Saename

Joined

• started 39 topics
• posted 656 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Saename

• 
  92

  Does Morality Exist?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

  some people don't.. does morality exist?

  if so, prove it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  By the way, cofty, I'd like to know why you say that morality isn't a social construct. And while we're at it, what do you mean? Do you mean that even foundationally it's not a social construct, or do you mean that not all of it is a social construct, or do you just think that saying it is a social construct diminishes its value?
• 
  92

  Does Morality Exist?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

  some people don't.. does morality exist?

  if so, prove it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  cofty - Serious question - Says who?

  Are you saying that you don't believe we have the right to bodily autonomy, or is it just a question to start a conversation between two people who agree on the conclusions but not necessarily on some of the premises/arguments?

  I have no problem with discussing this with you, but I first need to know why exactly you're asking. Also, are you asking about the who—the agent(s)—or about the why? Because if you're asking about the who, then I may just as well end this conversation right now by responding that it is we who grant ourselves this right. Who else would it be if, insofar as we know, we're the only rational agents to entertain the idea of granting a right?
• 
  92

  Does Morality Exist?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

  some people don't.. does morality exist?

  if so, prove it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Aren't those laws? Doesn't morality have to do with sexual conduct, deception and debauchery (personal conduct)in every society?
  

  Morality is the set of principles that determines the behaviour of rational, conscious agents to be either right or wrong/good or bad. As such, it is not limited to sexual conduct, deception, and debauchery (although it is not immediately clear to me why debauchery, defined as "excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures," could ever be considered immoral so long as it does no harm to non-consenting, non-involved individuals. It would surely be irresponsible in many, if not most or even all, cases, but I can't see the moral aspect of it.)

  Law is quite similar in this that it's defined as the set of a nation's rules which imposes upon its citizens a regulation of their (the citizens') actions. However, it's also different because we do not legislate based on morality. While it may be immoral to cheat on one's spouse, it is not illegal. When it comes to things like murder, rape, and theft, they happen to be both immoral and illegal.

  So, well- being for who?
  

  In a most general sense, when we talk about morality, we are concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures with the primary focus on human beings. But which human beings? We are of course concerned with the well-being of human beings who are not the agents of the given actions which are considered either moral or immoral. So for example, let's say that while you're walking by a lake, you see that there is a woman who fell into the lake, cannot swim, and is drowning. While it is not your moral obligation to save her (because you are not required to risk your own life for her sake), if you decided to help her and succeeded in doing so, that would be considered a moral action. (Moral right and moral obligation aren't the same thing. Something can be moral, but it doesn't have to be a moral obligation.)

  But let's reverse the roles. Let's say that you are the one who fell into the lake, and that you are the one who cannot swim. As a result, you're drowning. If you succeeded in somehow saving yourself, would that be morally right of you? It would be morally neutral because you're saving yourself. It would be amoral. You're the agent. When deciding the moral value of an action, we always exclude the agent.

  So let's connect that to the example you gave earlier:

  Also, exploitation of human beings all over the world so that countries like the US, can prosper.
  

  There are three parties here which we need to list. Firstly, there are the people who are being exploited. Let's say they are the black slaves in the US. Then, there are the people who are exploiting them. Let's call them the agents. Lastly, there are the people for whose sake the agents are exploiting the black slaves. Let's called them the public. So whose well-being do we care about in order to determine whether the exploitation of black slaves is moral or immoral? As a general rule, we exclude the agents. So now we're facing a moral dilemma. Would we be morally justified to exploit the black slaves for the sake of the public?

  There are a lot of arguments that can be made here, but in general, this would have a lot to do with the axiom of bodily autonomy that I've already mentioned before. People have a right to bodily autonomy, but they do not have the right to infringe upon other people's right to bodily autonomy unless they have specifically denied themselves this right by knowingly attempting to diminish the well-being of other people. (There are arguments that do in fact demonstrate objectively that we shouldn't have this right by looking at the consequences of not having this right vs. having it, but I've already written a lot, and it's getting late...)

  Edit: Oh, and about this:

  If morality exists, I want to see proof.
  

  You said that you've read all of the posts on this thread already. Have you actually? Because I dealt with that question already. It depends on what kind of morality you're talking about. Does it exist in the sense that rational agents have a concept of morality? Well, sure, of course it does exist in this sense. We know that there is such a thing as morality because people hold moral values. Or are you talking about subjective vs. objective vs. absolute morality, and which one exists? Then that's also something I already answered. (Subjective foundation which is well-being + the objective fact that consequences of our actions affect our well-being. It's subjective in the rigorously philosophical sense, like medicine is subjective, but it is objective "for all intents and purposes" because everyone seems to agree that well-being is the foundation of morality—i.e., whenever they talk about morality, they refer to well-being.)
• 
  1

  Leah Remini Scientology series might tackle Jehovah's Witnesses in season 3

  by ttdtt in

  1. social
  2. current

  please make it so!.

  http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/29/leah-remini-season-3-scientology/.

  1. 
• 

  Saename

  There already is a thread about this: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5708867474292736/leah-remini-scientology-series-might-tackle-jehovahs-witnesses-season-3
• 
  92

  Does Morality Exist?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

  some people don't.. does morality exist?

  if so, prove it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Fisherman - If morality exists, is justice moral and if so, when ? What if justice defies well- being or vice-versa?
  

  Morality most definitely exists as a concept and a social construct, so that's not a legitimate question. A legitimate question would be whether an objective or absolute morality exists. (I noticed a lot of people here are conflating the two, but they're different.)

  Justice is sometimes moral, and sometimes it's not. It depends on the situation and the corresponding circumstances. When it's not, mercy is, and mercy is the suspension of justice.

  Fisherman - Another thing, I respect people's rights but I feel very very hurt to see someone with tattoos all over their body. It does not hurt people from having them but it hurts me.
  

  The fact that it hurts you does not mean the action of getting a visible tattoo is immoral. The fact that it hurts you means that you have deep problems related to your emotional reactions, likely as a result of past religious experiences. There are other things that go into well-being, such as the axiom that it's better to live than to die, and the axiom that it's better to have autonomy over your body than the opposite. Those are just two axioms involved in metaethics. Having started with them as the default positions, then we take away from them by finding exceptions. Would it be a valid exception to limit a person's autonomy (with regards to getting tattoos) just because someone else feels hurt by seeing tattoos? You look for arguments for and against. Would it be a valid exception to limit a person's autonomy because s/he is a psychopathic murderer who kills at every opportunity? Again, you look for arguments for and against. Now, I'm not trying to say that the first case (tattoos) is the same as the second case (psychopathic murderer.) The point I'm trying to raise is that it is always assumed that all people should have autonomy over their bodies, and then we argue about the exceptions.

  Of course, you can disagree with the axiom. To see the history of the moral discussions about autonomy (in several contexts) and why it should be considered very important in modern ethics, look into Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy.
• 
  92

  Does Morality Exist?

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

  some people don't.. does morality exist?

  if so, prove it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  cofty - We could happily dispense with the words morality and ethics and nothing would change. We would still be concerned about the implications of our actions on the well-being of other creatures. They are just convenient labels.

  This is precisely why even if we're wrong about using well-being as the foundation for morality, that doesn't mean we should care about morality. So what I mean is this. Let's say someone demonstrates logically that well-being isn't the best foundation for morality, but that something else is. Okay, so what? Why should I care? If well-being shouldn't be the foundation of morality—meaning that there conceivably can be an action that is moral despite its effects diminishing the well-being of everyone—why should I then care about morality? Why not then just dispense with morality altogether and talk about well-being?
• 
  5

  New JW video about evolution involving children??

  by Saename in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in lloyd evans's interview with seth andrews (the thinking atheist), evans says that jws published a new footage on evolution on their website jw broadcasting.

  he says it's about kids talking to their classmates about evolution.

  he comments that it's an amusing video.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  In Lloyd Evans's interview with Seth Andrews (The Thinking Atheist), Evans says that JWs published a new footage on evolution on their website JW Broadcasting. He says it's about kids talking to their classmates about evolution. He comments that it's an amusing video. I've never seen it, though. Does anybody know which video he's talking about? I'd like to see it!

  Thanks in advance, guys!
• 
  9

  Anybody here live in Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver?

  by Christian Gutierrez in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey are there people here from calgary, edmonton, vancouver or anywhere in between these cities??

  ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  I'm in furthest eastern part of Ontario, bordering with Quebec, so that's a long way from British Columbia and Alberta...
• 
  27

  opportunity for fornication

  by road to nowhere in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ever see brother ugly who is 86 being taken to the doctor by sister frigid who is 65 and also not good looking?

  they have to have a chaperone or at least sit in back and front seats.

  or a man who can't bring the freezing daughter in the house when he stopped briefly by because hubby is not home.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  I still remember my reaction when I learned that, according to JWs, unmarried couples should always have a chaperone when on a date... I couldn't believe they were for real. So I thought of it more as a guideline rather than an actual rule. I said to myself that I would never go on a date with a freaking chaperone...

  I wonder what the elders would say about my rebellious attitude? If they knew about it and said something to me to "correct" my thinking, maybe I would have left the religion much earlier than I did?
• 
  12

  JW Definition of "Apostate"

  by Saename in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so recently, after having a conversation with a jehovah's witness, i started wondering about how jws define the term "apostate.

  " officially, every elder would tell you that an apostate is one who leaves the jehovah's witness faith.

  but did anyone else notice that this is not how they use the word colloquially—that they're sort of dishonest about it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Here's a smile from my favourite apostate: