Why Be Moral?

[Immanuel Can]

What my point meant is there is no absolute moral standards, i.e. an ought.

I don't get all this fixation on ought.

It's literally the question whether or not any empirical fact makes us "owe" anybody (ourselves or anyone else) anything.

"Ought" is a contraction of two words: "owe it."

If X is so (an empirical fact), do we "owe it" to do Y (any action at all, in particular) for anybody.

[henry quirk]

It's literally the question whether or not any empirical fact makes us "owe" anybody (ourselves or anyone else) anything.

Where's the ought in mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else?

Where's the ought in don't leash man?

Where's the ought in a man's life, liberty, and property are his alone?

Ought, seems to be, is just torturin' the language.

I got no patience for that.

[Impenitent]

owe owe owe your boat
if it sinks you swim
then your'e stuck paying
a loan you can't float
the fishes all will grin

something like that...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

It's literally the question whether or not any empirical fact makes us "owe" anybody (ourselves or anyone else) anything.

Where's the ought in mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else?

Right there.

"You ought (by implication, since it's a command) to mind your own business, and keep your hands to yourself."

Where's the ought in don't leash man?

"You ought not to leash man."

Where's the ought in a man's life, liberty, and property are his alone?

"You ought to recognize that a man's life, liberty and property are his alone."

Ought, seems to be, is just torturin' the language.

No, it's there: it's always implicit in a command. Commands take the tacit subject "you," and a command implies an "ought."

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Is this problem for you? You really cannot think of a reason why it is not in your self-interest to rape and murder? I have no such problem. My objective is to be the best human being I can be and to know all I have and enjoy is because I have earned it and my life is all it can possibly be. My own sense of self-worth and personal integrity make it impossible for me to even consider such a despicable question as you ask. I see it's no problem for you.

I can think of plenty of reasons, but according to you, you don't make "moral" judgments (even though you have contradictorily said that many things are "wrong"), so how would you tell a person who wishes to rape and murder that he is "wrong"?

As far as serious legal or moral philosophy, as well as psychology such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, the theoretical potential to act in violent or aberrant ways which people wouldn't want to "think they would do" nor consciously "plan" to do exists; this is what the philosophy of the law and much legal and moral philosophy is based on (whether "religious", secular, or otherwise), whether denialists like it or not. (For example, the law distinguishes between more serious, "pre-meditated crimes" done rationally and intentionally, from "crimes of passion" or those done while in the heat of the "moment" or an irrational state of mind).

An example that could be easily used would be political or sports violence; in most cases this isn't "premeditated" violence akin to Charles Manson, but rather people acting "savage" or violent under certain conditions while not in a fully rational state of mind.

Government is wrong because there is not a single objective or purpose which it can fulfill, unless you consider oppression, war, mass murder, and the impoverishment of people suitable objectives or purposes.

The types of behaviors which manifest themselves in such ways are by no means solely identifiable with a "hypothetical" state, or many of the false dichotomies surrounding it, such as "public and private" ones, if the actual history of government spending from ancient Rome to the present day is actually attempted to be mathematically accounted for.

there is no reason for anyone to care what I think of how they choose to live their life, because I won't be judging them, reality and their own nature will judge them and, no matter what they think, no one can do wrong and get away with it.

Okay, so you're admitting that rape and murder are "wrong", not just alternative "lifestyle preferences or choices then.

They would certainly be wrong for me, if that's an admission. I have no idea what is wrong for someone else, I only know if what they do is wrong, they will suffer the consequences. I have no idea what your objection is.

So if rape or murder isn't "wrong for them", they won't suffer any consequences?

[RCSaunders]

I mistakenly thought you were using them as all normal English speaking individuals use them, not with your own private meanings.

There is absolutely NO 'normal' english speaking individuals.

Since you do not believe or disbelieve anything, I know you do not really mean that, which is good, because you have no idea how funny someone who does not even know the word, "English," is always capitalized in English sound criticizing English.

I have been a professional writer for many years, and taught and managed many writers and editors. You may consult the Chicago Manual of Style, or Strunk and White to learn what, "normal," English means.

The fact is the very reason human beings are confused and misunderstand each other is because there is NO 'normal' english language to speak.

Another reason for confusion is those trying to use English without having any idea how to use it. I don't know who taught you English but either they were totally incompetent or you are just unable to grasp the idiom.

This is because I write in a very specific way, for a very specific reason.

OK. Enjoy your writing. It's still, "English," not, "english."

[RCSaunders]

I can think of plenty of reasons, but according to you, you don't make "moral" judgments (even though you have contradictorily said that many things are "wrong"), so how would you tell a person who wishes to rape and murder that he is "wrong"?

As far as serious legal or moral philosophy, as well as psychology such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, the theoretical potential to act in violent or aberrant ways which people wouldn't want to "think they would do" nor consciously "plan" to do exists; this is what the philosophy of the law and much legal and moral philosophy is based on (whether "religious", secular, or otherwise), whether denialists like it or not. (For example, the law distinguishes between more serious, "pre-meditated crimes" done rationally and intentionally, from "crimes of passion" or those done while in the heat of the "moment" or an irrational state of mind).

An example that could be easily used would be political or sports violence; in most cases this isn't "premeditated" violence akin to Charles Manson, but rather people acting "savage" or violent under certain conditions while not in a fully rational state of mind.


The types of behaviors which manifest themselves in such ways are by no means solely identifiable with a "hypothetical" state, or many of the false dichotomies surrounding it, such as "public and private" ones, if the actual history of government spending from ancient Rome to the present day is actually attempted to be mathematically accounted for.


Okay, so you're admitting that rape and murder are "wrong", not just alternative "lifestyle preferences or choices then.

They would certainly be wrong for me, if that's an admission. I have no idea what is wrong for someone else, I only know if what they do is wrong, they will suffer the consequences. I have no idea what your objection is.

So if rape or murder isn't "wrong for them", they won't suffer any consequences?

There are always consequences. Whether they are good or bad depends on what the objective is. If it is to live, threatening a cop with a gun will probably result in a bad consequence. If one's objective is to die, threatening a cop with a gone will probably produce the desired result.

Do you decide what is right and wrong for others? I don't, so I cannot answer your question. If anyone attempts to rape or murder me or mine, they will die, but there is always a chance that's what they want.

[Age]

They would certainly be wrong for me, if that's an admission. I have no idea what is wrong for someone else, I only know if what they do is wrong, they will suffer the consequences. I have no idea what your objection is.

So if rape or murder isn't "wrong for them", they won't suffer any consequences?

There are always consequences. Whether they are good or bad depends on what the objective is. If it is to live, threatening a cop with a gun will probably result in a bad consequence. If one's objective is to die, threatening a cop with a gone will probably produce the desired result.

Do you decide what is right and wrong for others? I don't, so I cannot answer your question. If anyone attempts to rape or murder me or mine, they will die, but there is always a chance that's what they want.

Who or what is "yours"?

If I was to attempt to rape or murder "yours", then that does NOT mean that I will die.

In fact I could NOT and I would NOT die even if and when I do rape and murder the so called "yours".

By the way, they are NOT "yours" anyway. They are MINE, and it is up to Me to choose to do with how I want and when I want.

But, then again I do not expect 'you' to understand any of this, this is because 'you' are so CLOSED and therefore NOT able to understand and see things as they really ARE.

[Age]

I mistakenly thought you were using them as all normal English speaking individuals use them, not with your own private meanings.

There is absolutely NO 'normal' english speaking individuals.

Since you do not believe or disbelieve anything, I know you do not really mean that,

I MEAN that FAR MORE than you obviously realize.

which is good, because you have no idea how funny someone who does not even know the word, "English," is always capitalized in English sound criticizing English.

I write the word english purposely for a very specific reason. Just like I write Truth and truth for a very specific reason, just like I also write i and I for a specific reason.

By the way I NEVER "criticized" english at all, which can be clearly SEEN and EVIDENCED in what I have actually written so far.

I have been a professional writer for many years, and taught and managed many writers and editors. You may consult the Chicago Manual of Style, or Strunk and White to learn what, "normal," English means.

LOL so if any other manual says differently than the "chicago manual of style" or the "strunk and white", then they must not be teaching what so called "normal" english means, correct?

By the way is that even proper and correct english to write; "to learn what, "normal", English means"?

Are you even capable of explaining what does "normal English" mean, to you?

If yes, then please do.

The fact is the very reason human beings are confused and misunderstand each other is because there is NO 'normal' english language to speak.

Another reason for confusion is those trying to use English without having any idea how to use it.

Are you suggesting that I do not have any idea of how to use english?

I don't know who taught you English but either they were totally incompetent or you are just unable to grasp the idiom.

Obviously you have not read what I have previously written. That is; I am COMPLETELY and UTTERLY USELESS at communicating with 'you', human beings, and I have relatively NO education to the rest of 'you', human beings, here in this forum. So, I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with you, human beings.

This is because I write in a very specific way, for a very specific reason.

OK. Enjoy your writing. It's still, "English," not, "english."

According to who?

And, considering this is a philosophy forum and a topic about 'why be moral?' is you looking at the way I write the word 'english' with a capital 'E' or not really seem like the appropriate thing to be doing now?

In case you are yet aware; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

I have partly explained, in english words, how your pre-gained thoughts distort what thee actual Truth IS.

You have failed to understand this part explanation. And, as I have already previously explained the reason human beings do not understand me is not because of them but because I am still in a process of learning how to communicate better with human beings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already provided the links to my justifications.

They don't work. You've been repeatedly shown that, you just don't believe it.

I am not going to repeat that again.

There would be no value in you doing so. You would need some new, much better argument than that.

You have not provided any effective counter argument to my claims at all.

What you have in mind is, God [illusory] is the only entity that can issue objective absolute moral ought that is enforced upon believers and threatened with Hell if they do not comply. This is no difference from Political Laws and Dictatorial Laws.
Whilst Christian-Morality work to some degree it is actually pseudo-Morality due to the 'threat of Hell' element.

Strawman again.
I did not claim the 'Survival of the Fittest'.

So you don't believe in Evolution? That's the currently popular secular explanation. If you have a different one, then say what it is.

Note,
Evolution Myth: Survival of the Fittest
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... hemselves/
This is why I stated you are always a few steps behind.

I don't have to accept Darwin's theory of evolution lock-stock-and-barrel.
The fact is humans emerged upon 100s or 1000s of past generations where traits are passed from one generation to the next.

Nope. It will not "drive" anything. Greed for gold or desire for success will "drive" the smelter. The standard will only let him know once his own "drive" has achieved what he is "driven" to desire. The standard does not create either the desire or the action of smelting.

Rhetoric again.

No, it isn't. Rather, it's a substantive difference. Standards are abstractions. Abstractions do not have causal powers.

You've made what's called a "category error," by placing "standards" in the category we would call, "causally-powerful entities." They're not one of those.

Strawman again.
Who is talking about "causally-powerful entities" which you would want to lead to the idea of an illusory God, the devil, ghosts, etc. i.e. the nonsensical.

What I am proposing are standards as oughts which are abstractions, but they can be used a guide by humans to drive humans to continuous improvements.
In this case the improvements are related to good human behaviors i.e. Morality [as defined].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I have already justified the moral ought from empirical evidence, i.e. as "programmed," no human would want to be killed except the mental case.

But you've not realized that it's utterly irrelevant what a person would "want," in that case. We could equally argue, that since no person wants to age, to lose hair, or die at all, no person should age, lose hair, or die -- and that's obviously silly. Whether or not death is going to come is unrelated to "wanting" it to happen.

Strawman again.
Morality is related to human behavior and about physical human things.
Morality is that which is related to good or evil.
Morality is not against nature, i.e. dying naturally due to old age [inevitable mortality] is not an issue with morality. But killing someone is morality.

I have already argued,

• 1. no human would want to be killed except the mental case.
  2. This proposition can be tested first personally, common sense and questioning all humans which is not done yet but can be justified with philosophical reasoning, i.e. psychiatry confirmation, suicide is a mental problem.
  3. Applying the Golden Rule,
  4. No human ought to kill another human - the secular absolute moral ought

As I had repeated many times,
the above absolute moral ought is an ideal as such is to be used as a GUIDE only and should never be enforced.
When the above moral absolute is embedded within an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, it will drive improvements in moral and ethical conduct.
I have already demonstrated how in previous post re the reduction in the number of homicides killing on a yearly basis.

What counts is the moral improvement via neural development.
You have not disputed why my proposal above will not work.

I have repeated my argument above,
show which premise is false?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Doubtful. But even if true, who "programmed" them? Their "program" will be no more important than the name of the one who created that program. And if, as per secularism, the "program" is just a product of accidental forces, why should we listen to it? Why should it not be like other "programs" -- like our "program" for violence -- that you say we ought to conquer?

I deliberately used "programmed" in ".." to ensure in this case, no one resort to the immature thinking of 'who is the programmer'.

The fact that you imagine a "program" exists does not justify any claim that it does. But even if it did exist, who is to say you and I are duty-bound or morally obligated to follow this program?

You think we have to overcome our program to kill each other. I suppose you would also say we should overcome our "programs" to steal, or to compel sexual activity, or any number of other things we routinely do among humans. So what is the basis on which you say this "program," of all our "programs" is a "good" one, but all the others are "bad"?

I have this many times.
The secular absolute moral oughts are not to be enforced, duty-bound nor even morally obligated to follow.

The secular absolute moral oughts are merely GUIDES to guide behave morally good on a spontaneous basis, not being forced by duty-bound, some threat or obligation.
This must be supported by efficient neural development by oneself.

The impulses to kill and commit other evil are inherent within all human. This is like the forces of a great river like the Nile or Yangtze running through the human brain. There is no way to get rid of these forces except to manage and modulate them like building great and many dams along the river to modulate and dissipate the dangerous forces.

Thus secular absolute moral oughts are merely GUIDES to guide in building the necessary neural inhibitors to manage and modulate to promote good moral behaviors.

Yes, the purpose of morality and ethics involve and cover the full range of potential evil acts from 1% evilness e.g. lying, stealing to 90% evilness of mass murder, genocides and everything evil in between. The above range of evil acts are organized within a hierarchy in contrast to the highest good as the ideal standard.

As you can see, you are so many step behind.
Btw, what I have discussed re secular morality are merely tips of an iceberg and there is so much for you to follow up.
But being stuck with in a silo with theological-based-morality [pseudo] you are not likely to move far on this.

What we have here is empirical evidence of changes that point to evidence of improvements.

We do not. We killed more human beings in the last century than in all human history to that point combined.

But suddenly, you now DO believe in evolution -- only moral evolution, but not physical evolution: because if you believed in physical evolution, you would have to believe in Survival of the Fittest, which you say you don't...

Nonsense again. Note the myth of evolution re 'Survival of the Fittest' I pointed above.
What is so wrong with the concept of improvements which is also inherent within all humans. Note Maslow Hierarchy of Needs for example.

Regardless of how many people are killed in the past century, say 'N,'
once we have established an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics,
a negative variance will be generated between the number killed and the standard ideal ZERO death.
Then the efficient strategies controlled for improvement will progressively reduce the numbers of people killed by evil means from N.

The most critical strategy is we use the secular objective absolute ought as a FIXED standard to guide improvement.
Without this fixed absolute guide, albeit an impossible ideal, there is nothing to guide humanity to improve.

I had stated this secular morality model is already activated by humanity crudely albeit unconsciously, thus not formalized. It is a matter of time this natural model will be formalized and the discussion of this model now can expedite its formalization.

In contrast, the Christian Morality Model [albeit has some positive relatively] provide no room for improvements towards the Highest Good. As more people are converting out of Christianity to be non-theists* [so evident], it is a net loss for humanity on whatever positive there is from the Christian Morality Model.
* i.e. non-theists are no more threatened by God's threat of Hell.

[RCSaunders]

You have failed to understand this part explanation. And, as I have already previously explained the reason human beings do not understand me is not because of them but because I am still in a process of learning how to communicate better with human beings.

If you really want to communicate with humans, you'll have to learn how they communicate. They don't, for instance, begin by telling them they don't know how to use their own language. Almost everything human beings do they document in writing and its one way they communicate information from one individual to others. Almost every machine and device human beings used comes with a manual or other documentation explaining in as clear language as possible, how the machine is made, how it works, and how to operate it. On a day-to-day basis, another good example of communication is a cookbook. They explain in simple terms how to prepare food, and are written intentionally to ensure they can be understood by almost anyone. Before attempting to explain the more difficult concepts of philosophy, see if you can write a good explanation of how to prepare a meal. Start with something simple, like making scrambled eggs and bacon, or roasting a chicken. Good luck. (That's English for I hope you are successful.)

One other thing. Before worrying about whether you are making yourself understood, make sure what you want to say is worth saying and that any human being would interested in it. I think that is your real difficulty.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

They would certainly be wrong for me, if that's an admission. I have no idea what is wrong for someone else, I only know if what they do is wrong, they will suffer the consequences. I have no idea what your objection is.

So if rape or murder isn't "wrong for them", they won't suffer any consequences?

There are always consequences. Whether they are good or bad depends on what the objective is. If it is to live, threatening a cop with a gun will probably result in a bad consequence. If one's objective is to die, threatening a cop with a gone will probably produce the desired result.

Do you decide what is right and wrong for others? I don't, so I cannot answer your question. If anyone attempts to rape or murder me or mine, they will die, but there is always a chance that's what they want.

So you've decided for others that it's "wrong" to decide for others?

What if a person wishes to decide things for others, and not just themselves.

(Not to mention falsely conflating what one "wants" to do with the notion of "rightness to begin with). So no, even if a person decides the "want" to murder, it doesn't in any way means that it's "right", for them or anyone else, or that they're capable of deciding such a thing in a way which would mean anything to begin with.

[Immanuel Can]

I have already provided the links to my justifications.

They don't work. You've been repeatedly shown that, you just don't believe it.

I am not going to repeat that again.

There would be no value in you doing so. You would need some new, much better argument than that.

You have not provided any effective counter argument to my claims at all.

Then you haven't been reading. Never mind...I'll do it again, below.

What you have in mind is...

It doesn't actually matter whatever I have in mind. What matters for the ought-is question is whether secularism can do any better than anything else.

And it cannot. It cannot even logically sponsor any merely arbitrary morality, let alone an objective or, as you say, "ideal" one. Secularism is utterly amoral in its consequences.

I don't have to accept Darwin's theory of evolution lock-stock-and-barrel.

Your alternative it to reject Evolutionism entirely. Darwin quite explicitly depended his whole system on survival-of-the-fittest being true. He had no other mechanism of evolution at all, in fact.

Rhetoric again.

No, it isn't. Rather, it's a substantive difference. Standards are abstractions. Abstractions do not have causal powers.

You've made what's called a "category error," by placing "standards" in the category we would call, "causally-powerful entities." They're not one of those.

Strawman again.

I can see you don't know what a "straw man fallacy is." Not surprising, since you evidently found ad hominems too difficult to understand as well. I wonder what other fallacies you'll continually make without knowing...it will be interesting to see.

I have already justified the moral ought from empirical evidence, i.e. as "programmed," no human would want to be killed except the mental case.

But you've not realized that it's utterly irrelevant what a person would "want," in that case. We could equally argue, that since no person wants to age, to lose hair, or die at all, no person should age, lose hair, or die -- and that's obviously silly. Whether or not death is going to come is unrelated to "wanting" it to happen.

Strawman again.

Same mistake.

Try a new name next time...accuse me of being ad hoc ergo propter hoc, or of the pity fallacy next time, just to spice things up. It will be no more justified, but a little more interesting.

I have already argued,

• 1. no human would want to be killed except the mental case.
  2. This proposition can be tested first personally, common sense and questioning all humans which is not done yet but can be justified with philosophical reasoning, i.e. psychiatry confirmation, suicide is a mental problem.
  3. Applying the Golden Rule,
  4. No human ought to kill another human - the secular absolute moral ought

Yeah, it's still an incredibly bad argument, since you can't justify any of its premises at all. I don't think you have any experience with logic...if you had, you would know what you've presented isn't logical, isn't defensible and isn't a syllogism.

Take Philosophy 101 somewhere. In your first lesson, you'll learn why the above is wrong.

You have not disputed why my proposal above will not work.

Yeah, I have. But it seems it's more than anyone can do, to make you able to understand the problem. You just recycle it, which shows you have completely failed to grasp the critique. If you had any grasp of it, you'd at least try to patch up the faults, rather than simply repeating them as if that should impress us.

show which premise is false?

"False" is the wrong word. For example, the Golden Rule is not "false." In fact, can be insisted upon, if you had a Theistic supposition. IF there is a God, and IF He issues such a command, then such a command is certainly morally binding. But you have argued God is an illusion, so you can't rationally go that route yourself. You would need to show a secular reason why we are duty-bound to follow the GR.

But you cannot. You cannot, in fact, even see how to try to do that.

So you can't insist on the Golden Rule; you can't show it's right.

In short, the right word is not "false" but "rationally indefensible" is the right condemnation for your argument. On secular assumptions, no premise and no conclusion in it is warranted by secularism.

Now, I understand that you so far have shown you're utterly unable to comprehend that. If you thought more carefully, I think maybe you would. Either way, whether you do or not, it remains true: nothing there can be rationally insisted upon from the premise, "Secularism is true, therefore...etc."

[RCSaunders]

So if rape or murder isn't "wrong for them", they won't suffer any consequences?

There are always consequences. Whether they are good or bad depends on what the objective is. If it is to live, threatening a cop with a gun will probably result in a bad consequence. If one's objective is to die, threatening a cop with a gone will probably produce the desired result.

Do you decide what is right and wrong for others? I don't, so I cannot answer your question. If anyone attempts to rape or murder me or mine, they will die, but there is always a chance that's what they want.

So you've decided for others that it's "wrong" to decide for others?

I only make decisions for myself. Everyone has their own mind and must make their own choices and decisions. It's not something I decided, it is one's own nature that necessitates it.

What if a person wishes to decide things for others, and not just themselves.

Most people do. The wholesale version is called oppression and is usually done by means of, "governments." The retail version is just meddling. The consequences are not up to me, reality determines them.

(Not to mention falsely conflating what one "wants" to do with the notion of "rightness to begin with). So no, even if a person decides the "want" to murder, it doesn't in any way means that it's "right", for them or anyone else, or that they're capable of deciding such a thing in a way which would mean anything to begin with.

Desires or wants have nothing to do with what is good, bad, right, or wrong. First there must be some objective, purpose, goal, or end relative to which something has such a value.