesn't make a lot of sense in this context, because each individual is going to want to live according to their moral views as much as they can. There doesn't have to be any obligation about it (even though part of a particular individual's moral views might include "I have an obligation to live the good life"), because wanting (yourself and) others to live per the behavior that you feel is permissible, obligatory, etc., while avoiding the behavior you feel is impermissible, etc. is a fundamental way that our brains work (unless there's something severely unusual about the physical structure and function of our brains). Of course, what I consider the good (moral) life may be very different than what you consider the good (moral) life. It's not that one of us is right and the other is wrong, because there is no objective right/wrong, true/false, etc., in this realm. I didn't want to type all of this out initially, because (i) it's kind of laborious to do so, even in what is a very abbreviated version of it, (ii) not many people are likely to be interested, and (iii) often the only people who are interested are the people who want to argue about it, and 9 times out of 10 they can't seem to understand sentences more complex than "The dog went outside," so it's kind of pointless to bother. No offence, but I think what's throwing me off is that you are really, really shit at explaining things! I mean, when you look at what you wrote above, do you ever think to yourself "I wonder whether I could have phrased this better"? It doesn't help that your manner tends to be condescending, nit-picking, pompous, long-winded and positively Arlonesque - something you might want to work on, but perhaps, like Arlon, you do it deliberately to get a rise out of people. I don't know.
Anyway what I think you wrote above can be boiled down into three simple statements:
1. Morality is relative, everybody has their own idea of right and wrong.
2. Because of this, some fucked-up individuals think that murder is moral, i.e. that they are 'living a good life' by murdering people. (Question: do you think murder is moral or immoral? Or are you on the fence about this like you are about everything else? I'm just curious.)
3. The aforementioned fucked-up individuals don't commit murder because they don't want to go to prison.
Did I get that about right? I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm 'not reading well' because I can't understand complex sentences.
If I don't explain it in a wordier manner, I get people not understanding nuances and subsequently thinking, for example, that I'm saying something contradictory, as you thought earlier. Of course, when I explain it in a wordier manner, I get people who can't parse all of it and who need to oversimplify it into some sort of straw man. I don't necessarily disagree with your reduction above, though (a) I intentionally avoided the value judgments you're inserting, because for one, your (2) is phrased as if the person who feels that murder is moral is incorrect or false, but there is no incorrect or false (or correct or true) in this realm, (b) you're missing a lot of other ideas, as well as details and nuances of what I wrote above, and (c) if I'd written what you did, without all of the details and nuances I wrote, I'd get other sorts of bitching from you in response, as I had been getting in the first place, where you thought I was saying something contradictory. I'll refrain from commenting on whether I think you're qualified to act as my editor. Do I think that murder is moral? No. But I realize that that is just how I feel, as well as how others feel who would agree.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 24, 2017 15:57:27 GMT
I guess so. Now all you have to do to disprove my point is prove that such acts exist. Well, you'd just need any arbitrary person to say that's how they think about any arbitrary act. I could say that that was how I thought about buying the olive bread I just bought at the local market and it would be selfless if indeed I feel that way about it. Ok, after rereading my comments I admit that I mixed up two criteria for evaluating the morality of an act: Intent and outcome. When it comes to intent, I stand by my statement that there are no selfless acts. Whatever we do is motivated by some sort of self-interest; whether it's material (like buying healthy food like olive bread), or just making us feel good. But I tend to be consequentialist when it comes to ethics. Meaning: The outcome matters more than the intent. In that respect, it's possible that you perform acts that have no benefit for you. But in that respect, whether you have selfish motivations for performing an act is not that relevant. What matters is the impact. If you do something with selfish motivations, but the result is that everyone affected by this act ends up better than they were before, then it still can be considered a moral act.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 24, 2017 16:04:40 GMT
Well, you'd just need any arbitrary person to say that's how they think about any arbitrary act. I could say that that was how I thought about buying the olive bread I just bought at the local market and it would be selfless if indeed I feel that way about it. Ok, after rereading my comments I admit that I mixed up two criteria for evaluating the morality of an act: Intent and outcome. When it comes to intent, I stand by my statement that there are no selfless acts. Whatever we do is motivated by some sort of self-interest; whether it's material (like buying healthy food like olive bread), or just making us feel good. But I tend to be consequentialist when it comes to ethics. Meaning: The outcome matters more than the intent. In that respect, it's possible that you perform acts that have no benefit for you. But in that respect, whether you have selfish motivations for performing an act is not that relevant. What matters is the impact. If you do something with selfish motivations, but the result is that everyone affected by this act ends up better than they were before, then it still can be considered a moral act. Okay, but we have to go back to the question, "In whose judgment?" The point is that nothing is beneficial or detrimental or desired or not desired or anything like that objectively. It depends on how someone thinks about the thing in question, how they judge it, what outcomes they consider good or bad, etc.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 24, 2017 17:18:52 GMT
Okay, but we have to go back to the question, "In whose judgment?" Outcomewise: Those affected. Intensionwise: The person doing the action. The point is that nothing is beneficial or detrimental or desired or not desired or anything like that objectively. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 29, 2017 8:13:36 GMT
Yes, because what you said is not true actually is true. God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) exists.
basically our choices in this life do matter and ultimately determine whether one ends up in Heaven or Hell after death here on earth. this is not something you want to be on the losing side.
If this life was all their is... that would give people more reason to become corrupt simply because if they can get away with it, then they have nothing to lose. that's probably at least partially why all of those dictators are the way they are.
but they got a big surprise coming when they die here on earth.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Nov 29, 2017 10:43:21 GMT
Yes, because what you said is not true actually is true. God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) exists. What makes you think that is true?
|
|