My attempt to define the moral landscape
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
A directive or rule to which persons are subjugated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 10:36 AM)TreeSapNest Wrote:  A directive or rule to which persons are subjugated.

Wherever, then, did you draw the idea of "subjugated"?

It seems extremely tenuously connected at best to anything I've said...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
You proposed "a moral act, by a moral actor, is an act which affects the well-being of another moral actor." To which, I ask, what does the word "moral" mean when the question "is it moral to enhance the well being of another" is asked. That's the only connection.

It seems to me that what is being asked is whether there is a directive to which persons are subjegated to enhance the well-being of others. If I'm wrong, what does it mean? What does immoral mean when "is it immoral to kiss a married person" is asked?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 10:53 AM)TreeSapNest Wrote:  You proposed "a moral act, by a moral actor, is an act which affects the well-being of another moral actor." To which, I ask, what does the word "moral" mean when the question "is it moral to enhance the well being of another" is asked. That's the only connection.

And you're answering yourself by your choice of words.
(because seriously; subjugated?)

(28-10-2014 10:53 AM)TreeSapNest Wrote:  It seems to me that what is being asked is whether there is a directive to which persons are subjegated to enhance the well-being of others.

Whose directive? Enforced by whom?

(28-10-2014 10:53 AM)TreeSapNest Wrote:  If I'm wrong, what does it mean? What does immoral mean when "is it immoral to kiss a married person" is asked?

Who says that's immoral? And why? And why should I answer for them?

Does it adversely affect other people? That would seem dependent on the people involved...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
You're free to answer or not, but the questions are:

What does the word "moral" mean in the question "Is it moral to enhance the well-being of others?"

What does the word "immoral" mean in the question "Is it immoral to kiss a married person?"

Do you think they mean as I have suggested or do you think they mean something else? You know? Imagine someone asked you those questions. How would you interpret them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 10:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A beetle cannot understand the effects of its actions on others.

A human can.

I, uh, I'm rather sure you were already aware of that.

(this is of course not amenable to binary reductivism, trivial though it is to distinguish between "human being" and "sea sponge")
Morality is much more than simply "understanding the effects of actions on others"
Morality is belief in right and wrong and making a choice between right and wrong.

Humans are not special. To establish a human as a moral agent you need to establish the qualifying criteria. Your criteria above has nothing to do with morality.

(28-10-2014 10:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 04:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What happens if a person tortures beetles or puppies. Is that an immoral act?

Define "torture".

I'm too lazy to answer that question in detail. How we should treat other animals is a hell of a topic in its own right.
You're deflecting.
Its clear that your definition of a moral act is invalid, most people would consider it immoral to torture a puppy even though they would consider the puppy as not being a moral agent.


(28-10-2014 10:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 04:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, he judges me against his standard.

My goodness that took a while to establish.

Your endless circles about what people "should" do is then irrelevant; this is what people actually do.
Mischaracterisations again.
I haven't made any statements as to what people should do.
Do you understand what philosophy is?
Its an endeavor to explore logical consistency given certain axioms (in this case morality) and the logical consequences of that.


(28-10-2014 10:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 04:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But in my defence I highlight that just like the beetle I had no idea that recreational sex is wrong. I still don't accept that recreational sex is wrong. I have not made a choice between right and wrong. My choice was morally neutral. I cannot be held accountable for choosing wrong over right. I have not made such a choice.

I reject that as a disingenuous formulation.

Having no opinion on the flavour of a given spice does not mean you can claim no knowledge of taste.

You may actively find something neutral by your own standards, but you are not passively unable to form opinions.
I find everything to be morally neutral. I find all moral statements to be non-sensical. You might want to google the definition of Moral nihilism.

But your are also deflecting here.
Let's say I had a belief that eating dolphins is immoral. This does not mean that I should consider recreational sex as immoral. One does not begat the other. If I am not knowingly making a choice between right and wrong then I am not a moral agent, I am not choosing wrong, I am not being immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(24-10-2014 12:03 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 11:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I guess I'm not sure if the attempt is to map out a idea of how to demonstrate morality as spoken on in a general sense or by a meaning that has value.

I'm attempting to define what morality might be by documenting some qualifying criteria. This way there are a set of events which we can agree don't qualify as moral events because they don't meet the criteria.

It seems to me that an event cannot be a moral event if the actor does not have knowledge, understanding or belief in right and wrong.

Would you agree with that last sentence? If you disagree, can you provide an example that would contradict this?

The more I read this thread, I've agreed with a lot of the questioning and responses cjlr has come out with... and on a inquisitive level, I'm questioning why you find there to be a desire for a logically consistent answer. To me you're looking for something that doesn't exists nor ought to exists and that's why it's never been defined in millennial despite the attempts of many philosophies.

I think there are common base moral values than generally people value. They happen to value them to different degrees though, and these make judging them on any consistent encompassing scale overly problematic. I don't think morality is in anyway limited to the idea of "good" or "wrong" but are viewed as "better" or beneficial understandings.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 01:08 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  To me you're looking for something that doesn't exists nor ought to exists and that's why it's never been defined in millennial despite the attempts of many philosophies.

I think the only thing that fails is the attempt to define right and wrong outside of the "Almighty Lawgiver." It's an attempt to define the law, the right and wrong, the moral and immoral, when there is none.

When deciding what to do or not do all we have is ourselves, for better or worse, like it or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 01:59 PM)TreeSapNest Wrote:  When deciding what to do or not do all we have is ourselves, for better or worse, like it or not.
And as I highly suspect you already know,
It's not just about what do I want in the immediate future,
It's also taking into consideration the ongoing consequences of our actions i.e. how will others react? Will this improve my future prospects or will it be detrimental to them? How do my actions influence society?
For some people they also take into consideration their own values or moral beliefs (do I think this is the right thing to do? Would I feel guilt if I did this?) - But this is an optional step and is highly personal and subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(28-10-2014 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And as I highly suspect you already know,

Sure. By "ourselves" I meant personally and as a community. We have little choice but to care about it all if we care about anything, lest we make decisions that lead us to a North Korea world instead of a free thought and free expression world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: