Why Be Moral?

[Immanuel Can]

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

Then Stan is a bad person. He's vicious to those who could not possibly know they'd done anything wrong.

And so am I. Come to me, lay hands on me as I sit twiddlin' my thumbs, and I most surely will beat your ass.

Heh. You'd have to be a big guy. But maybe.

It's not exactly my point, Henry. My point is that when Stan whups Joe, it's because Joe ought to have known better. If there's no such thing as an "ought," though, Joe couldn't know any such thing. So Stan's violence would just be unfair.

[henry quirk]

You'd have to be a big guy. But maybe.

five eight, one forty-five, and mean

My point is that when Stan whups Joe, it's because Joe ought to have known better. If there's no such thing as an "ought," though, Joe couldn't know any such thing. So Stan's violence would just be unfair.

My point: when Joe lays hands on Stan, and Stan beats his ass, It ain't about ought. Stan doesn't care why Joe laid hands on him, or if Joe understands ownness. Stan understands and that's enough. Stan has no obligation to school Joe. He does, by his own reckoning, have an obligation to defend himself.

A mean dog (the 4-legged kind) bit me once and I beat the snot out of it.

A mean SOB (not as mean as me) sucker-punched me once and I beat the snot out of him.

The dog was incapable of understanding ought; the SOB may or may not have been capable of understanding ought. Wasn't my concern at the time; not my concern now. I have no expectations any-one or -thing will play nice cuz they ought to.

[RCSaunders]

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.

But there's nothing wrong with doing that, so who cares?

Your question was, "What if a person wishes to decide things for others, and not just themselves?" My point Is that is exactly the situation we have. Nobody cares except about which people will be doing the deciding for others, which is why they vote.

I don't care at all what others choose to do with their lives, but of what interest is it to you whether I care or not? Are you going to change what you believe depending on what I care about?

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.

That's my argument, a person can desire things which are inherently "bad", or shun things which are inherently "good"; it may be up to them to decide what do to, but a person wouldn't be able to decide for themselves in a vacuum what the inherent natures of goodness, badness, and so forth are, or else that would absurdist and nihilistic.

Nothing is inherently good or bad. My values are based on an objective goal, the only end that does not depend on mystic or inherent values divorced from reality. But it would be wrong for me to impose my values on anyone else, so I don't.

Even if a rapist elected to call rape "good" for some reason or another, or said that rape is right "for them", that wouldn't have any bearing on the inherent qualities of "rape" which make it what it is to begin with.

You must know more about rapists than I do. I can't even imagine what motivates someone to rape, much less evaluate what they are doing. I assume anyone who behaves that way is suffering some kind of mental sickness. (Did you know there are some women who actually like to be raped and will actually pay to have it simulated?)

[Immanuel Can]

You'd have to be a big guy. But maybe.

five eight, one forty-five, and mean

You'd have to be real, real mean, then. Fast, strong and dirty...and maybe equipped with a weapon. Then, maybe.

Otherwise, nah.

My point is that when Stan whups Joe, it's because Joe ought to have known better. If there's no such thing as an "ought," though, Joe couldn't know any such thing. So Stan's violence would just be unfair.

My point: when Joe lays hands on Stan, and Stan beats his ass, It ain't about ought.

In the moment, no. But if Stan knew beforehand that Joe had no idea what he was doing was wrong, then Stan would be just a psycho.

And you're arguing that there are no "oughts." So really, Stan ought to know, before he raises a finger, that Joe is entirely innocent.

And he beats him up anyway?

[RCSaunders]

First there must be some objective, purpose, goal, or end relative to which something has such a value.

So what types of objectives are "good" or "bad", and how is "value defined".

It is not objectives that are good or bad, it is objectives that determine which behavior is good (and will achieve the objective) and which is bad (preventing or inhibiting the achievement of the objective).

The objective of my principles is my life and my enjoyment of it as a human being. Since I have a specific nature that determines how I must live if I am going to be and achieve all I can and be all I can as a human being, it is that nature and the nature of the word I live in that determine how I must live, what is good for me to do, and what is bad.

These same principles will be true for any human being, and the success or failure of every human to live a thoroughly fulfilled and happy life will be determined by whether or not they choose to live by those principles. But principles are not mandates, not commandments, and not imposed on human beings. No one is compelled to observe these principles, but they cannot violate them without failing to live successfully as a human being. Most people do not choose to live by them which is why the world is full of so much human failure and misery.

[RCSaunders]

"Governments" have been around since ancient Rome up until the present day, so the people whining about the same, ubiquitous little issue in the days of Rome were just as impotent.

So have ignorance, poverty, disease, and superstition. Human beings keep making the same stupid mistakes.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

"Governments" have been around since ancient Rome up until the present day, so the people whining about the same, ubiquitous little issue in the days of Rome were just as impotent.

So have ignorance, poverty, disease, and superstition. Human beings keep making the same stupid mistakes.

Those things aren't "mistakes" so much as inevitable realities, so I don't see you having anything of value to say at all, let alone anything worthy of consideration of an actual legal or governmental discussion.

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying "killing people is wrong" and thinking that it's some profound observation which hasn't been made since the dawn of man, and which has obviously had no practical relevance on the issue of murderer since ancient times to the present day. So you might as well find a new hobby.

The word "superstition" is also another silly, child word or term which, ironically gets used and abused by the superstitious, so I don't even feel the need to comment on that one, so much as just laugh.

[henry quirk]

Otherwise, nah.

One of us is overestimatin' himself and underestimatin' the other.

With luck, we'll never have to find out who that is.


if Stan knew beforehand that Joe had no idea what he was doing was wrong, then Stan would be just a psycho.

So, if Stan knows Joe is off his meds (or on some powerful illegal garbage), is completely 'round the bend, then as Joe is gnawin' on his face, Stan should do nuthin'.


And you're arguing that there are no "oughts."

No, sir. I asked why the fixation on ought, pointed out why ought doesn't really matter. I'm a proponent of natural law/rights so I understand moral reality. But: let's say it were proven Reality truly is rudderless, amoral, godless. I will still see myself as my own, still defend myself as though that opinion were more than opinion.


So really, Stan ought to know, before he raises a finger, that Joe is entirely innocent.

And he beats him up anyway?

How is ought or ought's absence supposed to empower Stan to know diddly about Joe's state of mind or his moral understanding? And why would the absence of ought compel Stan to do any more more than he was in my examples (mindin' his own bee's wax or twiddlin' his thumbs)?

[Immanuel Can]

Otherwise, nah.

One of us is overestimatin' himself and underestimatin' the other.

With luck, we'll never have to find out who that is.

Well, we've got the distances right for that. And maybe several inches and a hundred pounds doesn't always make a difference. It's all about what you do with it.

But I'd still rather buy you a beer than take a swing at you.

if Stan knew beforehand that Joe had no idea what he was doing was wrong, then Stan would be just a psycho.

So, if Stan knows Joe is off his meds (or on some powerful illegal garbage), is completely 'round the bend, then as Joe is gnawin' on his face, Stan should do nuthin'.

No, of course not. Stan should defend himself, because he's in imminent danger if he does not. So that skews the case. It would only apply to cases of imminent threat.

But let's take a more equitable case. Joe takes Stan's bike. Stan is angry. He chases down Joe. But when he catches him, he realizes that Joe is mentally handicapped, and is incapable of understanding property as an idea. Joe has absolutely no concept of "oughts."

Would a good Stan beat the crap out of Joe anyway?

But: let's say it were proven Reality truly is rudderless, amoral, godless. I will still see myself as my own, still defend myself as though that opinion were more than opinion.

It's that last phrase that's telling: "as though that opinion were more than an opinion." I would argue that you are inclined to do that because it IS more than an opinion, and our consciences intuit that. Deep in our hearts, we know that morality is not "rudderless, amoral, and Godless." Even those who refuse to recognize that in theoretical argument act as if it is true when injustices are perpetrated on them personally.

[henry quirk]

No, of course not. Stan should defend himself, because he's in imminent danger if he does not. So that skews the case. It would only apply to cases of imminent threat.

So, if, as I said way the hell up-thread, Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe, Stan is in the right.


But let's take a more equitable case. Joe takes Stan's bike. Stan is angry. He chases down Joe. But when he catches him, he realizes that Joe is mentally handicapped, and is incapable of understanding property as an idea. Joe has absolutely no concept of "oughts."

That's another matter, far more skewed than what I offered (which you declared as wrong but now see as right).

Anyway: Stan takes his bike back. If Joe objects, Stan may have to rough him up (a slap upside the head instead of an ass whuppin'). Not seein' how Joe's incapacity obligates Stan to forgo what's his. To make you happy, though, we can always say Stan rings the fuzz and has them reclaim his property.


It's that last phrase that's telling: "as though that opinion were more than an opinion." I would argue that you are inclined to do that because it IS more than an opinion, and our consciences intuit that. Deep in our hearts, we know that morality is not "rudderless, amoral, and Godless." Even those who refuse to recognize that in theoretical argument act as if it is true when injustices are perpetrated on them personally.

Utterly missin' it, Mannie. I know there's a moral reality. My supposin' was if it were proven that Reality were rudderless, that ownness is not a property but only an opinion, I would still think and act and live as if it were more than an opinion.

Why would I do such a thing in an amoral existence? For the same reason so many do awful things in a moral existence: cuz I choose to.

[Immanuel Can]

Not seein' how Joe's incapacity obligates Stan to forgo what's his.

It doesn't. But my question is, does he beat the crap out of Joe? And you said "No."

So why not? Because Joe doesn't understand the "ought" of the situation. It would be cruel and stupid to beat somebody like that. So if you're a sensible Stan, you take your property back, tell the cops you're not interested in pressing charges against a mentally handicapped person, and feel sorry for the poor slob who doesn't understand such things. That's the best you can do.

It's about intent. The law recognizes the same thing. If a person is incapable of understanding right from wrong, he cannot be found criminally responsible, even if he did the deed. No "oughts," no fault.

Just so, if a person can't understand the "ought," it would be arbitrary and cruel to harm him.

My supposin' was if it were proven that Reality were rudderless, that ownness is not a property but only an opinion, I would still think and act and live as if it were more than an opinion.

And maybe that's right. But if reality is really "rudderless" in this way, you would have to admit that you would be fooling yourself. Nobody "owed" you not to steal your stuff, or, for that matter, "owed" you not to attack you.

So then, there would be no moral justification for you behaving like that. You might do it, but it would be just what you say it is...an arbitrary "choice," no more. And then you could never speak of it being moral.

[henry quirk]

my question is, does he beat the crap out of Joe? And you said "No."

Yep. But he might slap him upside the head.


So why not? Because Joe doesn't understand the "ought" of the situation.

No. Stan refrains cuz there's no, as you say, imminent danger. If in objectin' to Stan reclaiming his property, Joe goes ape shit, becoming an imminent danger, Stan just might have to go to town on 'em.


And maybe that's right. But if reality is really "rudderless" in this way, you would have to admit that you would be fooling yourself.

Meh, that could be the case right now with me believin' in moral reality.

Can't be bothered to be bothered by all the possibilities.


Nobody "owed" you not to steal your stuff, or, for that matter, "owed" you not to attack you.

Best I can tell, no one owes me diddly now, in a moral universe. Or, if they do, there's nuthin' in place to ensure they abide, hence the necessity of fists, knives, guns, and bombs.

Free will is a bitch.

[Immanuel Can]

Free will is a bitch.

But the opposite side of free will is responsibility. That's the part we all want to forget.

Here's how it works. I have the freedom to act like a jackass. And the other patrons of the bar have the freedom to throw me out. What happened to me is then my responsibility.
I have the freedom to steal my neighbour's horse. And he has the freedom to shoot me. I have the responsibility for my own death, then.
I have the freedom to leap from a waterpower. And the ground has the freedom to turn me into clam chowder. The responsibility for my being chowder is mine.

When I have freedom, it means I eat the consequences. All of them. Every time. So I'm totally responsible for what I do with my freedom.

That's reality.

But what people want is not that. What they want is to have the freedom to misbehave, but then the luxury afterward to avoid the consequences. They don't want to end up responsible for their use of freedom. They want the freedom, but no responsibility.

And above all, they don't want to be told, "You had freedom in your life. You lived it your way. And now comes the responsibility part; you're going to answer for the choices you made."

But that's how it is.

[henry quirk]

When I have freedom, it means I eat the consequences.

If wishes were fishes.

Truth is: many murders, rapes, thefts go unpunished. Serial killers and pedos live in our neighborhoods and many will never answer for their awfulness.

That's reality.

Now, if you're right, each will get his comeuppance in the next life.

Me, I ain't holdin' my breath on that one.

I'd like to believe my god rebalances the scales, but I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

When I have freedom, it means I eat the consequences.

If wishes were fishes.

Truth is: many murders, rapes, thefts go unpunished. Serial killers and pedos live in our neighborhoods and many will never answer for their awfulness.

That's reality.

Now, if you're right, each will get his comeuppance in the next life.

Me, I ain't holdin' my breath on that one.

I'd like to believe my god rebalances the scales, but I don't.

I believe He does. That's why I spend a lot of time saying to folks, "Look; you're enjoying a lot of freedom right now. Take thought for the fact that it's your responsibility, and consequences come."

At the end of the day, we live in a moral universe, under the control of a just God. People don't believe that right now, because right now things don't look fair to them. And they aren't....yet. And meanwhile, they think that God's patience is His slackness about these things. But reckoning is coming.

We all eat the consequences. And consequently, we all need to take shelter.