Philosophy Now Forum

Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral. Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad. For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad? My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral. Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad. For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad? My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

interesting post.

IMO, motives are moral, not actions.

per what is moral, one only needs to follow their conscience, and their motives will be moral.

i see your 1st post, welcome to this forum Sir.

Here's my non-biblical take...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 amInstinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral.

Yes there is.

When the word 'moral' is defined, then it is very simple and very easy to define if, and what, actions are moral.

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad.

Very simply and very easily by agreement and acceptance.

Only 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one is what IS good and bad.

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad?

But who defines that as bad?

Who is the 'we' you are referring to here?

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

You started out by asking a question about how you can know 'right' from 'wrong', but then ended by telling us what the definition of 'bad' is. What has 'bad' got to do with anything in relation to how you can know 'right' from 'wrong'?

gaffo wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 9:05 pm

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral. Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad. For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad? My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

interesting post.

IMO, motives are moral, not actions.

per what is moral, one only needs to follow their conscience, and their motives will be moral.

Does your conscience tell you to go to work to make money?

Do you work for money because you are following your conscience, and so your motives are being moral? Or, do you chase after and follow money for some other reason other than your conscience, and so your motives are not being moral?

What are your motives to gain more money?

Also, how does one know what their conscience actually IS?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am Here's my non-biblical take...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

And a woman knows she belongs to herself, and a human being knows they belong to thy Self. One human beings know thy True Self, then they will better understand FULLY how they actually do belong, individually AND collectively.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

Although very true, this ownness is constantly being whittled away, generally in the form of " 'my' child ", or " 'our' child ". The word 'my' or 'our' implies ownership so from even from conception we are constantly referred to as NOT belonging to our-self but belonging to some one else.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am It's real, like the beating of his heart.

But, depending on how one was actually brought up, some are led to believe that they do not belong to thy Self. Some are actually believe that they belong to some one else, and want and need to feel this way.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property,

But some men, women, and children do accept being property. As I was saying, how much or how little one accepts this is depended solely upon their past experiences, up to now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

But some people are actually so "tied down" to say the Government, people, or things for example, do not always move away from the "yoke" when the opportunity presents itself.

Take your own self for example, and how much you belong to 'things'. You have said that you would kill and die for just 'things'.

It is like you are the property, of property, itself. And would rather die than being separated from things, which you say you own, but really who is owning who?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

Why do you think presidents get voted in? There are some people who actually believe they 'need' to be governed and led. They actually believe they and human beings could not be Self-governing/Self-owning.

By the way, I totally understand what you are saying, and agree with it. Absolutely NO one is owned by "another". EVERY one is their "own boss", as they say. NO one is anyone else's "boss".

But, some people are brought up is such a constrictive way that they just can not yet see this and just do not yet recognize this.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

What about 'freezes that burn'?

There are thousands of examples of how people do not recognize that they are their own boss, and are not owned by some thing or some one else.

If I recall correctly you were informing us that " 'your' child '' has to follow your rules. If this is correct, then who does it actually belong to? Its self or to 'you'?

Who owns that individual?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

But, in reality, how can a person belong to some thing, which they do not yet necessarily know nor understand.

Obviously one would have to KNOW Thy Self, to KNOW if they actually belong to 'It' or not.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another.

This is but one of the countless different versions and definitions of the 'morality' word.

Also, do you think you would use the 'man' word so much if you were a woman?

Why do you speak so much for and about one gender and about half of all human beings, and not just for and about ALL of them?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

If a 'moral fact' is supposedly a true statement that aligns with the reality of man, then how does one know what the "reality of man" actually is. If one is trying to work out if the slavery of another, then deciding what is fundamental to one person might work in 'ownness', but what about all of the other issues up for discussion. Slavery is just one, which I thought was worked out and reconciled somewhat a few years back, from the days of when this is being written?

Are there still some human beings who try to argue that slavery is not wrong?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

What about enslaving a woman or a child? Is that wrong as well, or is this okay?

What about making, (enslaving, leashing) a women to wear particular clothing, or making (enslaving, leashing) a child go to school? Are these wrong also, or are these alright behaviors?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 1:03 am To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

Excuse the rhetorical question, but, could you possibly be tempted to enslave another human being?

You couldn't enslave another human being because you understand what the nature of a human being is. The problem is, not everybody has that same understanding. You can say those who have no compunction against enslaving others that it is wrong, but that does no explain why they shouldn't do it, if they can do it and get away with it. Look at all the slaves there have been in the past and still are in places like North Africa and the Middle East (and here in the U.S. if you count sex slaves) today. It's wrong, from our point of view, Henry, and we couldn't do it. But that doesn't explain why they shouldn't do it, does it? And even if it did, it's not going to stop them.

Unless you can demonstrate why it is in the interest of those who would enslave others that it is in their own best interest no to, just saying it is wrong, even though it is, will not convince them. Stealing is wrong too, and for the same reason slavery is wrong, but it certainly doesn't stop thieves from stealing.

I could never steal or enslave another human being, not because I believe it violates some moral view of right and wrong, or even because it violates another's autonomy, but because it is in my own best interest to not be a parasite, a thief, or to enslave another. I have to live with myself, and I could not do any of those things without despising myself as the useless evil second-hander any of those things would make me. It is my life and the value it is to me that would make it impossible for me to violate another individual's life, not the value another's life is to them.

there is no "universal" moral standard

there is no "universal" judge

you set the moral standard and judge the "external" actions as well as your own...

you're the only one who has to live with your standards... (could you do it again and again forever?)

sweet dreams

-Imp

Although very true, this ownness is constantly being whittled away, generally in the form of " 'my' child ", or " 'our' child ". The word 'my' or 'our' implies ownership so from even from conception we are constantly referred to as NOT belonging to our-self but belonging to some one else.

Which is preferable: my kid or kid who I love and caretake?

The second, while more accurate, is clunky; the first, while less clear, abuses the eyes and mind less.


But, depending on how one was actually brought up, some are led to believe that they do not belong to thy Self. Some are actually believe that they belong to some one else, and want and need to feel this way.

As I say: A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property,


But some men, women, and children do accept being property. As I was saying, how much or how little one accepts this is depended solely upon their past experiences, up to now.

No, I think some folks give up hope of bein' treated as anything but property, but none are happy about it, and -- should opportunity present itself -- every last one, who recognizes the leash, will cast off the leash.


But some people are actually so "tied down" to say the Government, people, or things for example, do not always move away from the "yoke" when the opportunity presents itself.

You gotta see the leash for what it is. If you don't...


You have said that you would kill and die for just 'things'.

You may have misunderstood me: please, cite an example.


Why do you think presidents get voted in? There are some people who actually believe they 'need' to be governed and led. They actually believe they and human beings could not be Self-governing/Self-owning.

No, there are folks who, perhaps unwisely, believe the elected are their champions, their representatives, their employees. None of them see the elected as boss or ruler.


There are thousands of examples of how people do not recognize that they are their own boss, and are not owned by some thing or some one else.

Interesting how when such folks get an inkling of sumthin' other they make every effort to migrate to that less restrictive circumstance. Recognition of ownness is easy and natural, that's why tyrants work so hard to keep populations ignorant.


If I recall correctly you were informing us that " 'your' child '' has to follow your rules. If this is correct, then who does it actually belong to? Its self or to 'you'?

He belongs to himself: I'm responsible for him till he can coherently be responsible for himself.


This is but one of the countless different versions and definitions of the 'morality' word.

It's mine. It works. It's a good descriptor of what is.


Also, do you think you would use the 'man' word so much if you were a woman?

If I were a woman: I'd be usin' she instead of he.


Why do you speak so much for and about one gender and about half of all human beings, and not just for and about ALL of them?

I'm old school: it's the way I write.


Are there still some human beings who try to argue that slavery is not wrong?

There's a robust human traffickin' industry: seems to me, the folks involved, by way of their actions, declare slavery is A-OK (for the other guy, never for themselves).


What about enslaving a woman or a child? Is that wrong as well, or is this okay?

To clarify (for you cuz everyone else seems to get this): when I say a man belongs to himself I'm sayin' a person belongs to him- or her-self. The first is succinct; the second, clunky.

My lil red meat piece is merely descriptive of what I think is the fundamental fact (and moral fact) of man (or person).

I prescribe nuthin' for nobody (more accurately, the fact/moral fact does the prescribin', not me).


Self-interest: I'm enormously self-interested, keenly and overtly. However...

It's not a clean, straight line, is it? I can argue that raisin' my nephew for that past 13 years was not, is not, in my self-interest. I had, have, no obligation to do so. In raising him, I've locked myself out of many profitable and beneficial opportunities, and I've hobbled myself voluntarily.

Self-interest is a major axis, but it ain't the only axis...not for me anyway.

Age, although you were not addressing me, I have reflected on your meaningful questions...

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Does your conscience tell you to go to work to make money?

My conscience tells me to always do the right thing. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always reveal to me what that is before I have done something.

One thing my conscience directs me to do is to go to work, not for the money, but for the opportunity to contribute to others of my time, my toils and my talents.

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Do you work for money because you are following your conscience, and so your motives are being moral?

I accept money for my work because I need to survive and I want to provide for my family.

I see my motives as being altruistic and, thereby, moral.

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Or, do you chase after and follow money for some other reason other than your conscience, and so your motives are not being moral?

Some people simply trade time at work for money. Some are driven by greed. As for me, I answered a calling.

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am What are your motives to gain more money?

I find work to be self-satisfying. Instead of paying me wages, my employer ought to charge me for admission.

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Also, how does one know what their conscience actually IS?

To be continued...

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am ...how does one know what their conscience actually IS?

Conscience, simply put, is a collection of moral standards. As such, it is a source of shame for the individual.

But how does one know what constitutes his own set of morals? Retrospectively is certainly one way. Introspection is another. Shame is the measure that determines the contents of one’s list of what’s good and what’s not.

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral. Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad. For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad? My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

Morality is due to our nature. The reality in its core is indifferent.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm Age, although you were not addressing me, I have reflected on your meaningful questions...

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Does your conscience tell you to go to work to make money?

My conscience tells me to always do the right thing.

Same. So agree.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm Unfortunately, it doesn’t always reveal to me what that is before I have done something.

I agree that it may appear that way sometimes. But on a Truly Honest introspection or reflection the Truth IS 'my conscience', which by the way is the EXACT SAME for EVERY one is ALWAYS REVEALING, by telling us to always do the right thing. We unfortunately do not always listen to it.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm One thing my conscience directs me to do is to go to work, not for the money, but for the opportunity to contribute to others of my time, my toils and my talents.

Same, so agree.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Do you work for money because you are following your conscience, and so your motives are being moral?

I accept money for my work because I need to survive and I want to provide for my family.

But Truthfully;
Does one 'need' to survive, or, does one just 'want' to survive?

Human beings do not need money to survive, so there is no 'need' at all to accept money for work. Although, in the days of when this is being written this will be contested strongly.

Also, the statement, "I accept money for work because I need to survive and I want to provide for my family" is just an attempt to "justify" one's own greedy way of living.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm I see my motives as being altruistic and, thereby, moral.

But your form of "being altruistic" here is not for EVERY one is it?

Obviously any motive that only provides for or helps some, but not for ALL, means that some are left out, and thus those then will suffer.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Or, do you chase after and follow money for some other reason other than your conscience, and so your motives are not being moral?

Some people simply trade time at work for money. Some are driven by greed. As for me, I answered a calling.

Could this be one of those times when your conscience is, unfortunately (and supposedly), not always revealing to you what the right thing to do is before you have done something?

Could your conscience actually been telling you what the right thing to do is since birth/conception but you actually started listening to and following your parents/family way of living, and so have learned not to listen to your conscience and thus have strayed and not stayed on that right path, and in the process have learned to 'try to' "justify" your wrong behaviors?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am What are your motives to gain more money?

I find work to be self-satisfying. Instead of paying me wages, my employer ought to charge me for admission.

Have you put that to your employer?

If you have, then I am sure they would have been "all ears", as they say, correct?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 am Also, how does one know what their conscience actually IS?

To be continued...

The actual answer is actually very simple and easy to discover, and KNOW that it is correct.