My attempt to define the moral landscape
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(29-10-2014 01:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I in fact suggested to you that you might prefer to say better or worse, as in more or less (personally) preferable. You did not pursue that.
As is the case with most alternative definitions you have offered, it is a quick and trivial exercise to show that this definition has no relation to the concept of morality as it is far too broad to be useful.

Let's say I ask someone whether it is more moral for me to eat sushi rather than a scoop of chips.
They would look at me funny and think "WTF!"

If I asked, is it better for me to eat sushi rather than chips, they might respond that sushi is more healthy.

Morality absolutely requires the concept of choice between right and wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 02:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Morality absolutely requires the concept of choice between right and wrong.

Nope. It can involve choosing the lesser of two evils.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 02:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Morality absolutely requires the concept of choice between right and wrong.

Nope. It can involve choosing the lesser of two evils.
By "evils" I assume you mean "wrongs"?
This would meant that the concept of right and wrong is still necessary. But with a weighting more towards wrongs than rights. Because we aren't considering the better of two rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. It can involve choosing the lesser of two evils.
By "evils" I assume you mean "wrongs"?
This would meant that the concept of right and wrong is still necessary. But with a weighting more towards wrongs than rights. Because we aren't considering the better of two rights.

But it is not a choice between right and wrong which is what you claimed was absolutely required.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
Think there are definitely social 'contracts' that go without saying amongst us all...'do unto others as you'd wish them to do unto you,' kinda thing. The 'golden rule,' so to speak. But, objective morality is a religious tenet, and so...not sure I'd say there exists a moral 'landscape,' that we all could agree upon.

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it is not a choice between right and wrong which is what you claimed was absolutely required.
Let's say you are in Nazi Germany, you have a Jew hidden under your floor.
A soldier on a mission to kill Jews asks the home owner if they know of the where-abouts. The home owner lies and says no, thus saving the life of the Jew under his floor.

From a moral landscape perspective, the house owner might consider that he did an immoral act "Lie" but may justify that by also considering he did a moral act "saved a life".

There are two ways to consider the choices:
1. Choice between lying and contributing to the execution of the Jew. (two evils)
2. Choice between saving a life (good) or contributing to the execution of the Jew (bad).

I don't think we can look at perspective 1 and say that a choice of lying was the moral choice. It wasn't the lying that makes it "moral"

We would instead have to look at perspective 2 and say that he choose a good (as he saw it) over an evil (as he saw it).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 04:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it is not a choice between right and wrong which is what you claimed was absolutely required.
Let's say you are in Nazi Germany, you have a Jew hidden under your floor.
A soldier on a mission to kill Jews asks the home owner if they know of the where-abouts. The home owner lies and says no, thus saving the life of the Jew under his floor.

From a moral landscape perspective, the house owner might consider that he did an immoral act "Lie" but may justify that by also considering he did a moral act "saved a life".

There are two ways to consider the choices:
1. Choice between lying and contributing to the execution of the Jew. (two evils)
2. Choice between saving a life (good) or contributing to the execution of the Jew (bad).

I don't think we can look at perspective 1 and say that a choice of lying was the moral choice. It wasn't the lying that makes it "moral"

We would instead have to look at perspective 2 and say that he choose a good (as he saw it) over an evil (as he saw it).

One example does not support your assertion. One can easily come up with examples that are clearly a choice between wrongs, thus refuting your 'absolutely required'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(30-10-2014 06:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  One example does not support your assertion. One can easily come up with examples that are clearly a choice between wrongs, thus refuting your 'absolutely required'.
I'd be keen to hear of this example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:09 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(21-10-2014 04:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My stab at defining morality is as per below
"Morality is the distinction between right and wrong given an event caused by a moral agent with prior knowledge of right and wrong and having been in a situation where a choice was freely made (without coercion)."
To further define some of the terms use above:
1. A moral agent is an entity which has the ability to make choices and also has knowledge of right and wrong.
2. Morality is regarding actions made via choice by a moral agent where moraly significant alternatives are present.
3. Moral judgement is made with the distinction of actions/choices between "right" and "wrong"
4. Moral obligation means that a moral agent is bound in their behaviours to do the
"right" thing.
5. Normative statements can be applied to actions (actual or potential) of other moral agents such that claims of "oughts" and "shoulds", "ought nots" and "should nots" can be made and moral judgements of the choices and actions of others can be made.

I still insist that following an established set of rules is not "morality", it is "legalism" and, as such, we will never arrive at any kind of objective/universal set of rules, because they are inevitably tied to cultural preferences.

I define morality as behavior that is engaged in by people who have genuine empathy with and compassion for their fellow humans. Empathy is simply the recognition that all human beings have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we have. It begins, simply, as an intellectual acknowledgement of the natural order of things.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 05:57 AM
RE: My attempt to define the moral landscape
(11-08-2015 02:09 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 04:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My stab at defining morality is as per below
"Morality is the distinction between right and wrong given an event caused by a moral agent with prior knowledge of right and wrong and having been in a situation where a choice was freely made (without coercion)."
To further define some of the terms use above:
1. A moral agent is an entity which has the ability to make choices and also has knowledge of right and wrong.
2. Morality is regarding actions made via choice by a moral agent where moraly significant alternatives are present.
3. Moral judgement is made with the distinction of actions/choices between "right" and "wrong"
4. Moral obligation means that a moral agent is bound in their behaviours to do the
"right" thing.
5. Normative statements can be applied to actions (actual or potential) of other moral agents such that claims of "oughts" and "shoulds", "ought nots" and "should nots" can be made and moral judgements of the choices and actions of others can be made.

I still insist that following an established set of rules is not "morality", it is "legalism" and, as such, we will never arrive at any kind of objective/universal set of rules, because they are inevitably tied to cultural preferences.

I define morality as behavior that is engaged in by people who have genuine empathy with and compassion for their fellow humans. Empathy is simply the recognition that all human beings have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we have. It begins, simply, as an intellectual acknowledgement of the natural order of things.

I don't believe in morality or rights, but you talk about morality as being a behavior that comes from empathy and compassion towards fellow humans. My question is, why would it apply only to humans? I can have empathy and compassion for my dog, and I could imagine someone who believes in morality claiming that it is immoral to beat your dog.

Do you think we can make moral decisions regarding non-human animals as well, or just humans?

And regarding rights, why call them rights if they can be taken away?

[Image: holocausstarvationfake1-398x351.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: