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?

[instantc]

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.

As I said, anything at all can be argued to promote somebody's well-being due to the vague nature of the term.

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.

Just answer the question, yes or no? (suppose the families live in a place where there's no one child policy)

[Artie]

As I said, anything at all can be argued to promote somebody's well-being due to the vague nature of the term.

So you chickened out then. I guess you couldn't find any articles that said "one has the right to make other people miserable" or "one has the right to steal from others" but only articles that promote well-being survival and life.

Just answer the question, yes or no? (suppose the families live in a place where there's no one child policy)

And now you are reduced to asking questions so simplistic they can't be answered yes or no. A family should have as many children as possible up to the point where the number doesn't jeopardize well-being or survivability for the family and the community. So should the family next door. It's not a competition. If one family thinks 6 is the right number and the family next door thinks 2 is the right number then both are equally correct. If you request a yes or no answer to a question that can't be answered just with yes or no the problem is with the person who poses the question.

[instantc]

As I said, anything at all can be argued to promote somebody's well-being due to the vague nature of the term.

So you chickened out then. I guess you couldn't find any articles that said "one has the right to make other people miserable" or "one has the right to steal from others" but only articles that promote well-being survival and life.

Many of the articles have nothing to do with survival. You could probably argue that all human rights promote the well-being of someone, but you could also argue that anything at all promotes the well-being of at least someone, as the term is vaguely defined, so that's a pointless statement. For example, "one has the right to steal from others" would promote the well-being of thieves.

Just answer the question, yes or no? (suppose the families live in a place where there's no one child policy)

And now you are reduced to asking questions so simplistic they can't be answered yes or no. A family should have as many children as possible up to the point where the number doesn't jeopardize well-being or survivability for the family and the community.

So I take it that in your moral view, it is a moral virtue for a family to have as many children as the society can conveniently bear. I have never heard of anyone else suggesting that, an interesting view indeed. It appears to me that if a couple does not want to have any children because, say, they don't like children, they are no less virtuous than the next family that decided to have four children.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 52 by Artie]

"A family should have as many children as possible"?

I don't entirely agree with the use of should there.
In fact, I dare say that confers quite the controversial message.

Are you actually of the view that more children is better?

[Artie]

Many of the articles have nothing to do with survival.

Prove it. Quote some that don't.

So I take it that in your moral view, it is a moral virtue for a family to have as many children as the society can conveniently bear. I have never heard of anyone else suggesting that, an interesting view indeed. It appears to me that if a couple does not want to have any children because, say, they don't like children, they are no less virtuous than the next family that decided to have four children.

If they don't like children and know that if they got some it would be bad for them, the children and society then they would be as virtuous as the next family. By having no children their DNA will not be passed on to any next generation and their genes will be naturally selected out of the gene pool.

[instantc]

Many of the articles have nothing to do with survival.

Prove it. Quote some that don't.

Take the article that prohibits arbitrary arrest, for example, can you show that it promotes the survival of the society?

So I take it that in your moral view, it is a moral virtue for a family to have as many children as the society can conveniently bear. I have never heard of anyone else suggesting that, an interesting view indeed. It appears to me that if a couple does not want to have any children because, say, they don't like children, they are no less virtuous than the next family that decided to have four children.

If they don't like children and know that if they got some it would be bad for them, the children and society then they would be as virtuous as the next family. By having no children their DNA will not be passed on to any next generation and their genes will be naturally selected out of the gene pool.

What if they know that they would be excellent parents, but yet they don't like the idea of having children?

[Artie]

Take the article that prohibits arbitrary arrest, for example, can you show that it promotes the survival of the society?

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." If the police arbitrarily went around arresting people everybody would become weary and uncertain and afraid they would be next, it would destabilize the society and create unrest and protests. A stable society has better chances of survival.

What if they know that they would be excellent parents, but yet they don't like the idea of having children?

Are you saying that they at the moment don't like the idea of having children but that they know when they had gotten them they would be excellent parents and will like having children? Then they should have children.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 52 by Artie]Are you actually of the view that more children is better?

Oh brother, please stop asking these inane simplistic questions. At least formulate them so that they include the details necessary for an answer such as under which circumstances and better for whom or what.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 58 by Artie]

I think you know what I'm asking.

You quite clearly said,
"A family should have as many children as possible"

So, is more children better?
The circumstances don't matter and you ought to know that.
I'm asking about the general result.

Are people wrong for not choosing to have children ad libitum? (at their pleasure, i.e. because they don't want to)

Another way of asking, since you claim they should, give an example of realistic circumstances under which, in spite of what they personally want, a couple or family ought to have more children.

If not, you should retract that claim.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 58 by Artie]

You quite clearly said,
"A family should have as many children as possible"

I said and I quote:

"A family should have as many children as possible up to the point where the number doesn't jeopardize well-being or survivability for the family and the community. So should the family next door. It's not a competition. If one family thinks 6 is the right number and the family next door thinks 2 is the right number then both are equally correct."

If they choose not to have children because they don't want to that is a perfectly moral decision because unwanted children have a less chance of survival and would possibly be causing problems for them and the society. Their genes will disappear out of the gene pool.

You are quote mining me, reduce my whole paragraph to nine words so that they lose their context, and then have the nerve to tell me to "retract my claim". Either you did that on purpose, or you didn't know better. Either way: this was my last response to any of your posts. You're on my ignore list. Bye.