Is there anything that is always bad or always good?

[Tricky]

This came up on the P&CE forum. I have proposed that there are no absolutes in the world of morality. I believe I could find situations where anything is, if not good, at least justifiable.

However, you can only vote yes or no. Absolutely.

[sorgoth]

I voted no. Since we decide what we consider good or bad, different people have different morals. Insane people could have morals that I would consider abominable, while others may consider my morals evil.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I voted "Yes".

I tried to think of any conceivable situation where a Rikzilla post was either good or justifiable, and I came up blank.

:)

[HarryKeogh]

star wars movies made after 1983....always bad.

oh, and rape.

[Darat]

I saw some of the responses to your comment in P&C, thought it was a good point.

I wonder if there will be a difference here based on whether the poster has religious beliefs or not? As an example I would suspect a Christian would have to say "yes", because a Christian can never say "killing is right", no matter what the circumstances.

I voted "no" and I have no religious beliefs.

What about some absurd Bad/Good examples?

Total destruction of the Earth – always bad?
Total wipe-out of humanity – always bad?

Peace for all people – always good?
No starvation for anyone (through sustainable means) – always good?

(Edited an ever to a never - quite a difference.)

[Graham]

I voted no but reading the PCE thread, I wonder if you divided the word into every, single seperate thing, could you define some of them as "bad" and all the rest as "good"?

For instance, while there are definitely grey areas on the edges of the broad definiton "rape", for any particular instance of rape, knowing all the associated circumstances, it appears to be possible to say "good" or "bad" (or at least "bad" and "not quite so bad" :( ).

That would still not make it possible to say "Rape is bad" but at least it would allow us the option of saying "That rape was bad".

Graham

[Graham]

Just for fun, I'll have a shot at these (my responses in bold:

Originally posted by Darat

What about some absurd Bad/Good examples?

Total destruction of the Earth – always bad? No - bad for the people on earth but not necessarily for the universe as a whole. Also, imagine the entire population (plant, animal and human) is suffering from some hideously painful but non-fatal disease, TDOTE (tm) could be a good thing in those circumstances.

Total wipe-out of humanity – always bad? again no for much the same reasons as above, except more so since TWOH (tm) does not necessarily involve any harm to the other inhabitants of the earth, many of whom might even benefit from same

Peace for all people – always good? No, it depends on the cost associated with attaining that peace. Full frontal lobotomies for everyone? Probably NSG.

No starvation for anyone (through sustainable means) – always good? Again, it depends on the cost - ending starvation by forcibly impregnating women and eating the babies, for instance, could possibly be designated "bad", IMO

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
This came up on the P&CE forum. I have proposed that there are no absolutes in the world of morality. I believe I could find situations where anything is, if not good, at least justifiable.I'm trying to think of a situation where kiddie porn and/or child molestation could ever be justifiable and I just can't think of one. Now, I realize that this is probably a cultural bias, but ultimately, good and evil are cultural biases.

So, even though I can find no was to justify such acts I still have conclude it is not an absolute moral judgement. Hypothetically, there could be a civilization in the universe where such acts are considered high art and a great honor. Emotionally, it horrifies me but intellectually, I guess it could be.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm trying to think of a situation where kiddie porn and/or child molestation could ever be justifiable and I just can't think of one. Now, I realize that this is probably a cultural bias, but ultimately, good and evil are cultural biases.

So, even though I can find no was to justify such acts I still have conclude it is not an absolute moral judgement. Hypothetically, there could be a civilization in the universe where such acts are considered high art and a great honor. Emotionally, it horrifies me but intellectually, I guess it could be.
The fuzzy area here (like in statutory rape) is "at what age does it become kiddie porn"? Is there a magical point where a human is able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to do this?

Sure, there are laws that define it, but I don't think anyone believes that a person becomes instantly mature on their 18th birthday.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm trying to think of a situation where kiddie porn and/or child molestation could ever be justifiable and I just can't think of one. Now, I realize that this is probably a cultural bias, but ultimately, good and evil are cultural biases.

So, even though I can find no was to justify such acts I still have conclude it is not an absolute moral judgement. Hypothetically, there could be a civilization in the universe where such acts are considered high art and a great honor. Emotionally, it horrifies me but intellectually, I guess it could be.

I think the problem comes with defining "child molestation" - is sex with an 18 year old molestation? 17? 16? 15? 14? 13?

Whichever you pick, you're suggesting that something magically happens to all children between one age and the other which simply is not the case.

Again, you can certainly look at many, many specific cases and say "That's child molestation and that's bad"

It gets much harder to define on a broader scale though.

Graham

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

The fuzzy area here (like in statutory rape) is "at what age does it become kiddie porn"? Is there a magical point where a human is able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to do this?

Sure, there are laws that define it, but I don't think anyone believes that a person becomes instantly mature on their 18th birthday. Sure, I agree there is a fuzzy area, but I think it's safe to say that, within the cultural bias of our society that I mention above, a 3 year old is not in that fuzzy area.

But more importantly to my point, while I personally can not justify it in any way, shape, or form, I recognize that there might be some culture out there that does. I'm not saying it's an absolute moral judgement, just my moral judgement.

[whitefork]

Torturing animals (human animals too) for pleasure. That's always bad. I have to agree on rape, too.

In general, any feeling of pleasure that arises from someone else's pain is very bad.

[headscratcher4]

I am gonna say that dying by being drawn & quartered -- always bad (if you are on the receiving end of it...this is about physical pain and abuse, not guilt).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Graham
Just for fun, I'll have a shot at these (my responses in bold:



:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Torturing animals (human animals too) for pleasure. That's always bad. I have to agree on rape, too.

In general, any feeling of pleasure that arises from someone else's pain is very bad.

What if torturing one person gave you information that could save you or your family, or your neighbourhood or your nation... does that then mean it is at least justifiable?

What about if torturing animals provided information to cure a dreadful disease?

[Darat]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I am gonna say that dying by being drawn & quartered -- always bad (if you are on the receiving end of it...this is about physical pain and abuse, not guilt).

What if by agreeing to be drawn and quartered you knew you would be saving your family torture, pain and death? You may welcome the pain etc. knowing it was buying the lives of your loved ones?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not saying it's an absolute moral judgement, just my moral judgement.

Of course. That's all any of us can ever do.

Societies that survive in meaningful ways use morals as part of the "us" "them" answer.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Darat


What if torturing one person gave you information that could save you or your family, or your neighbourhood or your nation... does that then mean it is at least justifiable?

What about if torturing animals provided information to cure a dreadful disease? I think the difference is that Kullervo implied that it would be only for pleasure.

However, that means that we have to take not only the action into account in our moral judgements but also the motivation for the action. So, theft may not be morally justified, but stealing bread to feed your starving family would be?

In my mind, this comes down to a question of do/can the ends justify the means. We seem to be saying that they can.

[Nyarlathotep]

I voted no. I think Aristotle was right that virtue is always found in the mean. To me, this goes for morality as well, any moral behavior, carried to an extreme holds the potential for harm to oneself or others.

[scribble]

I didn't vote. But I would vote yes.

Harm to me, or death to me, is ALWAYS bad.

Harm to others, not so much.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Kullervo
In general, any feeling of pleasure that arises from someone else's pain is very bad.

Again, that's a general statement...

For instance if you get your kicks form someone's pain, and you can find some lucky soul who gets their kicks from THEIR pain also...I think they have clubs for this...and it's consensual...well, it's not really morally bad...I guess, as long as they are not permanently injured.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by scribble
I didn't vote. But I would vote yes.

Harm to me, or death to me, is ALWAYS bad.

Harm to others, not so much.

Always? I am willing to bet that even this isn't so. I think there are times that people (even you) will allow or risk harm to themselves, if it is in the name of an ideal or principle tht they beleive in or if some greater benefit is attached to it. I.e. I am willing to be that if I were an eccentric millionaire and I offered you $100,000 dollars if you let me kick you in the nuts as hard as I possibly could. I don't know what your ideals are but I am willing to bet that there is some ideal tht you would allow harm or death to come to yourself for, even if that ideal is something as basic as protecting your family.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Darat


What if torturing one person gave you information that could save you or your family, or your neighbourhood or your nation... does that then mean it is at least justifiable?

What about if torturing animals provided information to cure a dreadful disease? Like Upchurch clarified for me, I'm speaking of actions that have no other purpose than to cause distress. One huge warning of serious problems later on is when children torture animals for fun. There's a ethicist - I just read the quote, it bugs me that I can't remember it - who stated that he'd consider it a very bad sign if he observed a child abusing a brick. It's the component of purposelessness in the destruction of something that leads me to call it unconditionally bad.

Animal experimentation to test medicine - justifiable, perhaps. Setting a dog on fire just to watch it die in pain - hard to put a positive interpretation on that.

[Dorian Gray]

I think that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil - anything can be either good or evil given the right circumstances.

What if by agreeing to be drawn and quartered you knew you would be saving your family torture, pain and death? You may welcome the pain etc. knowing it was buying the lives of your loved ones? There is an entire religion based on something very similar to this!

[Dancing David]

No, rape is bad, but I am sure we could spin a scenario that negates my feelings that it is always wrong. Wrong is different than bad right, okay rape is always bad, and torture.

[hgc]

Always good:

http://waltonfeed.com/self/pic/chokpud.jpg

Always bad:

http://www.brokennewz.com/images/Kathy-Lee-Gifford.jpg

[spejic]

Red x's are always bad.

Anyway, there is a problem with saying "rape is always bad". "Rape" is defined as "a type of sexual contact that is bad". So of course it is bad - the moral pronouncement is built into the definition. Saying rape is bad is a tautology.

[c4ts]

Bad is always bad and good is always good. In a sense, those are absolutes, since if they were not absolutes, they would not have any meaning.

From there, I can say that it is always bad to do harm to yourself and others, just as it is always good to do good things for yourself and others.

[athon]

Good and bad are subjective words - they can only be understood in conjunction with a personal system of morals, or a nominated system of rules. For instance, overtightening a bolt is bad because it can strip the thread (you get the idea). You always need a clarifier, even if it is unstated or assumed.

That said, the following things are bad in my system of morals-

B.C. comic strip
American sitcoms
Brussel sprouts
Hip-hop in an Australian accent
Hip-hop without an Australian accent
Hip-hop
Meg Ryan movies
Meg Ryan
Bad science fiction

The following things are good in my system of morals -

Spawn comics
The Tea Party
Chicken, avocado and brie pizzas
Canadian sitcoms
Tim Burton movies
Danny Elfman
Surfing

Athon
(so bad, I'm gooooood)

[c4ts]

I think you are taking the wrong approach. I am talking about the ideas associated with words, not the words themselves. For example, let a be a definition of "bad." "Bad" cannot be something other than a in the same sense that it is a, because then it would be a contradiction. Therefore all definitions of "bad" must be variations of something which includes a, or senses of the word which are irrelevant to the conversation (i.e. slang, irony, sarcasm). The thing from which all relevant definitions are derived is an idea, and I say that this idea cannot be anything but itself.

So what is bad?

[T'ai Chi]

I don't think so anything is universally always bad or anything is universally always good, mainly because we, as humans, interpret those words and things that are categorized by those words as humans, so they are already being interpreted.

Second, nothing is so simple. Each object/thing/idea to be categorized as good or as bad isn't something that is static. The goodness and badness of things is a function of time, use, and situation. What is absolutely bad one year might be absolutely good the next, and vice versa.

Third, something truly evil, which normal people categorize as necessarily bad, can be categorized as good from the point of view of the evildoer. As much as I personally am disgusted to say it, rape is probably good (sick thrill) for the person doing the raping, murder for the person doing the murdering (sick thrill) or the people who could possible benefit (financially say) from the death of the murdered person, war is good in terms of a boost to the economy, and etc.

Moreover, and in the opposite direction, something truly good, which normal people categorize as necessarily good, can be categorized as bad from another point of view. A cute cuddly dog could viciously attack, potentially necessary lifesaving surgery could kill the patient, a smile could be a fake one, moving up in a company could increase work, stress, and bloodpressure levels, you could die in a car crash from driving the new car you just bought, beneficial dental cleanings are unbearable, and etc.

There is a Taoist story about a father (a farmer) and his son. One day the farmer's work-horse ran away. His neighbor hears of his bad news and comes over to offer his condolences.

"I hear that you lost your horse. That is sh*tty luck."

"Well, who knows?" said the first farmer, "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't."

The next day the farmer's horse finds its way back, but it happened to bring along several wild horses with it. The other can't believe this turn of events. He goes over and congratulates the first farmer. He says "That is great news!"

"Well, who knows," said the first farmer, "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't."

The next day the farmer's son decided to saddle-up and ride one of the new horses to break it in. Unfortunately, the son was thrown from the horse and broke his leg. Upon hearing this sad news, their neighbor came over to offer condolences.

"Your son has broken his leg. This is such awful news."

"Well, who knows," said the farmer. "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't."

The following day soldiers came taking people for the army. They took sons from most of the surrounding farms, but because his son had a broken leg, he could not go and was spared.

And..........maybe it was good news and maybe it wasn't. :)

[metropolis_part_one]

Is there anything that is always bad or always good?

You need to define 'good' and 'bad' first. Which you cannot do.

[Cleopatra]

I think that we must make the distinction between a moral principle and an opinion. Moral principles are by definition absolute and I am absolute in that ;)

It's important for a person to distinguish which of his beliefs are principles and which are opinions that can be changed or influenced.

For example, according to my principles stealing is always wrong. I believe that abortions are wrong too but I recognize that this is an issue that an absolute truth doesn't exist so, I consider my view regarding abortions just an opinion and not a principle.

When it comes to murder or stealing things are "easy" I have wondered a lot about lying. :) If I want to be consistent to my principles lying is always wrong and I tend to believe that lying is always wrong indeed regardless if I have lied for a "good purpose". Maybe it's because I hate the expression " grey areas" that make me think like that. In my opinion "grey areas" do not exist. I know it's funny for a lawyer to say that but this is how I work too. I have never defended the existence of grey areas. Not because I am a nice person but because I cannot conceive the notion.

So, although Tricky doesn't make this distinction I vote that in the world of morality views should be absolute.

[metropolis_part_one]

When it comes to murder or stealing things are "easy" I have wondered a lot about lying. If I want to be consistent to my principles lying is always wrong and I tend to believe that lying is always wrong indeed regardless if I have lied for a "good purpose". Maybe it's because I hate the expression " grey areas" that make me think like that. In my opinion "grey areas" do not exist. I know it's funny for a lawyer to say that but this is how I work too. I have never defended the existence of grey areas. Not because I am a nice person but because I cannot conceive the notion.

You say that lying is always wrong even if for a good purpose. Consider for example the psychopath who asks where your friend / relative is in order to murder them. You know where they are, so unless you lie then they will be caught and killed.
Now obviously lying in this situation is the right thing to do. Even if you insist that lying is inherently and always wrong, it is 'less wrong' in this instance than telling the truth. That means it is the RIGHT thing to do. Therefore there is little sense or reason to insist that the lying is still 'wrong', as it would be 'wrong' NOT to lie.

[Cleopatra]

I have a better example for you metropolis_part_one

What about those who lied to the Nazis in order to save people from death?

I see two possible answers to that:

1. Saving a human's life is more important than truth in many people's scale of values.
2. Truth is not binding in cases of which the individual doesn't recognizes them as legitimate. A psychopath, a dictator are not "legitimate" conditions. So, lying under such conditions doesn't constitute a violation of one's moral principles.

The prerequisite for somebody to live by his moral principles is a status of Liberty. I think that we are talking about those conditions. We must talk about principles and choices when we have the option to choose.

[Mercutio]

I have discussed this issue in my classes at times. Oddly, the issue usually arises around sexual behaviors. Some of my students will think that, for instance, anything gay is absolutely wrong. Others will say that nothing is wrong, not even necrophilia, so long as the corpse does not object (sick joke).

My take on the matter has evolved into the notion of our creating our own right and wrong. I see no absolutes at all; when we say something is "always bad" or "always good" it somewhat divorces ourselves from our judgment. It is not our choice that this is bad, it is "always" bad. I feel that we should "own" our judgments of good and bad, that if we must rely on an "always" we are not thinking.

It borders on the idea of "natural" and "unnatural" (at least, my class discussions suggest this). The students who find some acts "always bad" usually also consider them "unnatural". It seems to me, though, that there is precious little behavior that is "unnatural" out there. That is merely a label we put on something that we don't like. I am of the opinion that if you don't like it, say so. If you cannot justify your dislike, perhaps you were wrong. When we use "always good" or "always bad" we rob ourselves of the opportunity for this self-examination. (and that, he said with a grin, is always bad.)

[LuxFerum]

Yes, in my point of view.

rape, killing, lie.....= always bad.

It is a different thing to classify the result of a situation as bad or good.

It the "lie or die" situation, we have 2 possible results.

1:
Lie = -10
Not die = +100
total= +90

2:
Not lie=+10
Die=-100
total=-90

The second result is worst than the first one, but lie in the first situation is still a bad thing.


As in the T'ai Chi story, only one fact is not enough to decide if the result will be good or bad, but the fact itself, is either good or bad.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
Yes, in my point of view.

rape, killing, lie.....= always bad.
But why? (I am not saying these things are good, I am just exploring your point of view.) Killing, for instance, is done for many reasons, some even sanctioned by the state. Everything eventually dies of one cause or another--why is killing "always bad"? Are you simply asserting it as your view, or would you feel justified in imposing that view on, say, my actions?

Rape, or its functional equivalent, is seen in other animal species, so it is arguably "natural". This does not, of course, make it good, but what makes it "always bad"? (I know my reasons for calling it bad, but they have nothing to do with it being simply intrinsically bad.) Again, is it an assertion of your own view, or would you impose it on others?

For the record, I do not think something needs to be "always bad" for us to feel justified in imposing our decision on others. NAMBLA, for instance, and I have very different views on sexual behavior. I make no claim that their behavior is intrinsically "always bad", but I have no qualms passing laws prohibiting it. The same reasons I use to justify my calling it bad are those that would prompt me to prohibit it.

[Cleopatra]

Mercutio it's such an easy ( I would use the word cheap if I wasn't addressing you) approach to morality when you are posing questions as the ones you posted above. If this is the only way to question moral principles maybe you shouldn't bother.
For example. It makes me laugh when I read that sexual behaviors attract so much interest in discussions about morality.

Examples:

Do you believe that Freedom of choice is a moral principle? If yes, gays shouldn't bother you.

Do you believe that lying is always wrong? If yes, you have solved the problem of adultery. In fact you don't even bother to pose yourself such questions.

Life is much easier when you have solid moral principles -- ok this sounds a bit provocative but what the hell, some people wonder why necrophilia is wrong...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[b]Life is much easier when you have solid moral principles -- ok this sounds a bit provocative but what the hell, some people wonder why necrophilia is wrong... I think you are missing (either that or I am) the point. "Solid moral principles" is a very different thing from "always" good or bad. Life is much easier when you do not have to think about good or bad; it is easier not to think at all. But too much is done unthinkingly.

I would rather you had solid moral principles that were the result of careful examination of the issue, rather than solid moral principles that are the basis of a knee-jerk "always" reaction. "One size fits all" is a lousy approach in a world of variability.

What happens to your solid moral principles when an exception to the "always" rule is found? (and even in this thread, that has already been explored--the gray area, the "white lie", the killing in self-defense...) Do you now question your solid moral principles? On the other hand, if your actions are based on examination rather than absolutes, variability is expected.

Why is necrophilia wrong, Cleopatra? (is it?) For me, I can accept that I have my own reasons--cultural, personal, aesthetic--to call it wrong, and more reasons--epidemiological, sanitary--for outlawing it, but is it intrinsically wrong? What of the man who loves his wife so much in life that he cannot bear to report her death for a few days...(ok, it turns my stomach, but I am not that man)...should he be jailed for this? Is it "always bad"?

Sorry to be the one to tell you, Cleopatra, but gray exists...

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
But why? (I am not saying these things are good, I am just exploring your point of view.) Killing, for instance, is done for many reasons, some even sanctioned by the state. Everything eventually dies of one cause or another--why is killing "always bad"?
I think that you don't see the difference between the act itself and the result of a situation.

If 1 killing is -100 and not killing is +100, you can always put those 2 acts in a situation were you need to do something bad to achieve a better result, but that doesn't make the bad act a good thing.

In order to know if killing is good or bad, you can test it in some simulated situations.
a)100 people in a party with guns, 100 people shot each other to death. = -10.000
b)100 people in a church with guns, 100 people shot each other to death. = -10.000
a)100 people in the street with stones, 100 people stoned each other to death. = -10.000
....
The only way to make the result better is to kill 100 people to avoid the killing of 101 or more people, and when you do that, you assume that killing is bad, and you have to avoid it as much as you can.
But thanx to evolution, those who failed to see if some grave act is good or evil, suffered the consequences of those acts.

Are you simply asserting it as your view, or would you feel justified in imposing that view on, say, my actions?
It is my view.
Would I impose that on you? Maybe, depends on the situation, only if I realised that the result of my actions will bring a better result.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

As in the T'ai Chi story, only one fact is not enough to decide if the result will be good or bad, but the fact itself, is either good or bad.

Well, I don't consider facts as things separate from their experience and the experiencer because I don't know how it is possible to. In my view they are all ultimately inseparately entangled, especially because I know of no fact that occurs in a vacumn, separate from interpretations or interactions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I think you are missing (either that or I am) the point. "Solid moral principles" is a very different thing from "always" good or bad. Life is much easier when you do not have to think about good or bad; it is easier not to think at all. But too much is done unthinkingly.

Yes you are right but my point was that when Freedom of Choices is one of your solid principles, your don't really need to wonder whether being gay is good or bad... My point is that by resolving your stance towards basic principles you solve many other issues that spring from those basic principles, as rape, adultery, necrophilia etc

I would rather you had solid moral principles that were the result of careful examination of the issue, rather than solid moral principles that are the basis of a knee-jerk "always" reaction. "One size fits all" is a lousy approach in a world of variability.

I think that your problem with moral principles is that you regard them as an enforcement.Given that you are an atheist, probably you have connected in your conscience ( :p ) with Christianity. If this is the case, you have forgotten that systems of moral values appeared long before Christianity but anyway. I don't regard moral principles as enforcement. Having moral principles is the result of free choice. I choose to have absolute moral principles, I choose to believe that some things are always bad or always good and it costs, it costs a lot but it's a matter of personal choice.

What happens to your solid moral principles when an exception to the "always" rule is found? (and even in this thread, that has already been explored--the gray area, the "white lie", the killing in self-defense...) Do you now question your solid moral principles? On the other hand, if your actions are based on examination rather than absolutes, variability is expected.

Everyday life gives us a series of " legitimate" reasons to violate our principles. We have plenty of opportunities on a daily basis to find an exception that sounds legitimate enough to violate our principles. A " white lie" is a lie and the fact that sometimes people need to resort to white lies doesn't make true is not always right. It means that they have failed to find a way to deal with a situation without resorting to lying. As for self-defense, this is the reason why Law doesn't call it murder. Let us not confuse things.

Why is necrophilia wrong, Cleopatra? (is it?)
The sanitary reasons are enough but I won't escape that easily.

Necrophilia is wrong, Mercutio, because in advanced societies we accept only the consensual sex. If we justify" the crazy of love husband" then we will have to justify the husband who rapes his wife out of love. The end doesn't justify the means.

You see, people that have resolved in their minds and they have accepted for good that Freedom of choices is one of the basic moral principles, they don't really have dilemmas regarding such issues. Those who believe in Freedom of choices, they believe that rape is always wrong and they believe that necrophilia is always wrong.

In courts of Law for example, juries are not asked to decide if society must accept an exception to a rule but if the accused has committed an action that we have already decided that it's wrong. There are cases that we must spend a lot of time or ponder before deciding but the fact that some cases need to be scrutinized doesn't make them grey areas.

Grey, dearest Mercutio exist to those that they are afraid to take the responsibility of a decision or to those that they are not willing to pay the consequences of their actions.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

I think that you don't see the difference between the act itself and the result of a situation.

If 1 killing is -100 and not killing is +100, you can always put those 2 acts in a situation were you need to do something bad to achieve a better result, but that doesn't make the bad act a good thing. I don't think I am confusing the act and the result; I certainly hope I am not.

I am simply questioning your justification for your numbers above--why -100 and +100, or any other number for that matter? The numbers appear to be "givens" rather than justified.

"...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Ham II.ii.249-250.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Grey, dearest Mercutio exist to those that they are afraid to take the responsibility of a decision or to those that they are not willing to pay the consequences of their actions.

Nicely put, Cleo, and possibly the clearest distinction between libs & conservatives.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes you are right but my point was that when Freedom of Choices is one of your solid principles, your don't really need to wonder whether being gay is good or bad... My point is that by resolving your stance towards basic principles you solve many other issues that spring from those basic principles, as rape, adultery, necrophilia etc
Well, that may be a problem, as I do regard free will (and thus freedom of choices) as illusory. I would suggest that an assumption of free will serves to allow ourselves the luxury of blaming individuals for the actions we forced upon them. When we blame the thief rather than his poverty, we ourselves need do nothing. (Both positions are extremes, of course, the truth is one of reciprocal determination)

I think that your problem with moral principles is that you regard them as an enforcement.Given that you are an atheist, probably you have connected in your conscience ( :p ) with Christianity. If this is the case, you have forgotten that systems of moral values appeared long before Christianity but anyway. I don't regard moral principles as enforcement. Having moral principles is the result of free choice. I choose to have absolute moral principles, I choose to believe that some things are always bad or always good and it costs, it costs a lot but it's a matter of personal choice.
If you choose them yourself, aware of your reasons, then we are in substantial agreement. Of course, your choice of the word "absolute" for this meaning is an interesting one.

As for enforcement...although (as I said to Lux earlier) I do not think I am making that connection, I do find it interesting that you seem to suggest that you may have an "absolute" moral code that requires no action on your part to enforce it. How convenient, to merely need to think right but not intervene when others violate your code.

Everyday life gives us a series of " legitimate" reasons to violate our principles. We have plenty of opportunities on a daily basis to find an exception that sounds legitimate enough to violate our principles. A " white lie" is a lie and the fact that sometimes people need to resort to white lies doesn't make true is not always right. It means that they have failed to find a way to deal with a situation without resorting to lying. As for self-defense, this is the reason why Law doesn't call it murder. Let us not confuse things.
Again, why then do you choose the word "absolute"?

The sanitary reasons are enough but I won't escape that easily.

Necrophilia is wrong, Mercutio, because in advanced societies we accept only the consensual sex. If we justify" the crazy of love husband" then we will have to justify the husband who rapes his wife out of love. The end doesn't justify the means.
a) why? You assert but do not explain why "in advanced societies we accept" only one or another thing. b) Domino theory? Slippery slope arguments? See what absolutism gets you? Why does acceptance of one mean acceptance of all, except for some slavish devotion to an "absolute"?
c) I am not speaking of ends--I am examining these means you speak of and wondering why you reject them a priori.

You see, people that have resolved in their minds and they have accepted for good that Freedom of choices is one of the basic moral principles, they don't really have dilemmas regarding such issues. Those who believe in Freedom of choices, they believe that rape is always wrong and they believe that necrophilia is always wrong.
I too believe these things are wrong, though I do not accept Freedom of choice as a basic moral principle. I have no personal dilemma regarding these actions--but that is not the same as recognizing them as absolutely bad.

In courts of Law for example, juries are not asked to decide if society must accept an exception to a rule but if the accused has committed an action that we have already decided that it's wrong. There are cases that we must spend a lot of time or ponder before deciding but the fact that some cases need to be scrutinized doesn't make them grey areas. Can juries in Greece, as they can here (and have, notably in the Kevorkian assisted-suicide cases) decide that, although the defendant committed the act, the law should not apply in this particular case? (I forget the legal term, sorry)

Are all sentences for the same crime identical? (again, we are into enforcement here--I apologise; I mean only to show that there are degrees of gray even in these black-and-white decisions)

Grey, dearest Mercutio exist to those that they are afraid to take the responsibility of a decision or to those that they are not willing to pay the consequences of their actions. And a black and white world exists only artificially. How nice to be able to blame someone else and keep a clean conscience. As long as they are to blame, we are not. So no reform is needed, no education, no concern.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mercutio
]Well, that may be a problem, as I do regard free will (and thus freedom of choices) as illusory. I would suggest that an assumption of free will serves to allow ourselves the luxury of blaming individuals for the actions we forced upon them. When we blame the thief rather than his poverty, we ourselves need do nothing. (Both positions are extremes, of course, the truth is one of reciprocal determination)
[/b] If you choose them yourself, aware of your reasons, then we are in substantial agreement. Of course, your choice of the word "absolute" for this meaning is an interesting one.

The problem with atheists ( at least I see it as a problem, it doesn't mean that it is a problem) is that they place themselves in the centre of the Universe. They do not place the human but they place the individual. For centures, people were flirting with the idea of the free will only to arrive to word it in the17the ce. Mercutio, comes and dismisses it as illusory.Ok.

Usually those that include Free Will among their moral principles, believe in Equal Opportunities but since you put it so provocatively, I will reply.

I do not believe in a society of "ill" people or people that they cannot escape their "destiny". Instead of justifying theft,because a theft is always a theft regardless what caused it, I am looking for ways to fight poverty because as long as I find excuses, I cannot solve any social problem.

People that believe in Free Will rather spend their time in finding solutions instead of excuses.

So, It depends on the society you vision.You know, you gave me an answer to a question I put myself when I read hammegk's post but I will come to this later.

I do find it interesting that you seem to suggest that you may have an "absolute" moral code that requires no action on your part to enforce it. How convenient, to merely need to think right but not intervene when others violate your code.
Again, why then do you choose the word "absolute"?

I chose the word "absolute" in response of the question Tricky posed in his opening post.

originally posted by Tricky
This came up on the P&CE forum. I have proposed that there are no absolutes in the world of morality. I believe I could find situations where anything is, if not good, at least justifiable.

However, you can only vote yes or no. Absolutely.

Am I forgiven now? :) I am curious though. What makes you think that an absolute moral code doesn't require for action? What is the problem? Is it that necrophilia doesn't have a place in my absolute moral code or is it because I refuse to get involved in pseudo-dilemmas and therefore I reject a priori such practices?


a) why? You assert but do not explain why "in advanced societies we accept" only one or another thing.

For various reasons but is it our topic? I can list the reasons if you insist but if you want me to admit that we are conditioned to be against such practices I won't deny it. Up to a level we are conditioned, yes, but yet, have the needs of our societies changed that much and in a way that we must reconsider the way we perceive things?

b) Domino theory? Slippery slope arguments? See what absolutism gets you?

Not really. Can you mention exactly where it leads me? I hope you don't mean in Hell ;)

Why does acceptance of one mean acceptance of all, except for some slavish devotion to an "absolute"?

I have already replied for the "absolute" thing but have you noticed the words you choose? "Slavish"? Do you insist on the enforcement thing?

c) I am not speaking of ends--I am examining these means you speak of and wondering why you reject them a priori.
Because things are related to each other. You can't be against bestiality for example or necrophilia and on the other hand advocating the right of the adults to be attracted to minors ( sic). I have seen such argumentations. You can't advocate the importance of the family ties in the development of the individual and suggest that there incest isn't absolutely bad.

[/b] I too believe these things are wrong, though I do not accept Freedom of choice as a basic moral principle. I have no personal dilemma regarding these actions--but that is not the same as recognizing them as absolutely bad.

It is convenient to suggest that, I just don't allow myself such luxuries. Tell me, if you don't accept those practices for yourself why do you accept it if others do it? Is it a sort of snobbism?

Can juries in Greece, as they can here (and have, notably in the Kevorkian assisted-suicide cases) decide that, although the defendant committed the act, the law should not apply in this particular case? (I forget the legal term, sorry)

Jury nulification is an American Invention. I am willing to give my life in order that it doesn't become acceptable in the country I practice Law. I consider jury nulification as the greatest arrogance a human being can demonstrate, it's a Hybris and I am of a Greek education. Hybris always brings Nemesis.

Are all sentences for the same crime identical? (again, we are into enforcement here--I apologise; I mean only to show that there are degrees of gray even in these black-and-white decisions)

The degrees in a crime don't prove the existence of a gray area on the contrary.

And a black and white world exists only artificially. How nice to be able to blame someone else and keep a clean conscience. As long as they are to blame, we are not. So no reform is needed, no education, no concern.

Now this is how you answered my question.

Hammegk made the distinction between Liberals and Conservatives. When I read that I started thinking if we would be still in the Middle Ages if people were like me but you gave me the answer.

Certainly not. If people were accepting justifications of crimes or extreme behaviors nothing would have changed. The fact that I believe in absolute truths and I deny to recognize the existence of grey areas doesn't mean that I am not interested in reforms.

Trust somebody who believes in absolute truths and in solid moral system to reform society for you Mercutio, because such people are not afraid to pay the cost of their decisions and they rarely back off ;)

[athon]

It's easy to see here the people who are egocentric and those who feel that while they have their opinions, not everybody has to share that opinion.

A society can have key morals, which as I said in my last post, is a set of rules which define whether something is good or bad. Without a system - any system - you cannot define something. Those rules can vary, or they can be shared, but they are not universal.

Is rape always bad? According to a system where it is morally wrong to infringe on another's free-will, yes it is (i.e. most western societies). If you follow those rules, you will always see rape as bad, and will never see a situation where it is any different. In a society where women have no free-will, rape is acceptable. I know people will now jump on me and say 'but they would be wrong'. Yes, according to your system.

If you think your rules are the 'universal truth', you're starting to take the same view as theists do, or dare I say it, even Rand's Objectivist creed (that even morals belong to an objective reality).

Just saying something is universally good or bad is overly simplified, as by responding you are doing two things;

1) utilising your own system of principles, and
2) assuming it is objective

Athon

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I don't think I am confusing the act and the result; I certainly hope I am not.

I am simply questioning your justification for your numbers above--why -100 and +100, or any other number for that matter? The numbers appear to be "givens" rather than justified.


You can put the number that you like. However, you can make the result of a situation ridiculous if you put absurds numbers.
If you put 100 to kill and 10 to reproduce, everybody will simply kill eachother.
And if some culture in the universe did that, they succeded, because they simply disappear.

In chess they have a similar problem, how many pawns is a knight or a rook?
How you will calculate it, if they perform different roles in different positions?
They simply assume knight =3 rook=5, and only calculate the result of the position. In some chess software you can change those numbers, and that makes the computer play worst than before.


Originally posted by Mercutio
"...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Ham II.ii.249-250.
Is that nihilism or what?
How do you know if this quote is good?
No matter how do you think you will be affect by the consequences of your acts. The universe respond in the same way for those who think that kill is good and for those who think that kill is bad.
And as you can see, the universe is biased against those who think that kill is good.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm trying to think of a situation where kiddie porn and/or child molestation could ever be justifiable and I just can't think of one. Now, I realize that this is probably a cultural bias, but ultimately, good and evil are cultural biases.

The cultural biases are a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the connotation of evil is semantically built into the term itself. People will not use the term "kiddie porn" or "child molestation" unless they have already decided that the referent is evil. So, these are by definition evil.

A funny story about this. I once worked for a university, and in the failing days of the program, the Institute rented out their services to other state agencies. One of these projects, which I was not directly involved in, was with the department that regulates various businesses. The web site had links to various businesses that were regulated.

They got a furious call that there were links to kiddie porn, and there was a mad scramble to find out where these links were. As it turned out, one of the kinds of businesses recognized by the state were nudist colonies. Various blurry long-shot photographs of people playing volleyball or some such on the web site constituted the "kiddie porn."

I thought this was very funny. When I grew up, parents would deliberately photograph babies on a bearskin rug. However, the guy at the Institute in charge of this project said, "Ah think it's kiddie porn."

The map is not the territory.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
You can put the number that you like. However, you can make the result of a situation ridiculous if you put absurds numbers.
If you put 100 to kill and 10 to reproduce, everybody will simply kill eachother.
And if some culture in the universe did that, they succeded, because they simply disappear.

In chess they have a similar problem, how many pawns is a knight or a rook?
How you will calculate it, if they perform different roles in different positions?
They simply assume knight =3 rook=5, and only calculate the result of the position. In some chess software you can change those numbers, and that makes the computer play worst than before.
Thank you--this is closer to the question I was asking. What goes into your decision as to what numbers to use? It would appear (unless I am misreading you) that the numbers that correspond to your morality are determined at least in part by utility. Certainly in chess, arguably in culture (by your example, anyway). Things are good or bad because they allow or deny the continuation of a culture. Is this your view? (I'll hold off on further comment for now)

Is that nihilism or what?
How do you know if this quote is good?
No matter how do you think you will be affect by the consequences of your acts. The universe respond in the same way for those who think that kill is good and for those who think that kill is bad.
And as you can see, the universe is biased against those who think that kill is good. Again, this appears to suggest a utilitarian morality. If this is your view, I have a few other comments.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Things are good or bad because they allow or deny the continuation of a culture. Is this your view? (I'll hold off on further comment for now)

I would put this way:
Things are good or bad, because they are desirable or indesirable in the well-being and continuation of any culture.

Originally posted by Mercutio
Again, this appears to suggest a utilitarian morality. If this is your view, I have a few other comments.
:confused:
I just googled for it, it seems pretty close to it, I don't know if is the same.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

I would put this way:
Things are good or bad, because they are desirable or indesirable in the well-being and continuation of any culture.


:confused:
I just googled for it, it seems pretty close to it, I don't know if is the same. Sorry--I didn't realize it was a term in use--I merely meant a morality that was based on utility, on the practical results of having had that particular morality.

I actually would agree with you, then, for the most part, but I would once again have trouble with saying that any morality arrived at this way would be "absolute" in its goodness or badness definitions. I agree with you that the moral rules we have now have essentially been arrived at through natural selection--in other words, they are here now because they helped our ancestors survive. Why, then, are they now "absolute" good or bad? I would think that is the same mistake as thinking that evolution ends with us as its final product. Nope, both we and our morality are simply the current phase in an ongoing process.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by athon
It's easy to see here the people who are egocentric and those who feel that while they have their opinions, not everybody has to share that opinion.

A society can have key morals, which as I said in my last post, is a set of rules which define whether something is good or bad. Without a system - any system - you cannot define something. Those rules can vary, or they can be shared, but they are not universal.

Is rape always bad? According to a system where it is morally wrong to infringe on another's free-will, yes it is (i.e. most western societies). If you follow those rules, you will always see rape as bad, and will never see a situation where it is any different. In a society where women have no free-will, rape is acceptable. I know people will now jump on me and say 'but they would be wrong'. Yes, according to your system.

If you think your rules are the 'universal truth', you're starting to take the same view as theists do, or dare I say it, even Rand's Objectivist creed (that even morals belong to an objective reality).

Just saying something is universally good or bad is overly simplified, as by responding you are doing two things;

1) utilising your own system of principles, and
2) assuming it is objective

Athon


Athon when you say "Universal truth" do you mean a truth that applies on Earth, in Western Societies or in our Solar System?

I think that Absolute truths ( I repeat that I use this word because this is how Tricky put it) have nothing to do with "Universal" truths but for the joy of the conversation I have a question.

In our society rape is always wrong. Let's say that you move in a society that rape is not always wrong, would you try to stop somebody from raping a woman, if such an attempt came to your attention?

Also I have another question :)

If in the society each of us chooses to live absolute truths do not exist how do you imagine life? Don't you think that the biggest egocentricity is to believe that you have the right to have your own truth, live by it and in the same time to insist that you have the right to enjoy the privileges a life in a society has to offer?

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Sorry--I didn't realize it was a term in use--I merely meant a morality that was based on utility, on the practical results of having had that particular morality.

I actually would agree with you, then, for the most part, but I would once again have trouble with saying that any morality arrived at this way would be "absolute" in its goodness or badness definitions. I agree with you that the moral rules we have now have essentially been arrived at through natural selection--in other words, they are here now because they helped our ancestors survive. Why, then, are they now "absolute" good or bad? I would think that is the same mistake as thinking that evolution ends with us as its final product. Nope, both we and our morality are simply the current phase in an ongoing process.
Yes, but I think that some rules of morality will be the same for all kinds of society.
For a society to exist, it must have his members. Without members, there is no society. Therefore all morality must admit that losing his members is bad, and killing would only be justified in order to save more members.
That is why I think that killing is bad, not only for humans, but for all forms of life in the universe.

[athon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Athon when you say "Universal truth" do you mean a truth that applies on Earth, in Western Societies or in our Solar System?

I think that Absolute truths ( I repeat that I use this word because this is how Tricky put it) have nothing to do with "Universal" truths but for the joy of the conversation I have a question.

In our society rape is always wrong. Let's say that you move in a society that rape is not always wrong, would you try to stop somebody from raping a woman, if such an attempt came to your attention?

Also I have another question :)

If in the society each of us chooses to live absolute truths do not exist how do you imagine life? Don't you think that the biggest egocentricity is to believe that you have the right to have your own truth, live by it and in the same time to insist that you have the right to enjoy the privileges a life in a society has to offer?

OK, good questions.

For me, a Universal Truth (same as Absolute Truth? Umm, I guess so - I'd have to go over Tricky's post) is something that exists outside of our perception of it. By it's own definition, it's pretty hard for us to attain (to understand it we have to perceive it) because we can only use our limited senses and understanding. We can make models, formula, and put it into a language to get some sort of a grasp, but without getting too philosophical it's pretty much the reality of nature that we try to quantify (see my sig - it more or less summarises my view of nature).

You can't apply morals to this. Morals are a system of rules we live by - more or less a social contract that says 'while we all rely on one another for certain needs, we must all act in a way that each of us can feel comfortable in'. Therefore, to say whether something is morally bad (which is what we are talking about here, I think) you have to say it in regards to those morals.

Would I prevent a rape in a country where rape is OK? I would hope so - according to my system, it is wrong. That's the only reason why; rape, according to the rules I believe in, is bad. Simple.

The short of it for me is this - good and bad can only be compared with one another according to a set of standards. Whatever standards you use, you can then say 'it is always bad to do....*insert bad thing*'.

It's another argument altogether to say whether imparting your own morals or 'system of saying what is good or bad', or for one country to impart its morals, on another party, is in itself morally correct. Yes, it's confusing - but then, that's why we've had so many wars in history.

Athon

[athon]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Yes, but I think that some rules of morality will be the same for all kinds of society.
For a society to exist, it must have his members. Without members, there is no society. Therefore all morality must admit that losing his members is bad, and killing would only be justified in order to save more members.
That is why I think that killing is bad, not only for humans, but for all forms of life in the universe.

Good response, Lux. But I think in this case, your argument is not that killing is necessarily morally bad, but rather the rules for deciding good or bad are pragmatic ones.

According to this argument (don't get me wrong - I agree with it) it is a practical response that ensures the continuation of a society. Morals can arise from this foundation, but since they don't have to, this concept is in fact seperate.

Athon
(I hope I'm making sense tonight. A six-pack of beer and I think I'm bloody Plato or something...)

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by athon
According to this argument (don't get me wrong - I agree with it) it is a practical response that ensures the continuation of a society. Morals can arise from this foundation, but since they don't have to, this concept is in fact seperate.

I think they must to.
They can say that they moral foundation came from other place, but they can't have a moral that want to destroy his own society that generate it. That society would never exist, and so is that moral.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

I think they must to.
They can say that they moral foundation came from other place, but they can't have a moral that want to destroy his own society that generate it. That society would never exist, and so is that moral.
Not questioning, just wondering...essentially this view connects "morally good" with "successful reproductive strategy" (in this case, successful for the society at large--but as the sociobiological explanations for altruism point out, kin selection is enough to be able to extrapolate "greater good for society" from self-centered individual good).

So are successful reproductive strategies morally right? I would argue no, as there is recent work suggesting that in many species (humans included) rape is, at least in part, a reproductive strategy (and an apparantly successful one in many populations). Given the 100% agreement on this thread that rape is immoral, that would suggest that "successful reproductive strategy" does not necessarily mean "morally good". So...what is behind our "good" and "bad"?

[LuxFerum]

Rape is not a good reproductive strategie. Rape is violence and no one would like to be in a society just to get abused. Any society based on violence against his own members will vanish, will not even exist.


So are successful reproductive strategies morally right?
Even in this question you assume that rape is bad and reproduction is good.
You only came to this question by showing that the result of a bad act can have a positive effect.
And we already talk about the difference between the act and the result of a situation.


So...what is behind our "good" and "bad"?
Some of our "good" and "bad" are cultural.(Don't ask me which one).
And some of those are, in my point of view, absolute ones, which will be the same in any society.
Like killing.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
Rape is not a good reproductive strategie. Rape is violence and no one would like to be in a society just to get abused. Any society based on violence against his own members will vanish, will not even exist.
I did not say "good" reproductive strategy, I said "successful". My comments were based on some admittedly contraversial recent work (one example is Thornhill & Palmer's book "A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion"). Rape may well be violence, but violence also can be a successful strategy, to the extent that violence achieves an end. I am not saying it is "good"--I am merely examining what we do and do not call "good", and the reasons we do.

Even in this question you assume that rape is bad and reproduction is good.
You only came to this question by showing that the result of a bad act can have a positive effect.
And we already talk about the difference between the act and the result of a situation.

Yes, I did assume rape is bad. Because in this thread all had agreed to that. But your reasons for morality had implied that reproductive success was related to moral goodness, and I was pointing out that we (I include myself here, because I am not disagreeing with anything you have said) are inconsistent in our reasons for "goodness" or "badness".

Some of our "good" and "bad" are cultural.(Don't ask me which one).
And some of those are, in my point of view, absolute ones, which will be the same in any society.
Like killing. Killing within our own group, I think you specifically mean. Our morals have rarely prevented us from killing members of other groups (praise the lord and pass the ammunition!). Absolute would be "thou shalt not kill"; what we have is a lot of exceptions which render our morals non-absolute.

Is killing another person ever "good"? Not just "justified" or the lesser of two evils, or the result of a difficult equation of costs and benefits...but just "good"? (I'm thinking of the Texas defense "he needed killin'" here, or the throngs of people cheering the execution of a mass murderer...do these people think that this killing is a bad but necessary thing, or a good thing?)

BTW, Lux, I appreciate the opportunity to think these things through...please don't think that I think that your view is wrong; I do not. I'm just using you as my analyst...:D

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I did not say "good" reproductive strategy, I said "successful". My comments were based on some admittedly contraversial recent work (one example is Thornhill & Palmer's book "A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion").

Successful? rape is a marginal way to reproduce in all the species I know.


Originally posted by Mercutio
Rape may well be violence, but violence also can be a successful strategy, to the extent that violence achieves an end. I am not saying it is "good"--I am merely examining what we do and do not call "good", and the reasons we do.

Rape is violence.
Again you are mixing the act with the result of a situation.




Originally posted by Mercutio

Yes, I did assume rape is bad. Because in this thread all had agreed to that. But your reasons for morality had implied that reproductive success was related to moral goodness, and I was pointing out that we (I include myself here, because I am not disagreeing with anything you have said) are inconsistent in our reasons for "goodness" or "badness".

Related and not synonyms.
I disagree, inconsistent is the system where you do not realise that one act are against the basis of a society. A society that have the aim to destroy it self, is not logicaly viable. All societies must have some moral conduct in common.
Things that will destroy the society are bad. There is no inconsistency in this.
If you want to see if something is good or bad, just do a mind experiment.
Pick up one population, and make everyone follow the moral to be tested.
Lets try killing is good.
100 people kill each other. society is over.
Try it in differents situations and all you got is the same result.
What that tells you?
The only way that this society will survive is if they keep the reproduction rate higher than the killing rate, and when they do that, they assume that reproduction is better than killing.
I really don't see how killing can not be an absolute bad in all moral systems. there is no inconsistence in this. Or maybe you disagree with my definiton of bad or society, but if you don't, then there is something that is wrong in all moral systems.

Originally posted by Mercutio

Killing within our own group, I think you specifically mean. Our morals have rarely prevented us from killing members of other groups (praise the lord and pass the ammunition!). Absolute would be "thou shalt not kill"; what we have is a lot of exceptions which render our morals non-absolute.

Killing within our own group is easier to demonstrate that it is wrong in all moral systems. But is not hard to see that all killing have a negative effect in the environment. Killig cattle for instance, we love to kill it and eat meat, but we have to deal with the negatives effects of killing, we have to keep them reproducting in a rate bigger than the rate we kill then.


Originally posted by Mercutio

Is killing another person ever "good"? Not just "justified" or the lesser of two evils, or the result of a difficult equation of costs and benefits...but just "good"? (I'm thinking of the Texas defense "he needed killin'" here, or the throngs of people cheering the execution of a mass murderer...do these people think that this killing is a bad but necessary thing, or a good thing?)

Again and Again, you seems to agree with my ideias but you failed to aply them. You just look to the result of a situation and if it is good you assume that everything envolved in it is good. and that lead to paradox. That is why you keep saying that you can't know if something is good or bad.
In my system there is no paradox. If the result is good, that means that the weight of good things in the situation are bigger than the weight of the bad things.

[athon]

If morals were always based purely on its effect on the success of a species, wouldn't we see a certain homogenity amongst the morals of all human societies?

For instance, having more than one lover is considered immoral in western societies, but is acceptable in societies where polygamy is a way of life. Segregation into caste systems is unacceptable in many societies, however has cultural significance in India. Are you saying these 'morals' are adopted within the respective societies based purely on their merits?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, but I still argue that a culture's morals, while they can be related to survival, can also be independent of it.

Athon

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Successful? rape is a marginal way to reproduce in all the species I know.
Agreed; however, it does not have to be the dominant method to be a successful method, in the eyes of natural selection.

Rape is violence.
Again you are mixing the act with the result of a situation.
I did give a source to back up my contention. I know it is not a popular, nor a pleasant view, which is why I thought it best to include a source.
Related and not synonyms.
I disagree, inconsistent is the system where you do not realise that one act are against the basis of a society. A society that have the aim to destroy it self, is not logicaly viable. All societies must have some moral conduct in common.
Things that will destroy the society are bad. There is no inconsistency in this.
If you want to see if something is good or bad, just do a mind experiment.
Pick up one population, and make everyone follow the moral to be tested.
Lets try killing is good.
100 people kill each other. society is over.
Try it in differents situations and all you got is the same result.
What that tells you?
The only way that this society will survive is if they keep the reproduction rate higher than the killing rate, and when they do that, they assume that reproduction is better than killing.
I really don't see how killing can not be an absolute bad in all moral systems. there is no inconsistence in this. Or maybe you disagree with my definiton of bad or society, but if you don't, then there is something that is wrong in all moral systems.
If we take another hypothetical 100 people, 90 of whom are opposed to killing, 10 of whom have no such moral qualms, and the 10 meet the 90, one society may well be over, but in a very different manner than your 100 person scenario. As long as there is room for the children of the 10 to expand, there is no negative to the killing. When we run out of room (or easy victims) then, of course, we have the scenario you paint.

Killing within our own group is easier to demonstrate that it is wrong in all moral systems. But is not hard to see that all killing have a negative effect in the environment. Killing cattle for instance, we love to kill it and eat meat, but we have to deal with the negatives effects of killing, we have to keep them reproducting in a rate bigger than the rate we kill then.
Or equal, certainly. Um...what if we only kill them at the rate at which they die naturally without our intervention? They all do die, eventually, without us, don't they? Why is our killing them any more negative than any other way they die?

(I sense you are frustrated with me--I do apologise for that. I do not intend to attack your view, only to explore our (yours and my) view. I would be glad to stop if it irritates you, but I am finding it immensely rewarding.)

Again and Again, you seems to agree with my ideias but you failed to aply them. You just look to the result of a situation and if it is good you assume that everything envolved in it is good. and that lead to paradox. That is why you keep saying that you can't know if something is good or bad.
In my system there is no paradox. If the result is good, that means that the weight of good things in the situation are bigger than the weight of the bad things. Ah!!! I do see that I have been mistaken in some (much?) of what I said about your view. Yes, I have taken a positive outcome and acted as if all that went into it was positive. I see that now, and I will try not to continue to make that mistake.

I do still question the values that go into your equations. The positives and negatives combining to an eventual positive or negative I get, but unless you have a priori values, then I can only see coming up with the numbers by doing as I did--looking at the eventual outcomes.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by athon
If morals were always based purely on its effect on the success of a species, wouldn't we see a certain homogenity amongst the morals of all human societies?

I see homogenity in the basic moral code, I don't know of any societie, human or not, where the members kill thenselfes.

Originally posted by athon
For instance, having more than one lover is considered immoral in western societies, but is acceptable in societies where polygamy is a way of life. Segregation into caste systems is unacceptable in many societies, however has cultural significance in India. Are you saying these 'morals' are adopted within the respective societies based purely on their merits?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, but I still argue that a culture's morals, while they can be related to survival, can also be independent of it.
Yes, I agree that part of moral is cultural and not universal.
But my point here, is that part of our moral is universal. Everyone will share it.


Originally posted by Mercutio

If we take another hypothetical 100 people, 90 of whom are opposed to killing, 10 of whom have no such moral qualms, and the 10 meet the 90, one society may well be over, but in a very different manner than your 100 person scenario. As long as there is room for the children of the 10 to expand, there is no negative to the killing. When we run out of room (or easy victims) then, of course, we have the scenario you paint.

I don't think I get your cenario, Are you saying that those 10 will be killing some of the 90 and they won't fight back?
Children of the 10? they will rather kill eachother insted of reproducing. They won't even make a smaller group of 10 where they kill and robber the others, they will see another one and try to kill him. They will simply kill each other and then be killed by those 90 who will do it do avoid the loss of theirs members.




Originally posted by Mercutio
Or equal, certainly. Um...what if we only kill them at the rate at which they die naturally without our intervention? They all do die, eventually, without us, don't they? Why is our killing them any more negative than any other way they die?

Because you are limiting its life, in a violent way. I could argue more, but that will scape from my point.
That all societies share some part of their moral. And killing its member is one of this absolute morals.


Originally posted by Mercutio

I do still question the values that go into your equations. The positives and negatives combining to an eventual positive or negative I get, but unless you have a priori values, then I can only see coming up with the numbers by doing as I did--looking at the eventual outcomes.
You can put the numbers that you want, but you will have to put killing in the lower range, because if you don't it won't lead to a society at all. It will be just a crazy murder walking around.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

I don't think I get your cenario, Are you saying that those 10 will be killing some of the 90 and they won't fight back?
Children of the 10? they will rather kill eachother insted of reproducing. They won't even make a smaller group of 10 where they kill and robber the others, they will see another one and try to kill him. They will simply kill each other and then be killed by those 90 who will do it do avoid the loss of theirs members. Sorry, I was posting under the influence of a particular book. There is a passage in "Guns, Germs and Steel" (I think that is the name--it is at my office and I am not) that describes (based on journal accounts by participants) the slaughter of tens of thousands of "heathens" by roughly 200 spaniards, in a one-day event. It is an absolutely ghastly account, but the writers, in their journals, are quite proud of their work, knowing it was god's will, yadda yadda yadda... It is quite obvious that they do not think that what they are doing is a bad thing but for a good reason; it appears that they are killing for the glory of god.

Your notion that the children of the 10 would kill each other does not follow from my example, as long as the "moral" is to kill out-group members and not in-group members. Also, if you say that the 90 will kill rather than lose their fellows, perhaps you and I have different conceptions of "absolute". I understand that you call it "always bad", but that it could be part of an equation where other things outweigh the bad (this is what I was not getting before, and you corrected me). To me, though, the notion of "absolute" makes it a deal-breaker; it cannot be outweighed by other concerns. (My ideas on this are probably shaped by my early church experience--it was a pacifist organization, and I did not even fight back when being attacked because of an "absolute" notion of non-violence.)

[Dancing David]

Hmm interesting derailment, howver i feel that as humans we have been biologicaly adapted to follow the social norm. First off I would like to point out that since the rise of agriculture and storage technologies, human life has changed drasticaly. Most of my thinking coes from what life would have been like prior to the rise of historical 'culture'.

1. Homo sapiens was a very samll creature more similar to chimpanzees tha gorillas. And the bone evidence would indicate that ancient homo spaiens was a scavenger as well, not the 'noble hunter'. It is my belief that cooperation between humans was the main force driving the sucsess of homo sapiens.

2. There are chimp studies which show that lower rank males who are friendly and cooperative to the females have sex more frequently than the dominant agressive males.

3. Humans seem to have a very high propensity for cooperative behavior, look at traffic and think about what it would be like if we were not cooperative.

4. Until historical times there would have been a very high pressure for humans to remove anti-social members from the group. They are a hazard to the rest of the group and most primitive laws allow for the death of any member that breaks societies laws.


So while morals are a relative thing, I feel that we as humans might have a small biological propensity to be social and cooperative.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

*snip*
Grey, dearest Mercutio exist to those that they are afraid to take the responsibility of a decision or to those that they are not willing to pay the consequences of their actions.

I would say that you are wrong. In fact, I could make a case that you are completely the opposite of right, in that people who adopt an absolute moral code(especially from religion) do so because they want to avoid responsibility for their decisions.

I believe in the grey areas, because every moment, every decision, is different from the last. Show me two situations in this world which are exactly the same. I've never seen that happen, and I'd wager that it never will.

[Dorian Gray]

I agree with Zero on this. Absolute moral codes take the thinking and freedom out of society.

Nicely put, Cleo, and possibly the clearest distinction between libs & conservatives. Yeah. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example. He is completely willing to pay the consequences of his actions - and is not hiding anything or dodging anything at all, and neither is his lawyer!

/sarcasm off

You can't be against bestiality for example or necrophilia and on the other hand advocating the right of the adults to be attracted to minors Yes, you can. In fact, there are eight different combinations of what you can be for or against regarding bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

[Zero]

Now, don't get me wrong...sometimes that grey area can be so tiny as to be nonexistant, from a practical standpoint. Generally, though, we live in grey areas, and to take a black/white view on every broad issue seems to be a mistake, at least to me. The more specific you get, however, the smaller those grey areas become. That's why I claim that absolute right and wrong doesn't really exist, because you have to look at the specific details of every situation.

Here's an example: You can state generally 'sex with minors is wrong'. However, there is a huge difference between an 18 year old and his 16 year old girlfriend, and a 35 year old sleeping with a 14 year old. See what I mean?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The problem with atheists ( at least I see it as a problem, it doesn't mean that it is a problem) is that they place themselves in the centre of the Universe.

That's a theistic view of atheism. Theists have this god-construct that they place at the "center" of their universe. So both the god-construct and the "center" of the universe is important to them.

To an atheist, however, this "center" of the universe is just god's job description and has no meaning otherwise. Most atheists reject both the concept of a god and the concept of a god job description.

Theists, when encountering atheism, only seem to understand it partially. They can sometimes understand that an atheist does not believe in the god they believe in, but hardly ever can they wrap their heads around the idea that the vast majority of atheists don't believe in a god job-description, either. So they think that the atheist must necessarily place something in the job-description. The stupider ones say it's Satan. The more intelligent ones say it's atheists themselves, or the individual, or something like that.

This is false, but my experience is that it is something that is difficult or impossible to communicate to theists.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Your notion that the children of the 10 would kill each other does not follow from my example, as long as the "moral" is to kill out-group members and not in-group members.

Sorry, I mean that there won't be any children of those 10 individuals. They are like gamecocks that attack both genders, they wont stop until one of them is dead.

Originally posted by Mercutio
Also, if you say that the 90 will kill rather than lose their fellows, perhaps you and I have different conceptions of "absolute". I understand that you call it "always bad", but that it could be part of an equation where other things outweigh the bad (this is what I was not getting before, and you corrected me). To me, though, the notion of "absolute" makes it a deal-breaker; it cannot be outweighed by other concerns. (My ideas on this are probably shaped by my early church experience--it was a pacifist organization, and I did not even fight back when being attacked because of an "absolute" notion of non-violence.)
Your absolute is like infinity in maths, it will really screw up the equation.
But I mean that "always bad" is something that will bring the result down, but not infinitely down. Like in a balance, when you put something in it, it will go down, in some situation when you put another thing in it, it may lead to making something fall of the balance, and make the balance go up. But that doesn't take the weight of it.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Sorry, I mean that there won't be any children of those 10 individuals. They are like gamecocks that attack both genders, they wont stop until one of them is dead.
I think a morality of "kill only members of the outgroup" would solve this. As long as you are "one of us", you are save to reproduce.

Your absolute is like infinity in maths, it will really screw up the equation.
But I mean that "always bad" is something that will bring the result down, but not infinitely down. Like in a balance, when you put something in it, it will go down, in some situation when you put another thing in it, it may lead to making something fall of the balance, and make the balance go up. But that doesn't take the weight of it. I see. And I think this explains most, if not all, of our differences. Thank you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I think a morality of "kill only members of the outgroup" would solve this. As long as you are "one of us", you are saved to reproduce.
Sounds historically (and currently) accurate to me.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Yeah. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example. He is completely willing to pay the consequences of his actions - and is not hiding anything or dodging anything at all, and neither is his lawyer!

/sarcasm off

Sarcasm back on: What a bullsh*t comment, in that, yup, most humans are capable of hypocracy when their personal problems are on the line.

[T'ai Chi]

So..... has anyone presented anything that is always bad or always good?

[Dorian Gray]

Sarcasm back on: What a bullsh*t comment, in that, yup, most humans are capable of hypocracy when their personal problems are on the line.
So not much difference between libs and cons, huh. Especially rich ones.

That's the point.