Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2011 17:29:37 GMT -4
At its most basic level: are some actions "wrong" or "evil" and others "right" or "good" regardless of the opinion of any given observer or participant?
On a somewhat more nuanced level: Is some sort of enforcement - society, God, family, or some other agent - required in order for actions to be moral or immoral?
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 28, 2011 13:10:57 GMT -4
At its most basic level: are some actions "wrong" or "evil" and others "right" or "good" regardless of the opinion of any given observer or participant? An answer would require a clear definition of what distinguishes "good" actions from "evil" actions, which doesn't involve a rote list of examples. Maybe wiggling one's pinky finger in a westerly direction is the most absolutely evil action one can perform, but with no objective metric, the definitions fall back into the realm of arbitrary opinion. By what process would you propose to objectively measure "evil?" If we're keeping within the "objective" framework, enforcement would support the objective (im)morality of an action only if applied objectively, which I would think discounts the involvement of an intelligent agent. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2011 15:09:41 GMT -4
An answer would require a clear definition of what distinguishes "good" actions from "evil" actions, which doesn't involve a rote list of examples. Maybe wiggling one's pinky finger in a westerly direction is the most absolutely evil action one can perform, but with no objective metric, the definitions fall back into the realm of arbitrary opinion. It's an old philosophical question, of course. How about "good actions are those actions which produce an absolute net benefit, either to the action-taker or others, whereas evil actions are those which produce an absolute net harm, either to the action-taker or to others?" By "absolute" I mean without regards to time, so if an action only provides its benefits in the far future, hundreds of centuries after it was taken, it is still a beneficial, and therefore good action. I also mean without regard to the recepient's opinion on whether the action and its consequences was ultimately good or evil. By "net" I mean that an action can cause both good and evil consequences, but when taken in total with the evil "subtracted" from the good the final result will be one or the other - good or evil. The possibility exists for an absolutely morally neutral action, and such an action could then not be described as either moral or immoral. I tend to agree. If the morality described is to be truly "objective" then the presence or absence of enforcement is irrelevent. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 28, 2011 17:35:59 GMT -4
Hmmm...
I really don't know if there is an objective morality...
I would think that if there was a God, it would exist.
One of the reasons I do not believe in God (at least the "God" as presented in major religions) is that the moral standard seems to be corrupt. I would expect the moral standard to remain the same throughout history, but it seems to be more fluid than that. Indeed, in the Bible (just picking this one because I'm more familiar with it) God seemingly instructs his followers to murder, rape, and pillage. This suggests to me that: either the instructions were not from God at all, or that God's idea of what is right and wrong changes over time, in which case it would not be an objective morality at all, or that these episodes indicate that the Biblical God does not exist, but is just a reflection of man's morality at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 28, 2011 19:53:45 GMT -4
In point of fact, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly rejects one of the laws of the Old Testament, proving that even God can change His mind. In the Old Testament, the morality was "an eye for an eye," and Jesus Himself throws it out in favour of "turn the other cheek." If morality doesn't change, what's that about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 28, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -4
In point of fact, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly rejects one of the laws of the Old Testament, proving that even God can change His mind. In the Old Testament, the morality was "an eye for an eye," and Jesus Himself throws it out in favour of "turn the other cheek." If morality doesn't change, what's that about? Socrates said that you can tell if a god is really God by the laws that he commands. If they are not "good" then you know it isn't really God. Your point about how morality changes in the Bible is evidence of a non-objective morality, I would think. Of course I guess someone could say that God can do anything - even change his mind perhaps but to me this would make no sense. Of course I'm only a human with my feeble capabilities of understanding.  |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 11:59:40 GMT -4
One of the reasons I do not believe in God (at least the "God" as presented in major religions) is that the moral standard seems to be corrupt. "Seems" might be the most important word in that sentance. Is it the moral standard that changed, or is it what God required of a specific people at a specific time in history that changed when he spoke to another group of people at another point in history? Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she does so I forcibly remove her from the area and either give her something else to do or place her in her play pen for a time. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. In fact it may be one of her regular chores to do so, and she may get in trouble if she doesn't. Because I tell her one thing when she is 14 months old and something completely contradictory when she is 14 years old, have my standards of acceptable behavior changed? |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 29, 2011 13:57:34 GMT -4
How about "good actions are those actions which produce an absolute net benefit, either to the action-taker or others, whereas evil actions are those which produce an absolute net harm, either to the action-taker or to others?" This definition seems to lead us right back to the original issue: How to objectively measure "benefit" and "harm." Further, is "others" limited to members of homo sapiens? Since morality is limited to intelligent agents (the tectonic activity which resulted in the Japanese tsunami could hardly be characterized as "evil"), wouldn't a component be predictable consequences of a given action? Did Alois and Klara Hitler perform an evil act by conceiving their 4th child? How could the (im)morality of any given action possibly be evaluated if millennia of subsequent results yet to occur cannot yet be measured as benefit, harm, or neutral? Under this definition, wouldn't both of the following actions be morally neutral? One sacrifices themself, preventing another from being killed. One kills another, preventing themself from being killed. (Not necessarily in the standard "self-defense" scenario) In both cases, benefit and harm cancel out. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 14:13:24 GMT -4
This definition seems to lead us right back to the original issue: How to objectively measure "benefit" and "harm." It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. No. But harm to a single bacteria could not be viewed as equal to harm to a human being. I would say that rather than "predictable consequences," would be "motivation." If someone intended to harm others with their action but beneficial consequences were the result, their action could still be described as immoral/evil because of their motivation. We're speaking of an objective reality independent of whether we can actually measure it. But an action cannot be considered in isolation when it results in the loss of an acting agent (and therefore all of their future actions). Lost potential for good or evil by the victim in either case could be used to determine if the action was good or evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 29, 2011 14:27:18 GMT -4
I really don't know if there is an objective morality... I would think that if there was a God, it would exist. If the existence of objective morality is contingent on the existence of a god, wouldn't that mean that the god decided what is and isn't moral? In that case, morality isn't objective, but the arbitrary opinion of one being. See The Euthyphro Dilemma. Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 15:19:06 GMT -4
Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products. Point taken, but the commandment to the 14-month old is indeed "thou shalt not open the cabinet door." Opening the cabinet door is sufficient for me to remove her from the situation - before she even reaches for the cleaning products, which is of course my real reason for forbidding her from opening the cabinet. And the commandment to the 14 year old to do her chores will of necessity contradict the earlier commandment, even if I don't specifically tell her that it has been rescinded. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 29, 2011 17:27:45 GMT -4
I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products. Point taken, but the commandment to the 14-month old is indeed "thou shalt not open the cabinet door." Opening the cabinet door is sufficient for me to remove her from the situation - before she even reaches for the cleaning products, which is of course my real reason for forbidding her from opening the cabinet. And the commandment to the 14 year old to do her chores will of necessity contradict the earlier commandment, even if I don't specifically tell her that it has been rescinded. Your analogies suck, Jason!  Can it be compared to God commanding someone to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture the women and loot everything of value? I don't think so. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 30, 2011 14:16:48 GMT -4
Your analogies suck, Jason! Can it be compared to God commanding someone to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture the women and loot everything of value? I don't think so. Actually I thought that was a pretty good analogy, and the "flaw" DataCable pointed out is really just a nit. How can a loving father be morally consistent when he gives contradictory advice/commandments? When he's giving it to different people with different capabilities at different times. When is it right to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture all the women, and loot everything of value? The simple answer is: when the more harm will be done by not destroying a town, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 4, 2011 13:21:02 GMT -4
It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. Even before they can be measured, they must be defined. So how are benefit and harm to be objectively defined? And is the reverse also true? Is a beneficially-intended action which results in harm still to be deemed good? And what do intentions have to do with objective reality? If I intend to paint something green but use red paint instead, it still won't be green. The wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation absorbed and reflected by the surface do not bow to my intentions, only my actions. You had previously stated: "Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could..." Are you now retracting that claim? Is not mankind, owing to our lack of perfect knowledge of our actions' ramifications for untold aeons to come, inherently incapable of discerning objective good from evil, by your definition? And how is this potential to be determined? Actually I thought that was a pretty good analogy, and the "flaw" DataCable pointed out is really just a nit. I dispute this. In addition to presenting a scenario in which the pro/pre-scribed action is, by itself, inconsequential, you are also conflating the situations of contradictory commandments given to a human incapable of comprehending the potential consequences of her actions and a human better-capable of understanding those consequences, with contradictory commandments given to fully-developed adults. Then, by your definition, murder is not objectively immoral. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 5, 2011 18:02:03 GMT -4
It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. Even before they can be measured, they must be defined. So how are benefit and harm to be objectively defined? Admittedly not easily in some cases. Possibly the best measure would be whether a person's ability, knowledge, and/or freedom had been increased or decreased by the action in question. To some extent, yes. But green and red are, of course, subjective measures, so that analogy has a serious flaw. An action's morality is dependent in part on the circumstances surrounding it. A person's motive is simply one of those circumstances. Perhaps I should have said "given sufficient time". By accurate predictions of the potential. This may require techniques we have not developed yet. But that was the point of my analogy - that different commands are given at different times because they are dependent on a given audience's ability to comprehend and obey. The objective standard remains the same but what is required of mankind by diety changes with mankind's ability to meet the standard - just as what I require of my daughter will change as her ability to comprehend and obey changes. On the contrary, murder is immoral by definition. Killing, on the other hand, can be either moral or immoral. |
|
