What is a right action?

[Skepdick]

I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.

Uhuh.

How do you decide if a decision is "free"?

[bahman]

You have a bias for both A and B but there is a tension in the situation that does not allow you to rationally decide. Can you still decide. Of course yes. You can choose A or B unconditionally, so-called free decision.

The moment you "unconditionally" or "freely" choose you are biased towards whatever your choice.

That is contradictory.

[Skepdick]

That is contradictory.

It isn't. To be biased is to choose.

Of course, in the social connotation the word "bias" is used as a pejorative.

I am biased towards moral choice.

[bahman]

Just catching up on this discussion.

In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong.

Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.

The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action.

I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.

And that's why there's no way to settle the dispute between moral assertions such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. They're not factual assertions with truth-value.

Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.

Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?

No, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.

Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?

Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.

Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.

No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.

[bahman]

Decisions are either rational or free.

I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.

The free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.

[bahman]

That is contradictory.

It isn't. To be biased is to choose.

Of course, in the social connotation the word "bias" is used as a pejorative.

I am biased towards moral choice.

You cannot unconditionally/not biased by anything and be biased by something.

[Skepdick]

You cannot unconditionally/not biased by anything and be biased by something.

Obviously.

Being unbiased is being indecisive.

Nobody is indecisive, therefore nobody is unbiased.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action.


I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evil. This criterion exists, fairness.


Killing a person is wrong since it is not fair. The person could be a fetus. We however can find a reasonable solution for any situation related to abortion.

Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?

No, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.

Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?

Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.

Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.

No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.

And you, like all moral fascists, know what the right prescription is. Same old delusion.

[Terrapin Station]

Decisions are either rational or free.

I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.

The free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.

You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"? Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"? (In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)

[bahman]

Do you think your defining (describing) moral rightness and wrongness, or good and evil, in terms of what you call fairness, settles the matter?

No, I have to show that fairness is the principle that can help us to choose between good or evil.

Is what counts as fairness a settled, indisputable matter?

Yes. Fairness arises from the fact that we are similar. We are given fate though, our bodies, families, etc. Fairness tells you that we should treat each other equally, regardless of what fate we have. There will be peace when we find equality. The door to peace is through fairness. Fairness also maximizes human functionality.

Sorry, but at the bottom is always a judgement - a matter of opinion - which is therefore subjective. The claims of moral realists and objectivists are false, or at least not shown to be true.

No, it is not a matter of opinion when the right prescription is given.

And you, like all moral fascists, know what the right prescription is. Same old delusion.

People are fascist when they think they are different. I am better than you. You are worst than him. Etc.

[bahman]

I would say that decisions are free, or they're not decisions. Rationality can be involved, of course, but the decision part still needs to be free or it's not actually a decision.

The free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.

You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?

Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.

Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?

It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.

(In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)

Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.

[bahman]

You cannot unconditionally/not biased by anything and be biased by something.

Obviously.

Being unbiased is being indecisive.

Nobody is indecisive, therefore nobody is unbiased.

We are free. Being unbiased does not mean that we cannot decide.

[Terrapin Station]

The free decision is unbiased whereas the rational decision is biased.

You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?

Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.

Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?

It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.

(In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)

Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.

In other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?

[bahman]

You're not using "free" to simply mean "not deterministic"?

Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.

Are you using it to amount to "statistically random"?

It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.

(In other words, so a 50-50 chance for a two-option decision, for example?)

Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.

In other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?

Are you looking for an example?

[Terrapin Station]

Free will is a non-deterministic phenomenon.


It looks random from the third perspective. There is an element of wanting in the free decision so it is not random from the first point of view.


Yes, 50-50 is very common. For example, it happens when we are not sure about the outcome of our decisions.

In other words, I don't know what you have in mind by an "unbiased" decision. What would an "unbiased" decision be?

Are you looking for an example?

Explanation and/or example, yes.