Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 07:27 PM)Velvet Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 07:15 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  By equating it merely with "personal opinion" you reduce it down to an oversimplified and incorrect interpretation.

Or to put it another way, not all opinions are equal. If we use the word "opinion" within science in the way you're using with respect to morality, then evolution is merely scientific opinion, as is plate tectonics and relativity, etc.

Moral questions aren't simple, so reducing them down to mere opinion (and making it sound arbitrary) is a gross oversimplification and a misrepresentation of other people's opinions.

I'm sorry that I'm taking long to answer or that I'm not answering everything, its just that I'm thinking a lot about what you are saying before answering.

Well, the difference is that those scientific opinions that you exemplified have evidence to support that they reflect the reality on a objective way, they are opinions of reality that happen to be supported.

I'm not trying to devaluate morality...

I just following the conclusion that if something isn't objective and is just a construct that we made so we might increase the likelihood to survive as species, then there's no really right and wrong...

There's just... this construct that points us to (hopefully) survive as a species, not to what is moraly right or wrong.

"Well, the difference is that those scientific opinions that you exemplified have evidence to support that they reflect the reality on a objective way, they are opinions of reality that happen to be supported."

I'd say you're pretty damn close. It's not only the fact that they have evidence to support them, it's that they have logically consistient arguments that connect the conclusions to the evidence.

It's similar with morals. It's not simply an opinion, it's a justified and reasoned belief. Even if the justification and reasoning are bad or poor, they still underpin the moral values. This isn't to say that morals are objective truths, because moral situations are contextual.

In order to judge someone's actions as moral, immoral, or amoral, you need to know more than their moral opinion, you need to know their reasoning and/or evidence for their morals. If their reasoning is self-centered or capricious or greedy, we might reasonably judge it as immoral. If they have a well reasoned argument and consider the ramifications of their actions on others and place value on those actions, we might judge their actions as moral. If they have no reasoning or justification of their own for their moral opinion and rely upon someone or something else to derive their moral opinion, we might call it ammoral.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
23-11-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 07:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why do you not continue to question their reasoning? Why do you not ask for the arguments underpinning their moral opinion? All you know is the conclusion they've reached but you know nothing about the way that they got to it. So is it any wonder you don't "intuitively" agree with their conclusion when you don't know their reasoning?

Err.. ok...

So lets say I meet with a guy who supports torture people when there's evidence that he is withholding crucial military info, and he does that because he is an utilitarianist.

Getting that info will likely save dozens of lives...

Ok... what basis should I use to determine that he is right or wrong?

Probably torturing that guy MIGHT be able to save dozens of lives, even if torture has been reported as largely ineffective, his intentions are to save dozens of lives, so his expected value is higher than the alternative...

I sincerely have no idea if he is right or wrong, but If I don't agree with this... suppose that I think his human rights must be conserved...

Why should my view that human rights and torture laws are to be conserved allow me to judge his moral stance, giving that he has his own moral view, which does also mean that mine is wrong is his view?

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 07:41 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 04:11 AM)Velvet Wrote:  ...
As a honest thinker, one is forced to apply skepticism to his moral intuitious, and until he is able to find rational justification he shouldn't regard them as anything more than his personal opinion, maybe learned from culture or "infused" by natural selection.
...

Survival is not about an *opinion*.
Saying group survival or individual survival requires one "apply skeptcism" to one's intuitions is the height of something. There are no words .... fuck.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-11-2016, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016 07:58 PM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Oh I see what you are saying Beard... you judge not in regards of it is ''really right or really wrong'', but on what their intentions are...

So, (hypothetically) even if slavery is abhorrent now... if people who preserved slavery were doing it because they meant good (regardless of their criteria of what is good?) then they are moral?

Anyways, what I'm advocating is that if relative morality is only a construct to increase the likelihood of survival as a group, then there's no ''good and evil'', ''right and wrong'', even if we attempt to ground the good and right on well being, happiness or survival of human species, we will be doing that without any justification to do one instead of any other outside of our intuition...

And when we face someone who thinks differently on moral terms, we have no basis, outside of our ''intuition based ground'' to say that his ground is not as good as our ground...

We would have to recognize that our morality is a reflection of what is our opinion of how we would like the world to be, or how it would be the best world to live in... which is different from one people to the other, and meaningless to reflect what would actually be the right or good thing.

I will discuss more tomorrow... too tired to keep going.

Thanks for all except Bucky Ball, for bringing something useful to the table... goodnight.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 07:45 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Oh I see what you are saying Beard... you judge not in regards of it is ''really right or really wrong'', but on what their intentions are...

So, (hypothetically) even if slavery is abhorrent now... if people who preserved slavery were doing it because they meant good (regardless of their criteria of what is good) then they are moral?

In their minds and in their society it would be moral (or at least not immoral).

It's not even necessarily about a person's intent but whether or not the person considers the ramifications of the moral question as it relates beyond themselves. When people justified slavery, they did did so by convincing themselves that the people they enslaved weren't their equivalent. They had to make them less than themselves in order to make their moral decisions about keeping slaves. If they saw the slaves as human, they'd have been unable to morally justify keeping them as slaves.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 07:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 07:45 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Oh I see what you are saying Beard... you judge not in regards of it is ''really right or really wrong'', but on what their intentions are...

So, (hypothetically) even if slavery is abhorrent now... if people who preserved slavery were doing it because they meant good (regardless of their criteria of what is good) then they are moral?

In their minds and in their society it would be moral (or at least not immoral).

It's not even necessarily about a person's intent but whether or not the person considers the ramifications of the moral question as it relates beyond themselves. When people justified slavery, they did did so by convincing themselves that the people they enslaved weren't their equivalent. They had to make them less than themselves in order to make their moral decisions about keeping slaves. If they saw the slaves as human, they'd have been unable to morally justify keeping them as slaves.

Yes I know slavery is based on dehumanization instead of a different moral set, that's why I said ''hypothetically'' and ''if they meant good'', I realized that this example was poorly picked but I'm too tired to think about a better one right now, so I just ''fixed'' that example...

Glad you managed to understand what I meant...

So you ground your moral judgment on the whether or not the guy uses well his own opinion of what constitutes a good or evil act, and then you attempt to perform a judgment from inside-perspective of his own opinion (using empathy)?

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 07:45 PM)Velvet Wrote:  So, (hypothetically) even if slavery is abhorrent now... if people who preserved slavery were doing it because they meant good (regardless of their criteria of what is good?) then they are moral?

If people "meant well" they would act according to their criteria of what was good. Your question is meaningless.

Quote:Anyways, what I'm advocating is that if relative morality is only a construct to increase the likelihood of survival as a group, then there's no ''good and evil'', ''right and wrong'', even if we attempt to ground the good and right on well being, happiness or survival of human species, we will be doing that without any justification to do one instead of any other outside of our intuition...
v

Then what are you advocating be the basis of right action ?
So you are advocating anarchy then.

Quote:And when we face someone who thinks differently on moral terms, we have no basis, outside of our ''intuition based ground'' to say that his ground is not as good as our ground...

Wrong. Totally wrong. We know from all sorts of sources, scientific, cultural, psychological, legal etc etc what promotes "the best" (health, welfare etc etc) in ourselves others. It's not not about "intuition". At all. Rational people have at least some bases for their moral decisions

Quote:We would have to recognize that our morality is a reflection of what is our opinion of how we would like the world to be, or how it would be the best world to live in... which is different from one people to the other, and meaningless to reflect what would actually be the right or good thing.

Wrong. Many people do, and recognize the need to do things, contrary to their own opinions all the time. Your reasoning is faulty, and irrational.

Quote:I will discuss more tomorrow... too tired to keep going.

You're not "discussing" anything, nor have you listened to ANYTHING here anyone else has said. You're on a rant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-11-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:15 PM)Velvet Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 07:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In their minds and in their society it would be moral (or at least not immoral).

It's not even necessarily about a person's intent but whether or not the person considers the ramifications of the moral question as it relates beyond themselves. When people justified slavery, they did did so by convincing themselves that the people they enslaved weren't their equivalent. They had to make them less than themselves in order to make their moral decisions about keeping slaves. If they saw the slaves as human, they'd have been unable to morally justify keeping them as slaves.

Yes I know slavery is based on dehumanization instead of a different moral set, that's why I said ''hypothetically'' and ''if they meant good'', I realized that this example was poorly picked but I'm too tired to think about a better one right now, so I just ''fixed'' that example...

Glad you managed to understand what I meant...

So you ground your moral judgment on the whether or not the guy uses well his own opinion of what constitutes a good or evil act, and then you attempt to perform a judgment from inside-perspective of his own opinion (using empathy)?

Why do you keep trying to reduce what I say down into me saying that people do it for "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" reasons as if there is some sort of moral standard by which to judge these actions?

Your slavery example is spot on, it just doesn't fit the narrative you are pushing. Slave owners clearly believed their actions to be moral because they justified it via dehumanizing their slaves. By not making the slaves human (or at least not as human as they were), they could sell their actions to themselves and society at large as moral (or at least not immoral). They suspended the "golden rule" by making it not apply since the slaves weren't equivalent with themselves.

Isn't that what it boils down to when people want to suspend their morals in order to rationalize war or using the death penalty?

"They aren't like us, so it's okay to kill them if we believe they'd kill us first."

^People who would advocate for such things almost certainly believe their opinions to be morally justified.

Also, empathy is clearly crucial to forming moral values. But morals are also a social construct too. It's not only empathy for those close to you (altruism in a sense), but those in your society at large.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
23-11-2016, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016 09:20 PM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 08:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why do you keep trying to reduce what I say down into me saying that people do it for "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" reasons as if there is some sort of moral standard by which to judge these actions?

Because this is my question all along...

How can we judge right from wrong actions, good from evil actions, if there's no moral standard by which to judge these actions?

It seems you actually agree with me then, that we can't?

Would you agree we cannot judge Hitler's actions or rape, slavery and genocide as being wrong or evil? (because while we could use mechanisms to divide as moral or immoral actions based on their society morality, that still wouldn`t give us a right/wrong?)

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
23-11-2016, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016 09:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Facepalm
There doesn't have to be "the" basis for everyone's judgments for judgments them to be valid. That is simply idiotic and childish.
One does not get to impose one's morality on anyone else. One does, however have to obey the law.
She's essentially created a straw-man she's tilting against.
There are some limits to actions and *legal* and *illegal* actions which society has agreed on, in terms of LEGAL activity.
She's confused moral with legal. Slavery is illegal, (now) as well as immoral. It used to be legal, and in some cultures (BEFORE human culture understood its ramifications) it may have been moral.
Progress does not invalidate itself. Many of those who engaged in it knew it was not the best for the people they "owned", but because it was legal, they continued to engage in it. That was legal, but immoral.
There are all kinds of other philosophical approaches to ethics, other than Utilitarianism. None of them have been mentioned in this "amateur" thread, in which someone ridiculously claimed Craig "was correct".
There is no "objective" morality, and just because every single person on the face of the Earth does not agree about what is or is not moral, in no way invalidates what groups or individuals have determined FOR THEMSELVES (through long considered processes and rational study and choices) to be moral, NOR does that mean, therefore that one can jump to the simplistic childish, irrational, stupid conclusion that therefor there are no general guidelines rational people should or do employ that promotes the individual or common good.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: