Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:53 am In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?

No, of course not. But that's because words like "good" and "bad," or "right" and "wrong," are not always value judgments. They are sometimes judgments based on mere pragma, or aesthetics, usefulness, or even preference. And when they are used that way, there is no moral connotation intended at all.

So to say, "This cheese has gone bad," is obviously not at all to say, "The cheese is immoral." But it's also probably not to say, "This cheese is useful," either. Or to say, "A hammer is the wrong tool to use in fixing iPhones" is not to say "Hammers are morally wrong," or even "You'll be morally wrong if you use a hammer." It just means, "The hammer will not produce the result for which it seems you are doing the operation." That's all.

That's all very simple indeed; there are various uses of those words.

The question is whether there is also a distinct moral connotation to some uses of those words, when moral matters are intended.

So to say, "Abortion is wrong," is not to say, "Abortion is aesthetically displeasing," though it certainly is. It is not to say, "Abortion will not kill the baby," or even "If you're aiming at future happiness, abortion will not be an effective method for getting there," although that also is true. Rather, someone who says, "Abortion is wrong" means, even if you liked looking at it (aesthetics), and even if you decide it's the effective method for getting what you hope for (pragma: not having a child to feed and raise, say, or eliminating unwanted females, in many cultures) or even if you prefer ("choice") to kill the child, it would STILL be wrong, and wrong in a sense more profound and absolute than any contingent goal or preference can ever say.

But not all people concede that such an utterance is even rationally possible. they claim that "moral" is only a misshapen synonym for one of these former things, pragma, aesthetics, preference, utility, whatever), and that the sooner we disabuse ourselves of the illusion that morality means anything, the more realistic we are being.

Such people are rightly called "amoral." And their work on this planet has been generally deplored by those who consider morality a real thing.

But what does "moral" mean, you ask? It means objectively and absolutely the requisite thing to do, especially in the face of things like aesthetics, pragma, preference and utility. Morality is what you SHOULD do, even when you really, really want to do something else. And that is because morality is inextricably linked to telos, meaning the idea that human beings are created entities with a trajectory and purpose they can succeed or fail in achieving. There is an absolute right and wrong way for a human being to live and behave, in other words...and that this way exists (and this is important) even when a person does not happen to know what it is, or even when his society says otherwise.

Morality is not contingent on human beings believing in it, anymore than gravity could not exist until human beings knew it did. It's grounded in the character of the Creator, and exists independently of mankind and their opinions, therefore. However, as you will know, some of us think we know something about it anyway, because we believe the Creator also reveals his character and intentions, and we think we know what He says in that way.

That too, is utterly independent of opinion: in the sense that if it's true, it's true, and if it's not, it's not, regardless of which side thinks they're right.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:02 pm Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

That has a couple of serious problems. For one, you cannot know what was the right or wrong choice without waiting for the final tally at some sort of judgment day at the end of an infinite number of possible universes. This limits the usefulness of the whole thing rather significantly.

But it also can make the most self evidently evil action appear to be good. Let us consider the case of Saint Slaughterboy The Child Killer...

In the days before Slaughterboy was a saint, he lived next door to Jane, a 5 year old child who like to help her dad do the gardening. Unbeknownst to all, Jane was the most evil person in history by far because she happened to be digging a hole above a portal to Hell, which would unleash a wave of evil demons who would torture every man, woman dog and cat for eternity. Luckily Saint Slaughterboy was a serial killer who murdered children, using their tender flesh to make sandwiches and their soft skin to make hats. Thus Jane was brutally murdered, eaten and worn as a trophy cap, before she could finish the fatal hole. A fitting end for the most evil being in history.

Yawn, these are old "straw-man" arguments against consequentialism.

First, reality is uncertain and probabilistic and I would argue that a definition of morality that reflects this is a feature and not a bug.
Second, let's assume we have two options. Option A) seeks to improve well-being but will sometimes be uncertain or B) a rule book where compliance can be clearly evaluated but which increases suffering. I would assert that a rule book that causes suffering is unethical, even it if provides the epistemic certainty that you find problematic.
Third, why do you need a tally? This reflects an underlying assumption that morality is about attributing blame, which is not a necessary attribute of morality (just reject Kant, and move on).

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:02 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:53 am In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?

So what kind of thing makes something, "morally," good, as opposed to just good because one likes it or, "morally," right as opposed to just right because it achieves some objective or purpose, and what makes something, "morally," bad, as opposed to just bad because one doesn't want or like it or, "morally," wrong as opposed to something that is just wrong because it fails to achieve some objective or purpose?

Whenever I see the word, "moral," used it always infers, implicitly, if not explicitly, a kind of judgement that doing what is morally bad or wrong makes one guilty of something while doing something morally good or right confers a kind of virtue. I do not know if everyone who uses the word moral includes that censorious or judgmental aspect of the word, but it is very commone.

I think any discussion of morality must make it perfectly clear what is meant by the word, "moral," and what differentiates, "moral," issues from all others, and the question answered, does one's behavior, from a moral perspective, determine one's guilt or virtue?

Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

All sentient beings? How do you define suffering? Since you cannot possibly know what experience of any other conscious being is, much less a sentient one, there is no way to measure another beings suffering or experience of well being. Since Turritopsis dohrnii, are essentially immortal, no matter what happens to all other life, their well being is assured, and morality is fulfilled. I think there is something wrong with your thesis.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:14 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:33 pm
Ought means owe it to. So you owe it to yourself and others to drink water to stay hydrated.
And also you owe it to others to refrain from killing . Also I owe it to God to do as He has instructed.

I owe you £1 is the same as I ought to give you £1.

I have no idea how that is supposed to answer my question, but appreciate the response.

My answer is like , there is no difference between efficiently right and morally right. Both efficiently right and morally right depend on criteria.

The criterion for efficiently right is usually a scientific or technological explanation or what your respected medic,or lawyer or the manufacturer said . The criterion for what is morally right may be what some important politician such as Muhammad , The Pope, or Moses said or is sometimes a sociological or biological explanation.

The distinction then is just a matter of which kind of authority or expert specifies the objective or end or purpose of the value. Is that right? (I mean, as you see it.)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:32 pm So to say, "Abortion is wrong," is not to say, "Abortion is aesthetically displeasing," though it certainly is.

I'm not dismissing your answer, IC. We'll never agree on that, since you believe in intrinsic values and a contingent universe, so, within the context of your beliefs your view of what, "moral," means really has to be what it is.

Your reference to what is or is not aesthetically displeasing just reminded me of something I learned after a couple of operations. In both cases, the surgeons invited me to have a look at the recording of the actual procedures, which were very interesting and they were rightfully proud of them. Their verbal descriptions, however, were a bit surprising: "isn't that incision beautiful," and "look how lovely those sutures are." I'm not sure if you've ever seen sutures inside an open chest cavity, but surgeons definitely have a unique sense of aesthetics.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:24 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:02 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:53 am In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?

So what kind of thing makes something, "morally," good, as opposed to just good because one likes it or, "morally," right as opposed to just right because it achieves some objective or purpose, and what makes something, "morally," bad, as opposed to just bad because one doesn't want or like it or, "morally," wrong as opposed to something that is just wrong because it fails to achieve some objective or purpose?

Whenever I see the word, "moral," used it always infers, implicitly, if not explicitly, a kind of judgement that doing what is morally bad or wrong makes one guilty of something while doing something morally good or right confers a kind of virtue. I do not know if everyone who uses the word moral includes that censorious or judgmental aspect of the word, but it is very commone.

I think any discussion of morality must make it perfectly clear what is meant by the word, "moral," and what differentiates, "moral," issues from all others, and the question answered, does one's behavior, from a moral perspective, determine one's guilt or virtue?

Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

All sentient beings? How do you define suffering? Since you cannot possibly know what experience of any other conscious being is, much less a sentient one, there is no way to measure another beings suffering or experience of well being. Since Turritopsis dohrnii, are essentially immortal, no matter what happens to all other life, their well being is assured, and morality is fulfilled. I think there is something wrong with your thesis.

How do you define suffering? Really, you have know idea what suffering is? Really? Let me know your secret, we will make millions.

I cannot possibly know what the experience of any other conscious being is. You believe that humans are so different that I have no idea what the experience of another human is... that empathy is an illusion... that neuroscience is pointless?

I would suggest you read some Matthieu Ricard and Layard for Eastern and Western perspectives on suffering / happiness, both with a certain scientific emphasis.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:02 pm Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

That has a couple of serious problems. For one, you cannot know what was the right or wrong choice without waiting for the final tally at some sort of judgment day at the end of an infinite number of possible universes. This limits the usefulness of the whole thing rather significantly.

But it also can make the most self evidently evil action appear to be good. Let us consider the case of Saint Slaughterboy The Child Killer...

In the days before Slaughterboy was a saint, he lived next door to Jane, a 5 year old child who like to help her dad do the gardening. Unbeknownst to all, Jane was the most evil person in history by far because she happened to be digging a hole above a portal to Hell, which would unleash a wave of evil demons who would torture every man, woman dog and cat for eternity. Luckily Saint Slaughterboy was a serial killer who murdered children, using their tender flesh to make sandwiches and their soft skin to make hats. Thus Jane was brutally murdered, eaten and worn as a trophy cap, before she could finish the fatal hole. A fitting end for the most evil being in history.

Yawn, these are old "straw-man" arguments against consequentialism.

First, reality is uncertain and probabilistic and I would argue that a definition of morality that reflects this is a feature and not a bug.

You can acheive that rather simply by accepting that morality is not a feature of nature, so isn't going to be easily bottled and sold as such.
Is there any need for new arguments against consequentialism? The old ones work perfectly well still.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Second, let's assume we have two options. Option A) seeks to improve well-being but will sometimes be uncertain or B) a rule book where compliance can be clearly evaluated but which increases suffering. I would assert that a rule book that causes suffering is unethical, even it if provides the epistemic certainty that you find problematic.

Now that's probably a strawman, I'm not flogging ethical certainty, which I'm guessing from that tangled sentence that you think I am? Beyond that I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that example. What argument are you using to justify consequentialism here? Is it a circular one where the greater good yadda yadda is the best because that promotes the greatest quantity of wellbeing?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Third, why do you need a tally? This reflects an underlying assumption that morality is about attributing blame, which is not a necessary attribute of morality (just reject Kant, and move on).

Under any normal description of morality I would suggest we expect it to at the very least be useful in saying "this is right and that is wrong". If you need to discard that entirely, you failed.

Why are we suddenly talking about Kant?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:50 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 pm
That has a couple of serious problems. For one, you cannot know what was the right or wrong choice without waiting for the final tally at some sort of judgment day at the end of an infinite number of possible universes. This limits the usefulness of the whole thing rather significantly.

But it also can make the most self evidently evil action appear to be good. Let us consider the case of Saint Slaughterboy The Child Killer...

In the days before Slaughterboy was a saint, he lived next door to Jane, a 5 year old child who like to help her dad do the gardening. Unbeknownst to all, Jane was the most evil person in history by far because she happened to be digging a hole above a portal to Hell, which would unleash a wave of evil demons who would torture every man, woman dog and cat for eternity. Luckily Saint Slaughterboy was a serial killer who murdered children, using their tender flesh to make sandwiches and their soft skin to make hats. Thus Jane was brutally murdered, eaten and worn as a trophy cap, before she could finish the fatal hole. A fitting end for the most evil being in history.

Yawn, these are old "straw-man" arguments against consequentialism.

First, reality is uncertain and probabilistic and I would argue that a definition of morality that reflects this is a feature and not a bug.

You can acheive that rather simply by accepting that morality is not a feature of nature, so isn't going to be easily bottled and sold as such.
Is there any need for new arguments against consequentialism? The old ones work perfectly well still.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Second, let's assume we have two options. Option A) seeks to improve well-being but will sometimes be uncertain or B) a rule book where compliance can be clearly evaluated but which increases suffering. I would assert that a rule book that causes suffering is unethical, even it if provides the epistemic certainty that you find problematic.

Now that's probably a strawman, I'm not flogging ethical certainty, which I'm guessing from that tangled sentence that you think I am? Beyond that I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that example. What argument are you using to justify consequentialism here? Is it a circular one where the greater good yadda yadda is the best because that promotes the greatest quantity of wellbeing?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Third, why do you need a tally? This reflects an underlying assumption that morality is about attributing blame, which is not a necessary attribute of morality (just reject Kant, and move on).

Under any normal description of morality I would suggest we expect it to at the very least be useful in saying "this is right and that is wrong". If you need to discard that entirely, you failed.

Why are we suddenly talking about Kant?

Well, your statement appeared to be flogging ethical certainty.
I not "justifying" consequentialism (that is a different exercise), I am defining ethics. There is a discussion regarding how one should live a good life. Aristotle talked about this, he called it "ethics".

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:12 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:50 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm

Yawn, these are old "straw-man" arguments against consequentialism.

First, reality is uncertain and probabilistic and I would argue that a definition of morality that reflects this is a feature and not a bug.

You can acheive that rather simply by accepting that morality is not a feature of nature, so isn't going to be easily bottled and sold as such.
Is there any need for new arguments against consequentialism? The old ones work perfectly well still.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Second, let's assume we have two options. Option A) seeks to improve well-being but will sometimes be uncertain or B) a rule book where compliance can be clearly evaluated but which increases suffering. I would assert that a rule book that causes suffering is unethical, even it if provides the epistemic certainty that you find problematic.

Now that's probably a strawman, I'm not flogging ethical certainty, which I'm guessing from that tangled sentence that you think I am? Beyond that I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that example. What argument are you using to justify consequentialism here? Is it a circular one where the greater good yadda yadda is the best because that promotes the greatest quantity of wellbeing?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm Third, why do you need a tally? This reflects an underlying assumption that morality is about attributing blame, which is not a necessary attribute of morality (just reject Kant, and move on).

Under any normal description of morality I would suggest we expect it to at the very least be useful in saying "this is right and that is wrong". If you need to discard that entirely, you failed.

Why are we suddenly talking about Kant?

Well, your statement appeared to be flogging ethical certainty.
I not "justifying" consequentialism (that is a different exercise), I am defining ethics. There is a discussion regarding how one should live a good life. Aristotle talked about this, he called it "ethics".

Saying something is "right" or "wrong" is different than saying that someone is to blame...I brought in Kant because you sub-text appeared Kantian to me.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:13 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:12 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:50 pm
You can acheive that rather simply by accepting that morality is not a feature of nature, so isn't going to be easily bottled and sold as such.
Is there any need for new arguments against consequentialism? The old ones work perfectly well still.


Now that's probably a strawman, I'm not flogging ethical certainty, which I'm guessing from that tangled sentence that you think I am? Beyond that I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that example. What argument are you using to justify consequentialism here? Is it a circular one where the greater good yadda yadda is the best because that promotes the greatest quantity of wellbeing?

Under any normal description of morality I would suggest we expect it to at the very least be useful in saying "this is right and that is wrong". If you need to discard that entirely, you failed.

Why are we suddenly talking about Kant?

Well, your statement appeared to be flogging ethical certainty.
I not "justifying" consequentialism (that is a different exercise), I am defining ethics. There is a discussion regarding how one should live a good life. Aristotle talked about this, he called it "ethics".

Saying something is "right" or "wrong" is different than saying that someone is to blame...I brought in Kant because you sub-text appeared Kantian to me.

Whatever, this blame nonsense is your side issue and I don't care about it at all. The two problems I pointed out for utilitarianism are not strawmwen, they are a distinct problem for it, hair splitting is no solution. If you don't want to have to defend consequentialism, the easy option is not to try and sneak it into the definition of morality as if nobody is going to notice.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:43 pm How do you define suffering? Really, you have know idea what suffering is? Really? Let me know your secret, we will make millions.

I know at least forty different ways people use the word suffering, but I have no way of knowing which one of them you mean.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever one regards as their, "suffering," it's their own fault. It's not up to anyone else relieve someone else's suffering and those who think it is are just meddlers in other people's affairs.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:53 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:43 pm How do you define suffering? Really, you have know idea what suffering is? Really? Let me know your secret, we will make millions.

I know at least forty different ways people use the word suffering, but I have no way of knowing which one of them you mean.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever one regards as their, "suffering," it's their own fault. It's not up to anyone else relieve someone else's suffering and those who think it is are just meddlers in other people's affairs.

Really? Have you read any Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism)... how do you address their concept of suffering?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:56 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:53 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:43 pm How do you define suffering? Really, you have know idea what suffering is? Really? Let me know your secret, we will make millions.

I know at least forty different ways people use the word suffering, but I have no way of knowing which one of them you mean.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever one regards as their, "suffering," it's their own fault. It's not up to anyone else relieve someone else's suffering and those who think it is are just meddlers in other people's affairs.

Really? Have you read any Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism)... how do you address their concept of suffering?

My first research paper was on the various varieties Hinayana And Mahayana Buddhism, Vedic Hinduism and Brahmanism, and I have examined most varieties of Tantric Yoga. It is all horribly superstitious nonsense. If there is any one common mistake in all such superstitions it is the fundamental mistake about life and human nature. The objective of life is not evading evil (or pain, or death, or suffering), but the achievement of good, life and happiness.

I regard all superstition as absurd, "Silly Religion." [My article here on Philosophy Now.]

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:03 pm

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:56 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:53 am
I know at least forty different ways people use the word suffering, but I have no way of knowing which one of them you mean.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever one regards as their, "suffering," it's their own fault. It's not up to anyone else relieve someone else's suffering and those who think it is are just meddlers in other people's affairs.

Really? Have you read any Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism)... how do you address their concept of suffering?

My first research paper was on the various varieties Hinayana And Mahayana Buddhism, Vedic Hinduism and Brahmanism, and I have examined most varieties of Tantric Yoga. It is all horribly superstitious nonsense. If there is any one common mistake in all such superstitions it is the fundamental mistake about life and human nature. The objective of life is not evading evil (or pain, or death, or suffering), but the achievement of good, life and happiness.

I regard all superstition as absurd, "Silly Religion." [My article here on Philosophy Now.]

Interesting, many would not consider Buddhism a religion but rather a philosophy or psychotherapy. The Dalai Lama has said that if science were ever to disprove an element of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change. I guess you consider science superstitious?

If you have something against the Buddha, use the Stoics instead. They tended to focus on the suffering part of existence.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:16 pm I guess you consider science superstitious?

You do, really? [Unfortunately, some of it is, today.]

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:16 pm If you have something against the Buddha ...

How could anyone have anything against a guy like that.