Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Objective morality

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Objective morality

 (Read 18671 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #30 - November 15, 2011, 11:01 AM
    I'm not claiming anything is irrelevant. You seem to have forgotten what this is about. My claim is that you don't want to rely purely on rationality when formulating a moral code.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #31 - November 15, 2011, 12:58 PM
    I really have no idea what your argument is.
    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #32 - November 15, 2011, 07:51 PM
    Well it has been posted in great detail already in this very thread. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #33 - November 15, 2011, 08:09 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 14, 2011, 09:05 PM
    You missed my point. The effects are not rational. Therefore, they cannot be accounted for by a rational process. Therefore, attempting to derive a moral code by a rational process is a flawed concept.

    Concerning morality, our ability to question and change if necessary what has been impressed upon us by our evolution, our culture and our own experiences is not only desirable, but crucial.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #34 - November 15, 2011, 08:12 PM
    Not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #35 - November 15, 2011, 08:19 PM
    I'm disagreeing with the idea that attempting to derive a moral code by a rational process is a flawed concept.

    In fact, I'm not even sure by what other means you would or could derive it.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #36 - November 15, 2011, 08:23 PM
    I'm not saying that using a rationality is verboten, just that Kagan's claim of pure rationality as the ideal is flawed.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #37 - November 15, 2011, 08:28 PM
    What other means are in play when we consider moral dilemmas and draw our conclusions?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #38 - November 15, 2011, 08:30 PM
    Emotion, empathy, etc. You know, the stuff that people rely on for social interactions. A useful moral code has to take account of irrational factors.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #39 - November 15, 2011, 08:34 PM
    Ok, try this. Give me a purely rational justification for prohibiting murder. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #40 - November 15, 2011, 08:38 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 08:30 PM
    Emotion, empathy, etc. You know, the stuff that people rely on for social interactions. A useful moral code has to take account of irrational factors.

    But when we ponder these things and figure them into deriving a communicable moral statement, we rationally consider them in retrospect or with a measure of critical detachment. 
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #41 - November 15, 2011, 08:41 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 08:34 PM
    Ok, try this. Give me a purely rational justification for prohibiting murder. Smiley

    Give me a written or spoken argument from emotion or empathy that isn't rationally formed.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #42 - November 15, 2011, 08:42 PM
    Yes, and that's fine. But you have to consider them. A perfectly rational being wouldn't see them as important.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #43 - November 15, 2011, 08:52 PM
    It's irrational to not at least consider all the factors. Utility should be the test of their importance.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #44 - November 15, 2011, 09:00 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 08:52 PM
    It's irrational to not at least consider all the factors. Utility should be the test of their importance.

    Really. Ok, try this for an example.

    Let's say, hypothetically, that some research is done and it's found that abolishing all rape crisis and counselling services is the most cost effective option. Societal cohesion doesn't appear to be adversely impacted, overall productivity stays the same, as far as anyone can tell. Turns out that most people manage to deal with it, and for the extra cases that are more problematic, just giving them a few pills to keep them in robot mode works out cheaper than paying for counselling services, etc.

    Obviously, in this case the most utilitarian option would be to abolish those services. Should we do this or not?

    Bear in mind that you are talking to someone who can easily rememeber when none of these services existed, and society stayed together just fine, with good productivity.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #45 - November 15, 2011, 09:04 PM
    Why is cost effectiveness the measure of a things value?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #46 - November 15, 2011, 09:08 PM
    Because it is a good measure of utility, in the absence of any other outstanding factors.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #47 - November 15, 2011, 09:14 PM
    If there are no other factors in this hypothetical universe, then absolutely, stopping things that are merely a waste of money and have no actual utility would be most beneficial within that hypothetical universe.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #48 - November 15, 2011, 09:17 PM
    What other factors would you like to consider, in your universe?

    And how's that perfectly rational reason for prohibiting murder coming along? grin12
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #49 - November 15, 2011, 09:31 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 09:17 PM
    What other factors would you like to consider, in your universe?

    Answer your own question: What is the utility of rape crisis centers?

    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 09:17 PM
    And how's that perfectly rational reason for prohibiting murder coming along? grin12

    I didn't actually give it any thought since you asked such a loaded question. Murder covers such a broad spectrum of human behaviour and action, and depending on the definition, in some contexts it is potentially justifiable and in others not. Not all individual acts of murder can be justified the same way either. And even if you managed somehow to justify the ideologically impartial practice of murder, as a general principle, not all acts of murder are automatically justified.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #50 - November 15, 2011, 09:37 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 09:31 PM
    Answer your own question: What is the utility of rape crisis centers?

    How about you start? You're the one who claimed that "utility should be the test of their importance". How are you gong to decide on importance in this case?


    Quote
    I didn't actually give it any thought since you asked such a loaded question. Murder covers such a broad spectrum of human behaviour and action, and depending on the definition, in some contexts it is potentially justifiable and in others not. Not all individual acts of murder can be justified the same way either. And even if you managed somehow to justify the ideologically impartial practice of murder, as a general principle, not all acts of murder are automatically justified.

    I wasn't referring to justifiable homicide, just common or garden murder. IOW, the question was not intended to be loaded in the sense that you suggest.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #51 - November 15, 2011, 09:38 PM
    Murder is never Justifiable.

    Killins is but since killing is a GENUS and murder is a species.

    Killing as a Genus is divided in many species which is:

    a) murder, which is killing an innocent person that has never done anything to you or to anyone

    b) Killing in Self defense, someone tries to kill u out of the blue sky and u defend urself and in the process u kill him.

    c) Execution, process executed by legal authorities like executing someone that has just raped and killed 5 kids.

    So no, murder is never justifiable.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #52 - November 15, 2011, 09:46 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 09:37 PM
    How about you start? You're the one who claimed that "utility should be the test of their importance". How are you gong to decide on importance in this case?

    Do you subscribe to the idea that rape victims are an undeserved group and that the physical and psychological damage of rape is demonstrable and harms a person's well-being as well as having detrimental trickle-in effects to society overall? And that rape crisis centers alleviate some of that harm?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #53 - November 15, 2011, 09:49 PM
    Sure, but that doesn't give any indication of the overall importance.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #54 - November 15, 2011, 09:51 PM
    What do you mean by importance?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #55 - November 15, 2011, 09:57 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 09:37 PM
    just common or garden murder.

    What is this strange creature you describe?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #56 - November 15, 2011, 10:01 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 09:51 PM
    What do you mean by importance?

    Well you raised it with your comment about utility. How do you decide on importance?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #57 - November 15, 2011, 10:02 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 09:57 PM
    What is this strange creature you describe?

    Take it as "any killing of another person, which the law would not recognise as justifiable or authorised homicide".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #58 - November 15, 2011, 10:15 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:01 PM
    Well you raised it with your comment about utility. How do you decide on importance?

    Nope. You said a perfectly rational being wouldn't see them as important. What do you mean by importance?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #59 - November 15, 2011, 10:17 PM
    Ah. I mean "not worthy of consideration".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »