Science can answer moral questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
What is "good"? What is "bad"?

Why the "for no reason at all" qualifier? Looks like moving the goalposts, which is not objective at all. Can one actually kill another 'for no reason at all", really? I am not convinced.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 11:58 AM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 10:12 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I think it's not evaluated at all, how did you reach that conclusion? why is it bad?

Dictionary definition:
evaluation: the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something

Killing for no good reason is bad.

"Killing for no good reason" was given the value "bad". Hence, it is an evaluation.



Why is it bad?

Do you have trouble seeing that "killing for no good reason" is bad? Or are you asking "why is it bad?" only for the sake of disagreement? If you have a proper reason why you would think "killing for no good reason" is NOT bad, then please explain. Otherwise, you will have to say that you agree that it is bad.


Now let me repeat my question to you, highlighting the points you have missed:
Quote:Using these two definitions::
Is/are there a behavior/s, that can be described as good/bad for a fact, without involving individual biases, interpretations, feeling and imaginings in the process of evaluation?

I will now give an example of such a behavior and corresponding moral evaluation. If you think that this behavior was not evaluated objectively*, you will need to elucidate.

Killing a person for no good reason is bad.

* Definition of objective:
Dictionary definition:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Philosophical definition:
Objectivity: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

In response to ghostexorcist: I don't want to add psychopaths and mentally defect people to our process of reasoning about morality. It is like not wanting to add the opinion of an illiterate retard to the evaluation of a scientific experimental result. It serves no good.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 11:26 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  What is "good"? What is "bad"?

Why the "for no reason at all" qualifier? Looks like moving the goalposts, which is not objective at all. Can one actually kill another 'for no reason at all", really? I am not convinced.

I'm building an argument. I didn't even come anywhere close to finishing it. What you just did is destructive questioning, a very poor practice.

It is like I say: Let's assume a man walks in through the door
and you say: Why a man? Why not a woman? Why does the room have to have a door?

And seriously? You are questioning if it is possible for a person to kill another for no good reason? That's your contribution?

And you are seriously asking the meaning of good and bad? ...

The dictionary is our friend, again. My treat for you, the definition of good:
good: to be desired or approved of.
bad is the opposite of good...

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 11:55 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 08:57 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Killing a person for no good reason is bad.
Bad for whom?
The person that died might have thought this action as bad, but then again they are dead, they can't think.
Maybe they were suicidal but scared of going to hell?

Maybe bad for their family, if they have a family, but maybe their family lives in terror of this person, maybe the dead man was an abusive husband, a molesterer as a father, or maybe this person has no family, or maybe this person's family dishoned them, maybe they were too chicken to do an honour killing, this death may have solved their problems.

Maybe bad for the killer? Were they careful, are they going to get caught? Maybe their inheritance looks a great deal better now, maybe now they are free to marry someone else, maybe now they know what murder feels like Evil_monster

What about me, I might live half a world away, I might have never known the killer or the killed. I might not know that someone has died. How could this event possibly be deemed bad by me?

What about intelligent aliens whom deem themselves as moral agents and believe that all sentient beings are bound by moral obligation. Do they care that yet another human has killed a human? Do they even know that this event has occured? Do they deem it their own moral obligation to scour the universe and find all sentient life forms and get them to stop being immoral?

What is deemed as a good reason for killing?
What is a bad reason for killing?
Is inheritance a good or bad reason?
Is wanting out of a marriage a good or bad reason?
Is trying to uphold the honor of one's family a good or bad reason?
Is the convenience of not having to dedicate one's life to taking care of a physically/mentally disabled and fully dependent person a good or bad reason for killing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
I guess I need to use highlighting techniques for Stevil, too.

Killing for no good reason is bad.

I didn't say killing is bad. Thus, your whole statement falls apart.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 12:04 PM)Youkay Wrote:  I guess I need to use highlighting techniques for Stevil, too.

Killing for no good reason is bad.

I didn't say killing is bad. Thus, your whole statement falls apart.
By the way in many of my statements, I didn't state the reason why a person was killed. Just the implications it has on certain people. Those people may not have been the killers and the person may not have been killed for any of those reasons. In all cases the person may have been killed as a random act of violence.

Except for the bottom part of my post where I ask what is deemed as a good reason.
Can you answer that past first then we will see which part of my post falls apart.

Don't be so quick to blow me off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 12:23 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
Alright guys, I see that everybody is struggling very hard to agree that "killing a person for no good reason" is a bad thing. It is shameful really, to my opinion, that there is so much struggle to accept that it is a bad thing.

Is it really possible to discuss morality with people who fail to see that "killing a person for no good reason" is bad? What is "a good reason" to kill somebody, what is "a bad reason"? Really? You REQUIRE me to specify? I think killing somebody simply for the thrill of it is not a good reason. There are plenty bad reasons to kill somebody, as there also are plenty good reasons, and plenty reasons which are arguably good or bad.

If I get so much resistance with something THAT SIMPLE, I don't know if it is worth continuing this.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 12:19 PM)Youkay Wrote:  It is really possible to discuss morality with people who fail to see that "killing a person for no good reason" is bad? What is a good reason to kill somebody, what is a bad reason? Really? You REQUIRE me to specify? I think killing somebody simply for the thrill of it is not a good reason. I can think of pleeeeenty bad reasons to kill somebody. (I can think of plenty of good reasons, and I can think of plenty of reasons which are arguably good or bad)

If I get so much resistance with something THAT SIMPLE, I don't know if it is worth continuing this.
It's not that simple.

Please address my questions, I need to understand your moral framework.
Is it a good reason to kill someone for inheritance? Why or why not is this deemed good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 07:56 AM)Youkay Wrote:  It's also just a semantic argument whether to call this sort of morality objective morality or reason derived morality.

That's not a "semantic argument" at all. Sounds more like your attempt to bully past your obligation to define and defend your terms.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 11:48 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:26 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  What is "good"? What is "bad"?

Why the "for no reason at all" qualifier? Looks like moving the goalposts, which is not objective at all. Can one actually kill another 'for no reason at all", really? I am not convinced.

I'm building an argument.

You fuck up the foundation and the whole thing comes tumbling down.


Quote:I didn't even come anywhere close to finishing it. What you just did is destructive questioning, a very poor practice.


Not at all. You appear to be relying on your own confirmation bias. I am simply testing your assertions, which you appear to wish to be accepted ad hoc -- a very poor practice.

Quote:It is like I say: Let's assume a man walks in through the door
and you say: Why a man? Why not a woman? Why does the room have to have a door?

It is NOTHING like that, and you are being disingenuous in suggesting that it is.

Quote:And seriously? You are questioning if it is possible for a person to kill another for no good reason? That's your contribution?

OBVIOUSLY anyone that kills another person has a "good enough" reason to actually do it. That's my CHALLENGE to your OBVIOUS hedge.

Quote:And you are seriously asking the meaning of good and bad? ...

YOU are asserting that they are objective qualities. I am casting doubts on that assertion. You can't bully your way past objections to your ad hoc assertions by WHINING.


Quote:The dictionary is our friend, again. My treat for you, the definition of good:
good: to be desired or approved of.
bad is the opposite of good...

And you think this definition is objective? Obviously if I were to kill someone, I would desire and approve of that killing.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: