Posts by Saename

92

Does Morality Exist?

by Fisherman in

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

Saename

I think you're really confused about morality.

I think you are wrong. Legislation is based on well-being and morality. Laws governing sexual conduct is an example.

I would offer an argument here, but instead, I'll just say that it's irrelevant. We're talking about morality, not law. Law is determined by any standard the country wishes to use. Law is arbitrary. Saudi Arabia legislates based on Islam's holy scriptures. They are even going to allow women to drive vehicles because after reviewing their holy scriptures, they determined that their faith doesn't prohibit women from driving. Now, Canada doesn't legislate based on holy scriptures. So if a certain country wishes to legislate based on well-being and morality, then that's what's going to happen. So your claim that legislation is based on x is a faulty generalization—regardless of what x turns out to be. Law and morality are simply separate topics.

A person that drinks, eats, parties and is a slob, etc, as debauchery is defined is not harming anyone. But is he moral? If not, because you say so when if he is viewed as such by society?

I would argue that if someone drinks excessively (debauchery is about excessive indulgence in pleasures), then he or she is most likely harming someone. That would be immoral. So let's just say this: if you excessively indulge in non-specified pleasures without affecting other people, then I can't see how you're being immoral. That could be irresponsible, but not immoral. But if you excessively indulge in non-specified pleasures that do in fact affect other people negatively (whether they be your friends, family, co-workers, or even your boss and his/her business), then, yes, that's immoral.

Suppose you disagree with society about what conduct is moral? Does morality exist?

Suppose you disagree with doctors about what treatment is best for a patient. Does medicine exist?

That's why cofty asked the wrong question. Your question isn't like asking, "Does health exist?" It's like asking, "Does medicine exist?" Of course it exists. It's just that it relies on a subjective axiom that everyone agrees upon. Because everyone agrees upon this axiom, which is that in medicine we ought to value and increase health, medicine is epistemically objective. Some people may disagree on what's best for our health, but that doesn't mean medicine is entirely subjective.

Morality is the same way. Some people may disagree on what's moral (i.e. what's best for our well-being), but that doesn't mean that morality is entirely subjective. It just means that there are right and wrong ways to promote well-being, and we need to find out which ones are the right ways to do so.

I haven't seen solid proof of morality.

Yeah, that's because you're too confused about morality. It would take a lot to explain this to you, and I don't even know how to do that in writing. There is something that you either don't understand or simply don't accept, but I have no idea what it is.

But anyway, I've already tried telling you that you're asking an illegitimate question. It's not, "Does morality exist?" It's, "What kind of morality exists?" Is morality subjective, objective, or absolute? But you keep asking the wrong question despite the fact that I've tried to make it clear to you.

92

Does Morality Exist?

by Fisherman in

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

Saename

Fisherman - Says who? Is self preservation immoral when it involves harming other creatures?

The part you quote has to do with well-being. Are you that incapable of reasoning? If you excessively indulge yourself in pleasures that do not affect other people, then it cannot be considered immoral unless you include a third party in the equation (God.) I thought this would be uncontroversial because it is so goddamn obvious...

When it comes to self-preservation, what the hell does it have to do with the part you were quoting, which is excessive indulgence in pleasures? If you didn't mean for those two questions to be related, then don't write them in the same line. They are not related.

Fisherman - Well-being of others is governed by laws, concerns are not.

Laws don't govern well-being. Laws govern the human right to freedom and autonomy. The two sometimes coincide but not always. For example, cheating diminishes well-being, but it's not illegal.

But aside from that, what does law have to do with morality? We don't legislate based on morality. The two are separate, and right now we're talking about morality, not law, so I cannot see your point.

Fisherman - Hitler's morality was concerned for the well-being of the German people and he was doing quite well. The Europeans also were concerned about wellbeing when they took the land from the Indians. They suceeded and he US is a prosperous nation where morality means do whatever the heck you like -just don't break the law.

Yeah, and guess what. Hitler was wrong, and so were the people who oppressed the Natives. Anyone who cares only about their own well-being is wrong from the moral perspective. I suppose your whole reasoning is based on the assumption that I don't have an objective basis to say so, and that it is merely my subjective opinion. However, I do actually have an objective basis for concluding that we cannot care only about our own well-being.

If we ought to improve our well-being rather than detract from it, which I believe is the goal of morality and will continue to believe so until such time as it is reasonably demonstrated that a better foundation for morality exists, we need to figure out ways to cooperate. Cooperation is one of the things which maximizes our well-being, even the individual's. It is, therefore, paramount for all of us to recognize that our actions have consequences upon other people, and theirs have an effect on our own lives. To live cooperatively means to be able to recognize that impact and respect the space that we share with each other. In other words, my freedom to swing my arm may result in my arm ending up in somebody else's face (and vice versa), and in order to avoid that, we need to respect our shared space.

Stealing from, raping, or murdering somebody is the opposite of cooperation. The first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative states, "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." If we deemed murder not morally wrong, against our better judgement, and if subsequently everyone were free to murder another person, we would end up in a society of distrust and chaos.

We can reasonably demonstrate, through reason and rational consideration of our actions, that murder detracts from our well-being. If I murder a man named Mike—say because I envy his social status or his material possessions—this will have an effect on all the people who loved this person and will minimize their well-being. In an act of retribution, they may murder me as well, which in turn would minimize the well-being of people who love me. In a world that we live in, there are over 7 billion people, and considering the number of individuals that live in prisons for crimes such as murder, it is reasonable to suspect that many would find the option of moral murder rather appealing. Such a vicious circle results in a society of distrust and chaos. Hence, while we may not live in a perfect world, we most definitely live in a world that is better (well-being) than the one we would have if murder were considered moral.

International relations work on the same basis. You just need to look at the World Wars and analyze their consequences. How much misery, distrust, and chaos would be avoided if we could prevent Hitler from rising to power? If we could prevent the Rwandan genocide? It does not matter which country you live in because we all share space on this planet, and our actions influence each other. Your moral system need not involve other people's well-being if you live in conditions such that your actions don't influence other people.

If your next question is, "Says who?" then you may need to reread my comments.

92

Does Morality Exist?

by Fisherman in

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

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

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

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

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

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

please make it so!.

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

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

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

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

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

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

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

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.

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

jw
friends

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

?.

Saename

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