Equity, morality

[bahman]

It's possible (and preferable in my view) to take an approach to morality that's not principle-oriented.

How do you decide the right solution for a situation if you don't believe in any principle?

My disposition/intuition.

What is intuition to you?

That's what everyone ultimately uses even if they use a principle-oriented approach. Moral principles are dispositional.

True.

I characterize morality/ethics simply as dispositions towards interpersonal behavior (which can include "person towards themselves") with respect to behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette.

Could you please elaborate?

What isn't clear about that to you? (It would help to know just what you need elaborated.)

It is clear now.

[Terrapin Station]

How do you decide the right solution for a situation if you don't believe in any principle?

My disposition/intuition.

What is intuition to you?

The standard definition: "instinctive" feeling rather than something reasoned.

[bahman]

My disposition/intuition.

What is intuition to you?

The standard definition: "instinctive" feeling rather than something reasoned.

But feeling could be wrong like greed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is a set of principles that provide the right solution for a situation. Equity is the main principle.

To Hitler, what he did was the right solution to a situation.
That can hardly be considered moral.

He did not believe in equity.

I mean you cannot define morality in term of 'right solution for a situation'.

Equity is merely a virtue not the main principle of morality, albeit it is essential within morality and ethics.

By equity being the main principle I mean that we can reach a moral society by that.

Equity is a necessary general principle and virtue which is applicable to many other aspects of life.

As such, equity is not the critical criteria that defines morality.

What is morality is mainly about doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil' where both terms must be defined precisely for the purpose of morality.

I don't think so. Evil could be necessary for a given situation. That is why I use right instead of good. I make the distinction between, good, evil, right, and wrong.

The words good, evil, right, and wrong are very loose and can be very relative and subjective.

"Right versus Wrong" is TOO loose as I highlighted with the Hitler example.
Something concluded as 'wrong' is not always evil, e.g. 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong, etc. but what is 'evil' is always wrong. [except for some perverted interpretations].

I believe 'good versus evil' is the most effective distinction for 'morality versus immorality'
The concept of 'evil' [non-supernatural] is the critical leverage to what is morality.

As such whatever is evil [as defined] is definitely immoral, and thus what is 'good' is moral [as defined].
Evil per se must be defined is such a way that it is absolutely never right nor 'good' for any given situation.

[bahman]

To Hitler, what he did was the right solution to a situation.
That can hardly be considered moral.

He did not believe in equity.

I mean you cannot define morality in term of 'right solution for a situation'.

I can when ethics is based on the principle of equity.

Equity is merely a virtue not the main principle of morality, albeit it is essential within morality and ethics.

By equity being the main principle I mean that we can reach a moral society by that.

Equity is a necessary general principle and virtue which is applicable to many other aspects of life.

As such, equity is not the critical criteria that defines morality.

You find peace when you apply equity to all aspects of life. Therefore, equity is the main base for ethics.

What is morality is mainly about doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil' where both terms must be defined precisely for the purpose of morality.

I don't think so. Evil could be necessary for a given situation. That is why I use right instead of good. I make the distinction between, good, evil, right, and wrong.

The words good, evil, right, and wrong are very loose and can be very relative and subjective.

"Right versus Wrong" is TOO loose as I highlighted with the Hitler example.
Something concluded as 'wrong' is not always evil, e.g. 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong, etc. but what is 'evil' is always wrong. [except for some perverted interpretations].

I believe 'good versus evil' is the most effective distinction for 'morality versus immorality'
The concept of 'evil' [non-supernatural] is the critical leverage to what is morality.

As such whatever is evil [as defined] is definitely immoral, and thus what is 'good' is moral [as defined].
Evil per se must be defined is such a way that it is absolutely never right nor 'good' for any given situation.

This is off-topic so I leave it for another thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

He did not believe in equity.

I mean you cannot define morality in term of 'right solution for a situation'.

I can when ethics is based on the principle of equity.

By equity being the main principle I mean that we can reach a moral society by that.

Equity is a necessary general principle and virtue which is applicable to many other aspects of life.

As such, equity is not the critical criteria that defines morality.

You find peace when you apply equity to all aspects of life. Therefore, equity is the main base for ethics.

Point is humans by nature are variable across a Normal Distribution. [.I presume you are familiar with this]
As such the virtue of equity cannot be equitably applied to the above variations. Note, everything need not be equal, fair, impartial to the dot.

Yes, equity in principle is necessary for morality, but what is more critical is there should be no 'evil' [as defined] but all good [defined as no evil] in terms of morality.

[bahman]

I mean you cannot define morality in term of 'right solution for a situation'.

I can when ethics is based on the principle of equity.

Equity is a necessary general principle and virtue which is applicable to many other aspects of life.

As such, equity is not the critical criteria that defines morality.

You find peace when you apply equity to all aspects of life. Therefore, equity is the main base for ethics.

Point is humans by nature are variable across a Normal Distribution. [.I presume you are familiar with this]
As such the virtue of equity cannot be equitably applied to the above variations. Note, everything need not be equal, fair, impartial to the dot.

Yes, we are different in what fate offers us but similar in mind. What we get, body, family, etc. is due to fate. Fate is the main reason for inequality in humanity which can be avoided once we realize that we are similar.

Yes, equity in principle is necessary for morality, but what is more critical is there should be no 'evil' [as defined] but all good [defined as no evil] in terms of morality.

Well, that depends on what good and evil mean which is the subject of another thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can when ethics is based on the principle of equity.


You find peace when you apply equity to all aspects of life. Therefore, equity is the main base for ethics.

Point is humans by nature are variable across a Normal Distribution. [.I presume you are familiar with this]
As such the virtue of equity cannot be equitably applied to the above variations. Note, everything need not be equal, fair, impartial to the dot.

Yes, we are different in what fate offers us but similar in mind. What we get, body, family, etc. is due to fate. Fate is the main reason for inequality in humanity which can be avoided once we realize that we are similar.

All humans has generic features [physical, mental, mind] but they manifest and differ in degrees.

There is inherent inequality in humanity via evolution and inequality [non-evil] may be a necessity to ensure the survival of humanity.

As such, inequality in humanity cannot be avoided.
Surely you are not expecting all humans to be equal in all human variables, e.g. physically and mentally?

Yes, equity in principle is necessary for morality, but what is more critical is there should be no 'evil' [as defined] but all good [defined as no evil] in terms of morality.

Well, that depends on what good and evil mean which is the subject of another thread.

As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

The effective starting point is to understand "what is evil" precisely.
I have done extensive research on that subject to support my views.

[Peter Holmes]

So ... morality deals with the nature of, and distinction between, good and evil.

And those, of course, are real things that can be empirically shown to exist.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Why didn't you explain this earlier? Done and dusted.

[Terrapin Station]

What is intuition to you?

The standard definition: "instinctive" feeling rather than something reasoned.

But feeling could be wrong like greed.

It can't be wrong if there is ONLY feeling in the case at hand. What would it be getting wrong? If we're talking about something that's only feelings, then it's simply a matter or whether someone has a feeling or not. There's nothing for the feeling to correctly/incorrectly match; nothing for the feeling to get right (by correctly matching something else) or wrong (by incorrectly matching something else).

[bahman]

The standard definition: "instinctive" feeling rather than something reasoned.

But feeling could be wrong like greed.

It can't be wrong if there is ONLY feeling in the case at hand. What would it be getting wrong? If we're talking about something that's only feelings, then it's simply a matter or whether someone has a feeling or not. There's nothing for the feeling to correctly/incorrectly match; nothing for the feeling to get right (by correctly matching something else) or wrong (by incorrectly matching something else).

A serial killer feels good at the moment of killing! What would you do with this case?

[bahman]

Point is humans by nature are variable across a Normal Distribution. [.I presume you are familiar with this]
As such the virtue of equity cannot be equitably applied to the above variations. Note, everything need not be equal, fair, impartial to the dot.

Yes, we are different in what fate offers us but similar in mind. What we get, body, family, etc. is due to fate. Fate is the main reason for inequality in humanity which can be avoided once we realize that we are similar.

All humans has generic features [physical, mental, mind] but they manifest and differ in degrees.

There is inherent inequality in humanity via evolution and inequality [non-evil] may be a necessity to ensure the survival of humanity.

As such, inequality in humanity cannot be avoided.
Surely you are not expecting all humans to be equal in all human variables, e.g. physically and mentally?

Sure we are inequal in fate. I am saying that fate cannot be a factor for morality. What is important is that we are in equal in essence and similar in nature.

Yes, equity in principle is necessary for morality, but what is more critical is there should be no 'evil' [as defined] but all good [defined as no evil] in terms of morality.

Well, that depends on what good and evil mean which is the subject of another thread.

As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

The effective starting point is to understand "what is evil" precisely.
I have done extensive research on that subject to support my views.

Evil and good are properties of feelings and thoughts. Good feeling like pleasure and bad feeling like pain. Thoughts can be divide into evil (question for example) and good (such as answers).

[bahman]

So ... morality deals with the nature of, and distinction between, good and evil.

And those, of course, are real things that can be empirically shown to exist.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Why didn't you explain this earlier? Done and dusted.

It is about fulfilling the right decision in a moral situation. The decision should be toward the principle of equality. Good or evil decision is matter of the situation.

[bahman]

To Hitler, what he did was the right solution to a situation.
That can hardly be considered moral.

He did not believe in equity.

I mean you cannot define morality in term of 'right solution for a situation'.

I am saying that you can derive ethics from the principle of equity.

Equity is merely a virtue not the main principle of morality, albeit it is essential within morality and ethics.

By equity being the main principle I mean that we can reach a moral society by that.

Equity is a necessary general principle and virtue which is applicable to many other aspects of life.

As such, equity is not the critical criteria that define morality.

Equity has an application to morality when it is understood and accepted by people.

What is morality is mainly about doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil' where both terms must be defined precisely for the purpose of morality.

I don't think so. Evil could be necessary for a given situation. That is why I use right instead of good. I make the distinction between, good, evil, right, and wrong.

The words good, evil, right, and wrong are very loose and can be very relative and subjective.

"Right versus Wrong" is TOO loose as I highlighted with the Hitler example.
Something concluded as 'wrong' is not always evil, e.g. 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong, etc. but what is 'evil' is always wrong. [except for some perverted interpretations].

I believe 'good versus evil' is the most effective distinction for 'morality versus immorality'
The concept of 'evil' [non-supernatural] is the critical leverage to what is morality.

As such whatever is evil [as defined] is definitely immoral, and thus what is 'good' is moral [as defined].
Evil per se must be defined is such a way that it is absolutely never right nor 'good' for any given situation.

Evil and good are the attributes of feeling and thoughts. Good feeling such as pleasure. And otherwise. Good thought like an answer. And otherwise. Any situation is defined as how our feelings and thoughts are aligned with good and evil. The right decision should be based on the principle of equity.

[Terrapin Station]

But feeling could be wrong like greed.

It can't be wrong if there is ONLY feeling in the case at hand. What would it be getting wrong? If we're talking about something that's only feelings, then it's simply a matter or whether someone has a feeling or not. There's nothing for the feeling to correctly/incorrectly match; nothing for the feeling to get right (by correctly matching something else) or wrong (by incorrectly matching something else).

A serial killer feels good at the moment of killing! What would you do with this case?

So, first, they're not getting anything incorrect about morality. But they live in a society, obviously, where the rest of us can decide to separate a serial killer from others so that they can't kill others, which is what I'd do.