Keeping it simple: Morality and values

[agnosticatheist]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 40 by Artie]

InstantC was saying that we don't judge the action, as did I, and you objected, and I responded and pointed out many times that judging the action is a worse system both semantically and is less credulous (which with regards to semantics and schemas (as opposed to truth statements) is relevant and not fallacious).

If that was your main statement, it didn't address a thing said.
There also is the objection that according to you giving your life for any cause is immoral.

Whether or not your moral basis is a good one is besides the point. I'm talking about whether we should consider actions themselves moral or immoral.

If these are trees in a forest, then one wonders what planet your forest is even on.

[instantc]

In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ every single article ultimately leads to survival/life/well-being.

Well-being is such a vague term that almost anything can be argued to some extent to result in somebody's well-being. What it comes to survival, many of the articles in the declaration have nothing to do with survival.

[Artie]

In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ every single article ultimately leads to survival/life/well-being.

Well-being is such a vague term that almost anything can be argued to some extent to result in somebody's well-being. What it comes to survival, many of the articles in the declaration have nothing to do with survival.

Life Death
Survival Non-survival
Good Bad
Right Wrong
Moral Immoral

If you don't see the connection between those so be it. They are the foundation of all my arguments concerning morals. I see them as self-evident as 2+2=4.

[instantc]

In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ every single article ultimately leads to survival/life/well-being.

Well-being is such a vague term that almost anything can be argued to some extent to result in somebody's well-being. What it comes to survival, many of the articles in the declaration have nothing to do with survival.

Life Death
Survival Non-survival
Good Bad
Right Wrong
Moral Immoral

If you don't see the connection between those so be it. They are the foundation of all my arguments concerning morals. I see them as self-evident as 2+2=4.

I notice that you are not interested in supporting the statement you made about the declaration of human rights. Fine by me.

Furthermore, you are drastically changing your argument. Previously you were arguing that life equals good and so forth. Now you are saying that there's merely a connection between them. That's not much of a statement to be honest.

I agree that, at face value, to stay alive is better than not to stay alive. But, is staying alive as such a moral virtue? I don't think so. Is creating more life a moral virtue? In other words, is a family with four children more virtuous than a couple that has decided to only have two children in the same circumstances? I don't think so. Thus, it is difficult for me to see why you are trying to equate these things with each other.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 44 by instantc]

Additionally, giving your life for a cause seemingly isn't innately immoral, unlike the assumption that death itself is bad.

And then there's suicide - is that immoral too?

[Artie]

I notice that you are not interested in supporting the statement you made about the declaration of human rights. Fine by me.

Then find an article that ultimately doesn't end up in improved well-being/survival/life.

I agree that, at face value, to stay alive is better than not to stay alive. But, is staying alive as such a moral virtue? I don't think so. Is creating more life a moral virtue? In other words, is a family with four children more virtuous than a couple that has decided to only have two children in the same circumstances? I don't think so. Thus, it is difficult for me to see why you are trying to equate these things with each other.

So removing a life as in murder is immoral but adding a life is amoral or morally neutral? How is that logical when it's the opposite act?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 44 by instantc]Additionally, giving your life for a cause seemingly isn't innately immoral, unlike the assumption that death itself is bad.

Depends on the cause.

And then there's suicide - is that immoral too?

Of course. If taking a life as in murder is immoral murdering oneself is also immoral because that is also taking a life.

[instantc]

I notice that you are not interested in supporting the statement you made about the declaration of human rights. Fine by me.

Then find an article that ultimately doesn't end up in improved well-being/survival/life.

First of all, it's up to you to show that a given article promotes those things you mentioned, not up to me to show that they don't. Secondly, as I said, well-being is such a vague term that practically anything can be argued to improve somebody's well-being.

I agree that, at face value, to stay alive is better than not to stay alive. But, is staying alive as such a moral virtue? I don't think so. Is creating more life a moral virtue? In other words, is a family with four children more virtuous than a couple that has decided to only have two children in the same circumstances? I don't think so. Thus, it is difficult for me to see why you are trying to equate these things with each other.

So removing a life as in murder is immoral but adding a life is amoral or morally neutral? How is that logical when it's the opposite act?

"The opposite" of things varies depending on our perspective. I would say that the moral opposite of taking a life is saving a life.

Clarify this to me, is it then your view that a family with six children more virtuous than a couple that has decided to only have two children in otherwise similar circumstances?

Can a murderer make up for his deed of killing ten children by impregnating ten women?

[Artie]

First of all, it's up to you to show that a given article promotes those things you mentioned, not up to me to show that they don't

Then pick an article you think doesn't.

"The opposite" of things varies depending on our perspective. I would say that the moral opposite of taking a life is saving a life.

Taking a life (murder) immoral (-1 life)
Saving a life moral (avoiding losing one life)
Making a life moral (+1 life)

Clarify this to me, is it then your view that a family with six children more virtuous than a couple that has decided to only have two children in otherwise similar circumstances?

Biology and evolution encourages procreation otherwise we wouldn't have an instinct to procreate. Every child you make has the potential to produce more children and save and improve the lives of everybody around. Hence the more lives the better. Earlier it was important to have as many children as possible because you had to count on losing a lot of them before they grew up. Trying to calculate whether a family with 6 children was 20% more virtuous than a family with five is of course just ridiculous. In China with the one child policy it would be immoral to have more than one child.

[Artie]

Can a murderer make up for his deed of killing ten children by impregnating ten women?

You come up with the weirdest scenarios. He can't make up for his deed simply because if he had not killed those ten children and impregnated ten women there would be 20 children alive. You are still -10.