Discussion about ethics and morality, split from "Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?"

[Loozik]

What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

e.g. two people in the same state can have different opinions on if gay marriage is morally wrong, but they cannot on if it's legal (or they are just wrong xD).

We are probably having disagreements over definitions. Can you define ''morally'' and ''legal''?

I certainly could call it (owning gold) morally wrong.

Can you prove owning gold (chemical element) is morally wrong? What harm do you do to others by owning it? This sounds like an arbitrary opinion to me.

If you say "xy isn't morally right" it's expressing your opinion, not stating a fact.

No, I am stating a fact (objective, provable rationally and / or empirically).

[1714092492]

1714092492

[1714092492]

1714092492

[Birdy]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

[deeplink]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 

[Rassah]

What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

[deeplink]

- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 

Ah yes of course, but we can always elect someone to determine that for us  

[Birdy]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

Exactly my point, it differs from person to person.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

That's a fair point, obviously our own survival instinct is too strong for anyone to agree to this (or 99.999% of all people).
Does that make everyone a hypocrite who would claim that sacrificing one (someone who cannot be the one claiming it) to rescue, let's go bigger 1 million?
Would it change anything if the person to be sacrified is guilty of something?
I don't know.  
Saying you may not harm anyone seems like the easy way out, but there are quite some situations that will prove this too be far more complicated.
Luckily most of us won't have to make such difficult decisions though.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

Also you could still rescue more people while being alive and then be an organ donor after that to rescue even more.
But we are also limiting "common good" to "keep more people alive", which isn't necessarily good. (e.g. overpopulation).
^^

[Loozik]

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

It is the other way round.

Ethics is what is perceived good and noble by people living in a certain geographical area in a given specific time.

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

Yeah, I know it is a bit confusing; analogy:
- communists and other freaks acquired term ''anarchy''; during tens of years media convinced people that anarchy is (violent) chaos.
- politicians acquired scientific term ''law'' (laws exactly describe the world around us; laws are rationally and empirically provable) and convinced us that their coercive regulations are laws too, just by labeling their regulations as laws!
- religious freaks acquired term ''morality'' (we all heard BS phrases like ''religious morality'', etc in our lives) and deformed its universal meaning.

[Loozik]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

---------------------

Coming back to your fantastically misleading question:  have you ever been in a situation requiring such a decision from you? No, you were not! And you will never be. It is always morally wrong to kill innocent person. How would you feel if someone killed you (just because you happened to be innocent)?

[Loozik]

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

You are stupid

Would you care to explain?

[Loozik]

But rationality is based on one's own morals.

Rationality is based on one's morals? Where did you get it from?

[Birdy]

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

The law of gravity doesn't say "you shouldn't do x", it just is.
If you want to go against it...well you can't.
And while you can give a false prophecy by doing math wrong, you cannot go against it. If you put 1+1 balls in a box, you will have 2 balls in that box. You cannot end up with 3 or 1.
  
I don't see anything similar with morality, you can do stuff that is considered "immoral".

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?

[Qu1ck$1Lv3r]

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

It is the other way round.

Ethics is what is perceived good and noble by people living in a certain geographical area in a given specific time.

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

Yeah, I know it is a bit confusing; analogy:
- communists and other freaks acquired term ''anarchy''; during tens of years media convinced people that anarchy is (violent) chaos.
- politicians acquired scientific term ''law'' (laws exactly describe the world around us; laws are rationally and empirically provable) and convinced us that their coercive regulations are laws too, just by labeling their regulations as laws!
- religious freaks acquired term ''morality'' (we all heard BS phrases like ''religious morality'', etc in our lives) and deformed its universal meaning.

You are incorrect in your definitions of  the terms "morality" and "ethics".  Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained. Ethics is one of the four (or five, depending upon who you ask) main questions or structures of Philosophy.

Metaphysics = What is Real?
Epistemology = What is Truth?
Ethics = What is Good?
Aesthetics = What is Beauty?

The terms "morality" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably. While there are situations where the terms are close in meaning, in the truest and widest sense of the terms Ethics is the knife that divides "good" from "bad" whereas Morality is the interpretation of the results.

[Loozik]

The law of gravity doesn't say "you shouldn't do x", it just is.
If you want to go against it...well you can't.
And while you can give a false prophecy by doing math wrong, you cannot go against it. If you put 1+1 balls in a box, you will have 2 balls in that box. You cannot end up with 3 or 1.
  
I don't see anything similar with morality, you can do stuff that is considered "immoral".

This is what I mean by universal:

Math is universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''2+2=-5'' is wrong, then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Imagine someone claiming ''2+2=-5 is false unless it serves a public good; then 2+2=-5 is true''. Idiocy, right? Or something like this ''Upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces, except for Chuck Norris who cannot be immersed, because he has lawful authority to walk on the water''.


Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Now imagine someone claiming ''gang-raping Birdy's child is wrong, but if it serves a public good then it's okay'' - would you agree to such an exception from the rule?


Ethics (and abstractions like state laws and regulations and religious laws and regulations derived from ethics) are not universal (they are always creating exceptions from the rule). Examples:
- stealing is wrong unless ... (exception follows: majority agrees to it, etc.) - real life example: ''A person commits theft, if without lawful authority, such person knowingly: 1 controls property of another with intent to deprive him of such property ...'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1802
- raping is wrong unless (exception follows: a person wearing FBI jacket is permitted to do so) - real life example: ''A person commits molestation of a child, if without lawful authority, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact with a child under fifteen years of age'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1410

This is your ethics at work! I do not want such a world for myself and for my children.

[murraypaul]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept).

This simply isn't true, which should be obvious after any consideration.
There are many things which are considered immoral now, which were not previously, and vice versa, or which are considered immoral here, but not there, or vice versa.
12 years old getting married and having children is considered immoral now, but was perfectly normal at some points in history.

What you are saying is that your own personal set of moral rules are the only ones that are right, have been and always will be right, everywhere in the world, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
That is a very common viewpoint, usually promulgated by religions.

In fact, morality is, and can only be, personal. Each of us has an inherent sense of right and wrong, that is our set of morals.
It is obviously shaped by the society around us, and our upbringing and experience, but it is still ultimately personal.

[Loozik]

What you are saying is that your own personal set of moral rules are the only ones that are right, have been and always will be right, everywhere in the world, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

There is not such a valid concept as a personal (arbitrary) set of rules with regard to morality. Just like there is no such a valid concept as a set of personal (arbitrary) rules with regard to math or to logic.

That is a very common viewpoint, usually promulgated by religions.

Me and religion is like water and fire. No religious influence here.

In fact, morality is, and can only be, personal. Each of us has an inherent sense of right and wrong, that is our set of morals.

Come on. You just made it up or read it in wikipedia. If it is - by your very own words - a fact, then you can surely prove it. If so, then prove it.

[Loozik]

Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained.

I disagree. Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another. Just like alchemy is not contained in chemistry or just like pseudoscience is not a part of science.

[Birdy]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Now imagine someone claiming ''gang-raping Birdy's child is wrong, but if it serves a public good then it's okay'' - would you agree to such an exception from the rule?

Just because you pick something that I wouldn't like seeing (and a really disgusting one at that), doesn't make the statement true.
Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).
(and don't be fooled about my calm about that, if I had a child and you would do that there is a good chance my morality wouldn't fit your standards anymore ;P)

By the way, you still need to answer these:

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?

Ethics (and abstractions like state laws and regulations and religious laws and regulations derived from ethics) are not universal (they are always creating exceptions from the rule). Examples:
- stealing is wrong unless ... (exception follows: majority agrees to it, etc.) - real life example: ''A person commits theft, if without lawful authority, such person knowingly: 1 controls property of another with intent to deprive him of such property ...'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1802
- raping is wrong unless (exception follows: a person wearing FBI jacket is permitted to do so) - real life example: ''A person commits molestation of a child, if without lawful authority, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact with a child under fifteen years of age'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1410

This is your ethics at work! I do not want such a world for myself and for my children.

your? Who? I didn't make those.
Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

[grue]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided. Even in WW2 Japanese soldiers did that. Therefore your claim of "independent of time" is false. Your claim of "independent of space" is laughable unless you apply it to a modern human teleported to those location. As for "independent of person", I would argue that the only reason the statement is true is because everyone is raised in a environment that heavily believe in the said moral values. Therefore that statement is pointless.

[foggyb]

Grue, a person can choose to ignore moral guidelines, just like one can choose to ignore mathematical truths. The end result in both cases is regrettable yet avoidable, but doesn't nullify mathematics or universal morality.

Whether a person believes in specific moralities or not is irrelevant, since God does exist & from whom all morality is derived. Morality is proof of God's existence. We didn't invent moral laws, as even a very young child understands that it has been wronged if another child takes its toy. Its also not something nature designed/evolved/selected, as nature has no way to join the biological with the metaphysical. Only God could pull that off.

[Loozik]

Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).

By the way, you still need to answer these:

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias. - No I am not, I am maybe more aware of how the term ''morality'' was misused over centuries
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans? - You can empirically prove it is you (not anybody else) who controls your body; therefore you own yourself, not people who call themselves priests or governments
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not) - We could, so what?

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants? - What with animals and plants? Will a hungry tiger have moral issues before eating you? Why should you have morals before eating a tiger?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive? - Yeah, what about it? Who is ''we''?

Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

Give me good exceptions.

[kik1977]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided. Even in WW2 Japanese soldiers did that. Therefore your claim of "independent of time" is false. Your claim of "independent of space" is laughable unless you apply it to a modern human teleported to those location. As for "independent of person", I would argue that the only reason the statement is true is because everyone is raised in a environment that heavily believe in the said moral values. Therefore that statement is pointless.

Loozik, I'm soory but I have to disagree too on this! Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country. I travel (for work) in many different countries and many of them are muslim countries (I am in one of those right now) and what is considered moral for them is "slightly" different from our (western) concept and vice-versa. In some remote villages, is moral if a brother kills his sister if she leaves her husband. Not to mention that she can be easily 12yo and her husband 60yo.

It's also different in time, what was moral 2000 years ago it's fortunately not moral today. Or take the bible which gives a good example of what was considered moral in ancient times...one would be horrified today!

Don't you agree? Or maybe I misunderstood your point...

[Birdy]

Grue, a person can choose to ignore moral guidelines, just like one can choose to ignore mathematical truths. The end result in both cases is regrettable yet avoidable, but doesn't nullify mathematics or universal morality.

You can say there was a moral guideline, they've ignored. But in the end you did only made that up.
(well there might be one, for whatever afterlife is going to be, but that's impossible to prove or disprove. It could also require you to dance one time a day or to wear only green for all we know)

[Loozik]

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

[Qu1ck$1Lv3r]

Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained.

 Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another.

I see.  Now look in the mirror because your head is the shape of a pretzel as a result of whatever contorted logic that lead you to say that Ethics and Morality are entirely independent of one another.

[Loozik]

Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country.

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.

[Loozik]

I see.  Now look in the mirror because your head is the shape of a pretzel as a result of whatever contorted logic that lead you to say that Ethics and Morality are entirely independent of one another.

Come on! What kind of argument is this?

[Birdy]

Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).

You can watch the earth from space and confirm that it's not flat.
You cannot see someone stealing and confirm it's morally wrong, you can only feel/think that way.

Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans? - You can empirically prove it is you (not anybody else) who controls your body; therefore you own yourself, not people who call themselves priests or governments

So if I manage to control your body (e.g. due to hypnosis), it will be mine?

We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not) - We could, so what?
Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants? - What with animals and plants? Will a hungry tiger have moral issues before eating you? Why should you have morals before eating a tiger?

So if somebody else doesn't have moral issues, you are free to throw away yours?
That's terrible.

What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive? - Yeah, what about it? Who is ''we''?

"We" is everyone. Nobody can survive without harming something (or letting someone else do it for us), at least until we manage to create non-living food supplies for all humans.

Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

Give me good exceptions.

Stealing something, if you are starving. (and it doesn't lead to the other person starving instead)

[Qu1ck$1Lv3r]

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

Where did  you get your definition of the word Ethics?

[Birdy]

Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country.

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from.
You need an universal true morality in order to have a working anarchy.
If people actually have different opinions on morality, anarchy is way more likely to lead to lesser nice events.

Too bad it doesn't work that way. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.

[Loozik]

It's also different in time, what was moral 2000 years ago it's fortunately not moral today. Or take the bible which gives a good example of what was considered moral in ancient times...one would be horrified today!

If you consider something moral does not make it moral just by you considering it this way.

Some crimes may be ethical (reflecting the will of the so called society) but no crime was ever moral, although many crimes were and still are falsely considered to be moral.

Devising ethics allowed to codify crimes in state regulations and in religious codes and labeling them as moral.

[Loozik]

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

Where did  you get your definition of the word Ethics?

From my head, after having studied how it works. You know, a crime cannot be simply codified - the sheeple would object. First you need to brainwash sheeple with ethics. Ethics is good, right? It is the science, right? First you call a crime ''good'', then you call it ''ethical'', then you codify it. This is how your ethics work. If ethics is not enough, you call  / consider the crime moral. The sheeple will buy it.

But still the crime is not moral (only considered moral). However the crime may perfectly be ethical.

[Birdy]

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.
You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.
Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

[Loozik]

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.

I do not believe in anarchy, just like I do not believe in god or in unicorns. How did you get this from?

You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.

Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

Hate religion? Me? Where did you get it from?

[Birdy]

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.

I do not believe in anarchy, just like I do not believe in god or in unicorns. How did you get this from?

Okey, then I've misinterpreted your defence of the word anarchy, it's unusual for non-anarchists to come up with that example and we have quite some anarchists in our Bitcoin community. Sorry my bad then.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.

Well, I don't see anything proving your universal moral guideline.
I could as well say "it's morally wrong to wear green hats, that's an universal moral true forever, those who did wear green hats just chose to ignore it"
So this universal morality is a belief.
Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

Hate religion? Me? Where did you get it from?

There (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306809.msg3315203#msg3315203):

Me and religion is like water and fire.

[murraypaul]

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.

You believe in a universal morality, through both time and space, that just happens to coincide with your own moral views.
What are the odds of that? Unless you think you have a special insight that others don't.

Personally of all of the various religious or ethical 'taglines' I think 'An it harm none, do as thou wilt' probably come closest to a neutral morality, but I don't expect everyone else to agree, or think that this is somehow right.
You simply cannot establish morality as a fact, there is no way it can be measured, observed, or proved.

[grue]

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

Your idea of morality being universal is rather flimsy when you label every counterexample as "immoral behavior". Also, laws don't exist or apply when vikings were raiding Britain/Ireland. "raiding" includes stealing, destruction, and raping women.

[Loozik]

You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

Word ''belief'' implies something that cannot be proven as a valid concept. I only defend cases where I can prove something.

Well, I don't see anything proving your universal moral guideline.

My moral guideline? Morality is universal. It is the same for me and you, just like gravity is the same for you and me. And true - I made no attempt make my case with regard to guidelines. simply because we did not agree over definitions.

I could as well say "it's morally wrong to wear green hats, that's an universal moral true forever, those who did wear green hats just chose to ignore it"

This statement is an opinion; it is neither objective, nor verifiable nor falsifiable. You would not be able to prove it.

So this universal morality is a belief.

Your previous statement is an opinion. You should not form conclusions based on subjective by nature opinions, rather on objective facts and proofs.

Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Start with this audiobook: ''Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)'' http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

Religion is an abstraction (a thought in one's head); I am a rational human being - I do not hate abstractions. Do you hate abstractions (mathematics, logic, unicorns, gods, santa clauses)?

[murraypaul]

My moral guideline? Morality is universal. It is the same for me and you, just like gravity is the same for you and me.

This statement is an opinion; it is neither objective, nor verifiable nor falsifiable. You would not be able to prove it.

[Birdy]

If there is a universal true morality, why do so much people act against it (and did way more in historical times)?

Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Start with this audiobook: ''Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)'' http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

Is there some shorter proof?
Or do I have to listen to hours of book content?
(*will skim over the pdf now*)

[Loozik]

Your idea of morality being universal is rather flimsy when you label every counterexample as "immoral behavior". Also, laws don't exist or apply when vikings were raiding Britain/Ireland. "raiding" includes stealing, destruction, and raping women.

1. It is not my idea.

2. Yes, it is / seems flimsy given I did not (yet) substantiate it.

3. I have a problem with the current misuse of word ''law''; for a concept to be called law it must meet criteria of universality. Laws of physics and mathematics (abstractions) apply universally. One cannot make such a claim for abstractions called state laws (e.g. different state laws in North America and Europe, different laws for the so called government and different for the so called citizens).

4. Historical raiding (factually: stealing, destruction, and raping women) of Vikings in Britain or present raiding (factually: stealing, destruction, and raping women) of Americans in Iraq may be legal and may be ethical, but is still factually immoral because it involves initiating violence.

[Loozik]

Is there some shorter proof?
Or do I have to listen to hours of book content?
(*will skim over the pdf now*)

It is better to listen to the whole audiobook.

[Birdy]

Just skimmed over some some stuff in the proofs section:

He calls those "universally preferable choices"

1. Choices are almost infinite.
2. Most human beings make very similar choices.
3. Therefore not all choices can be equal.
4.Therefore universally preferable choices must be va
lid.

That's like saying we don't do everything randomly. Duh, obviously.
But those similar choices aren't that similar anymore if we view different time spans or cultures.
So I would argue that 2. is false.


He also uses premises that are false or biased
e.g.
From the biological proof

2. Man is the most successful organism.

That's biased, depending on what we define as "most successful" we could also call a lot of other organisms the most successful.


Well, I probably don't want to read all of that, it's quite tiresome to read/closely listen to 100+ pages of philosophical discussion in not your mothertongue.

[grue]

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character".

therefore Morality == Ethics.

[Loozik]

Well, I probably don't want to read all of that, it's quite tiresome to read/closely listen to 100+ pages of philosophical discussion in not your mothertongue.

Don't read! Download the audiobook and listen when you have time. Listening is better if you are not a native speaker of English.

[grue]

Well, I probably don't want to read all of that, it's quite tiresome to read/closely listen to 100+ pages of philosophical discussion in not your mothertongue.

Don't read! Download the audiobook and listen when you have time. Listening is better if you are not a native speaker of English.

>trying to convince someone
>gets him to read an entire book instead of providing a summary
yeah that's not going to work well, especially on a forum.

[Loozik]

Well, I probably don't want to read all of that, it's quite tiresome to read/closely listen to 100+ pages of philosophical discussion in not your mothertongue.

Don't read! Download the audiobook and listen when you have time. Listening is better if you are not a native speaker of English.

>trying to convince someone
>gets him to read an entire book instead of providing a summary
yeah that's not going to work well, especially on a forum.

Grue, philosophy can be a complex stuff. Proving a math theorem may take tens of pages. Even greater effort needs to be put in the realm of philosophy.

My advise for him is not to read (he might get headaches given the length of the book). I advise him to listen (the audiobook is well recorded and pleasure to listen to).

[grue]

Grue, philosophy can be a complex stuff. Proving a math theorem may take tens of pages. Even greater effort needs to be put in the realm of philosophy.

Then you must have read the thousands of papers opposing moral objectivism. Surely I don't need to copy+paste those arguments in this thread?

[Mike Christ]

Just going by the first post (I have no idea what this convo is about)

Morality is subjective, because only the individual can decide what is and is not moral; if we can define morality as "things I would like to happen to me and things I would not", then we can make a comprehensive list on the things people generally don't like to happen to them, but we can never make this list complete, universal truths, for without people, morality ceases to exist; certainly, the gravity of the planet will remain, for this is not subject to how I feel about gravity, and the creatures of this planet will continue on without my opinion on their existing.

Anyway, there are a few common stances on morality, which can be answered by asking a simple question: "Would I like it to happen to me?"  Otherwise known as the golden rule.

We'll begin with killing:  "Would I like to be killed?"  The answer, if you're still alive right now, is likely "no, I would not like to be killed."  Ergo, killing other human beings is immoral, and letting other human beings live is moral.  Killing, then, is the #1 taboo of human living, as it's the difference, as obvious as it seems, between being able to tell what is moral and not moral, or doing anything else for that matter, and being dead.  Since we cannot experience life while dead, remaining alive is the #1 priority, for being robbed, or being raped, won't matter if you're not around to experience it.  This is tied simply to how we feel about being dead; if there was a definite afterlife and it was far better than this dump, I would be going.  For the most part, I'd enjoy staying alive right now.

Is theft moral?  We ask ourselves: "Would I like to be robbed?"  I'll wager the vast majority of us will say, "no, I'd like to not be robbed."  Ergo, theft is immoral.

Is rape moral?  We ask ourselves: "Would I like to be raped?"  The answer is comical, of course, since the very definition of rape is "unwanted sex", and so rape is, by no exception, immoral.

But let us consider, now, the definition of objective:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

Because morality is grounded entirely within human feeling, it can never, ever, be objective.  I cannot feel that 2 + 2 = 4; this is not a subjective statement, but cold fact.  If I felt 2 + 2 = 5, I would be told that I was incorrect, and rightfully so.  I can, however, feel sadness, or perhaps anger, but general displeasure all in all, when I am spat upon; I cannot base this on any fact in the universe besides how I felt about someone using their saliva to treat me as though I were less than human, for there is no "correct" or "incorrect" way to experience this.  This action means nothing without human beings to have an emotion about how this feels.  Of course, one person might be spit upon and enjoy it--some people enjoy far worse--but generally speaking, we don't like to be involuntarily spit upon; there is no fact involved, it is merely preference.  And of course, because we generally don't like being spat on, we could say spitting on people is immoral--of course, this is subject to personal preference.  Thus, to avoid being spat on, we do not spit on others.

If it so happened that people did enjoy being spat upon, it would generally be considered moral: this is the difference between a subjective statement, "Please spit on me I love this feeling", and an objective statement, "That dog is an eighty-foot flounder"; the first uses the subjective concepts of good and bad, while the second uses the objective concepts of right and wrong.

Morality is inseparable from emotion, and so morality must always, forever and ever, be subject, not object, and personal, not universal.  Though we can study ethics in an objective fashion, we cannot experience it while lacking emotion, for there is nothing in this world which you will have an opinion about that is not tied to how you feel.


I feel the need to make this very distinct, for there are people who continually mistake the #1 taboo of human existence as moral, because "God is the authority on the objective morality of the universe and God says it's okay to kill these heathens as long as it's in His name," or simply replace "God" with "the state" to get a more modern effect.  There is no universally recognized rule of morality, and the belief that this is so leads normally good-hearted people into positions of violence, such as "these unarmed civilians unrelated to my country are okay to kill because there's no law against it."  No; you are the only person on this planet who can decide what you consider as good and what you consider as bad, and the moment one agrees that initiating violence with the intent to kill is moral is the moment they lose their own humanity, for they have accepted the killing of others, and so bring death to themselves.

[Birdy]

Just going by the first post (I have no idea what this convo is about)

Morality is subjective, because only the individual can decide what is and is not moral; if we can define morality as "things I would like to happen to me and things I would not", then we can make a comprehensive list on the things people generally don't like to happen to them, but we can never make this list complete, universal truths, for without people, morality ceases to exist; certainly, the gravity of the planet will remain, for this is not subject to how I feel about gravity, and the creatures of this planet will continue on without my opinion on their existing.

Anyway, there are a few common stances on morality, which can be answered by asking a simple question: "Would I like it to happen to me?"  Otherwise known as the golden rule.

While being a good start, it's not flawless. Let's say you are masochistic, does that mean it's alright for you to inflict pain on others because you enjoy it?

We'll begin with killing:  "Would I like to be killed?"  The answer, if you're still alive right now, is likely "no, I would not like to be killed."  Ergo, killing other human beings is immoral, and letting other human beings live is moral.  Killing, then, is the #1 taboo of human living, as it's the difference, as obvious as it seems, between being able to tell what is moral and not moral, or doing anything else for that matter, and being dead.  Since we cannot experience life while dead, remaining alive is the #1 priority, for being robbed, or being raped, won't matter if you're not around to experience it.  This is tied simply to how we feel about being dead; if there was a definite afterlife and it was far better than this dump, I would be going.  For the most part, I'd enjoy staying alive right now.

Actually I disagree, I think heavy torture is the #1 taboo.
It is possible to make life so miserable for people that they would rather die.
I could come up with some cases where I would rather be killed than to live on (dieing a hero's death maybe or suffering too much) .

Death is something we have to experience anyway, okey we may miss out some good stuff if we die early and that sucks.
But if there is nothing after that, we don't have time to regret it. And if there is something, well then it wasn't the end.

[Loozik]

Just going by the first post (I have no idea what this convo is about)

It's a split of a thread.

Morality is subjective, because only the individual can decide what is and is not moral

Try this: math is subjective, because only the individual can decide what is and is not mathematical.

Do you see a problem? Neither morality nor math depends on a decision of anybody.

Because morality is grounded entirely within human feeling, it can never, ever, be objective.

try this: Because math is grounded entirely within human feeling, it can never, ever be objective.

Would you agree that one cannot use reason and logic to arrive at objective statements about math? Why wouldn't one be able to use reason and logic to arrive at objective statements about morality?

Morality is inseparable from emotion, and so morality must always, forever and ever, be subject, not object, and personal, not universal.

I disagree. Morality tells you universal principles of how the individual, every individual, should behave. Morality is not about how each individual subjectively feels he should behave.

Though we can study ethics in an objective fashion, we cannot experience it while lacking emotion, for there is nothing in this world which you will have an opinion about that is not tied to how you feel.

Ethics is subjective. It tells you what the so called god or the so called government or the so called lawmaker wants you to behave.

"God is the authority on the objective morality of the universe and God says it's okay to kill these heathens as long as it's in His name," or simply replace "God" with "the state" to get a more modern effect.

This is the essence of ethics, not morality.

[Mike Christ]

snip

I see your point on the #1 taboo, but either way, neither is desirable.  Certainly, if death was coming anyway, we wouldn't see it and attempt to get it over with; after all, we don't know what happens when we die, so we may as well enjoy what we got in case of the worst scenario, being, no afterlife.

If you're a masochist, you want pain; this doesn't mean that you want to inflict pain unto others (unless the other person is a masochist, then it's mutually beneficial.)  So this is actually two stances on morality; your right to receive pain if desired (or more broadly, your right to your own body), and your right to inflict pain.  It is moral to want for pain, since it would be immoral to deny someone of violence at their own volition (e.g. "I don't want to be denied the pain I desire, thus I do not want to deny others the pain they desire"); it is immoral to inflict pain upon a person who does want it (e.g. "I do not desire pain, ergo I will not inflict others with pain.")  The key point here is, if it's involuntary, it's immoral; there is no voluntary sex that is rape, there is no voluntary exchange of goods that is theft, there is no voluntary pain that is abuse, etc.

Of course, I say "It is immoral" with the implication that this is my stance on it; since I don't want pain inflicted on me, I find it immoral, but if someone else wants pain, more power to them.

A less obvious stance of morality would be whether to take one's shoes off before they enter a sacred place.  An even less clear stance is whether abortion is moral.

snip

Hey Loozik; I hate formatting quotes so I'll number the responses in order:

1. Yes, I found the other one

2. Where to apply math may be subjective, but the actual practice of math is not; there is no emotion inside of me which will take two or more numbers and formulate a new number.  Likewise, there is no correct or incorrect answer to "Is it okay to kill one person to save three?", because it's an opinion.  "I think not" being the good-or-bad subjection, "provably so" being the right-or-wrong objection.

If you're correct about morality not requiring a human being, surely computers are capable of these same distinctions, yet there is no computer (at least not yet) which can give you a correct answer to "Is it okay to kill one person to save three?", because even if it did, you would be incapable of discerning whether it's correct or incorrect--I say this because, though you may say it's correct, and I may say it's incorrect, neither of us can prove this as an undeniable fact, unlike whether 3 + 4 is 7; similarly, however, a computer is absolutely wonderful at the math, because there's no emotion involved with math, for math is unbiased and entirely disconnected from emotion (naturally anyway; I can imagine what an angry mathematician may look like) in its practice, and computers are great with problems that don't require empathy.

3. I don't quite understand; as far as I can tell, the practice of math doesn't need my feelings to work.  Now, whether I feel I can use math for this problem or that problem is totally up to me, but once I actually figure out how I'm going to use math, it is purely a game of numbers.

For example, I have a problem where I have one lover whose company I enjoy and another lover who is rich.  I can use math in my problem of morality (perhaps I will measure how much the first lover makes me happy vs. how much money makes me happy), but math will never output the statement "seeing two women at once is moral/immoral".  Math will only spit out objective, unbiased statements, whilst my own thoughts, or perhaps another's, will determine what is and is not good behavior; there was a point in time where slavery was moral.  This is truly frightening if morality is objective, for this means we must either accept that slavery is provably moral (as it was for a lot longer than it wasn't) or admit that we will never know what the true stance on slavery should be, as we got this one wrong for a very, very long time (and some might argue we're still getting it wrong.)

But again, I believe the simplest way to answer this question is to ask, "Do I want to be enslaved?"

If you could, can you give me an objective version of the last question?  And how might you answer it without taking your own feelings into consideration?

4. Morality cannot speak--again, this infers to "X said this and X is right for X is all knowing" or something similar; someone, somewhere, had an opinion and wrote it down somewhere, whether it's you or another authority.  Morality is something to be discussed and will never perfectly match every human being, else we would all agree on the same morals (though we generally do agree on many of them, we also don't agree on much.)  You're setting up a situation in which everyone must be Christianly, or hedonistic, or primitive etc., or else they're "incorrect", and we're faced again with the problem of figuring out which behaviors are correct (as opposed to desirable, a subjective concept) and which behaviors are incorrect (as opposed to undesirable.)  Morality did not exist before human beings, and ceases to exist without them (can a planet be moral?  Can the universe be moral?  Can a computer be moral?  Can the dirt be moral?)--ergo, morality is subject to the human experience.

5. & 6.  I believe ethics is like a collection of morals, so I don't see them as very different concepts:

ethics
eth·ics  [eth-iks]
plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles

But lets assume morality is objective and ethics is subjective; if this is true, we can easily, at this very moment, discern which branch of ethics is correct and which branch is not, since the only correct branch of ethics will contain every moral principle and shun every immoral principle.  So who, then, got it right?