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?
Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Moderator: Moderators
-
agnosticatheist
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #61[Replying to post 60 by Artie]
I didn't add the rest because it wasn't necessary. It has no impact unless you want to make what you said entirely meaningless.
The whole point of a statement using "should" (with implications of morality) is that whether or not they want to doesn't come into it. It's what they ought to do.
If I say "I shouldn't kill someone unless X" with regards to morality, as soon as X includes my personal whims that statement becomes meaningless.
I assumed you didn't think it was meaningless.
But you haven't answered either question -
Here's a much more specific one.
Family A and B both know that if they have children they will have a perfect survival rate. It happens to be the case that their survival rate in this instance isn't affected by whether or not the children are wanted. Having children won't affect the survival or well-being of either family.
Family A decide to have children.
Family B choose not to only because they don't want children.
Are Family A morally superior to Family B in this instance?
As I said before, could you please give a single non-contrived example where a family SHOULD have more children, despite what they want?
If not, you are incapable of demonstrating that your statement carries any meaning beyond tautology whatsoever.
But if you happen to want my view, here it is:
If they don't want children, that is the end of it. No justification is necessary.
(i.e. "the survival rate of unwanted children is lower... " (which is an unverified statistic - not to mention that many children are unplanned, and that their survival rate is higher than many other different circumstanced children who are wanted))
There is no "ought" or moral compulsion or duty to have children if you can support them.
In other words, it is not the case that you "should have as many children as possible" under any circumstances other than question-begging ones.
I didn't add the rest because it wasn't necessary. It has no impact unless you want to make what you said entirely meaningless.
The whole point of a statement using "should" (with implications of morality) is that whether or not they want to doesn't come into it. It's what they ought to do.
If I say "I shouldn't kill someone unless X" with regards to morality, as soon as X includes my personal whims that statement becomes meaningless.
I assumed you didn't think it was meaningless.
But you haven't answered either question -
Here's a much more specific one.
Family A and B both know that if they have children they will have a perfect survival rate. It happens to be the case that their survival rate in this instance isn't affected by whether or not the children are wanted. Having children won't affect the survival or well-being of either family.
Family A decide to have children.
Family B choose not to only because they don't want children.
Are Family A morally superior to Family B in this instance?
As I said before, could you please give a single non-contrived example where a family SHOULD have more children, despite what they want?
If not, you are incapable of demonstrating that your statement carries any meaning beyond tautology whatsoever.
But if you happen to want my view, here it is:
If they don't want children, that is the end of it. No justification is necessary.
(i.e. "the survival rate of unwanted children is lower... " (which is an unverified statistic - not to mention that many children are unplanned, and that their survival rate is higher than many other different circumstanced children who are wanted))
There is no "ought" or moral compulsion or duty to have children if you can support them.
In other words, it is not the case that you "should have as many children as possible" under any circumstances other than question-begging ones.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #62Can you show that this would actually happen and isn't sheer speculation on your part? Isn't it possible that the fear of arrest without bureaucratic safe-guards would stabilize the society instead of destablizing it? Can you refer to a study that supports your theory?Artie wrote: If the police arbitrarily went around arresting people ... it would destabilize the society and create unrest and protests.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #63[Replying to post 62 by instantc]
I'm not sure if it sounds like this to anyone else, but this seems really ad hoc.
They're just so stories.
"Why isn't it wrong for someone to choose not to have children?"
"unwanted children are less likely to survive"
"Why isn't it wrong for police to arbitrarily detain citizens?"
"it would create instability"
@artie
On the former most, when first asked you - out of nowhere - bring up them "knowing it will be bad for them". But this wasn't part of what instantc asked. Though it did mean you could answer a question, it wasn't instantc's question.
He then said "What if they would make excellent parents, but yet they don't like the idea of having children?" you then responded "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."
Where did this "will like having children" come from?
Why would it matter what they want at any other moment anyway?
I then asked "Are you actually of the view that more children is better?" and you said "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."
Can murder be justified in some circumstances? Yes
Is less murder better? Yes.
This question is clearly answerable. If you have two scenarios where the only difference is the number of children, is more children better? I.e. no 'difference in survival rates', no 'difference in well-being' other than the parents own choice. (which is left out for an ought statement to have any meaning)
I then responded
"I think you know what I'm asking.
You quite clearly said,
"A family should have as many children as possible" "
And you then accused me of quote mining, of reducing "an entire paragraph to nine words so that they lose their context". This entire paragraph being 1 sentence that is in any way relevant - the actual statement and further words that at best help me understand what you're saying. I left out 18 words (or 66% if you want to make it sound like I'm misrepresenting you).
Here's what I left out:
"up to the point where the number doesn't jeopardize well-being or survivability for the family and the community."
But I asked "So, is more children better?"
As previously mentioned, this is similar to asking if less murder is better. Individual circumstances don't matter - if the circumstances are the same, is more children preferable? The part you tagged on is neither relevant nor would it be quote mining if it were - what you said was part of the reply chain, 2 clicks back. It's also on the same page. If I wanted to quote mine I wouldn't do it so ineffectually, would I?
Also omitted is the fact that you did reply to me using the same quote earlier, and made no reference to quote mining at all. Instead you objected to the qeustion.
Yet again, you didn't actually address what was brought up - whether or not the will/desires of the parents alone "justifies" them not having children. (if you call it a justification, rather than no need to have justification, not that the difference is particularly significant)
This is a long way of saying:
It's almost like you're dodging the question.
As for the ignore list part, seriously?
I, in a completely justified scenario, omitted unnecessary extra words that weren't relevant to make typing easier and quicker, using the same quote that you didn't object to earlier, and then I made a simple request.
I asked for either:
- a single example or scenario which would show you are correct
- a yes or no response to "Are people wrong for not choosing to have children ad libitum"
and said "if not, you should retract the claim".
Yes, I realise that you won't see this unless you click to show it.
Other people will. And I hope they find my objections to your assumed position adequate. (you haven't actually clarified, despite requests, whether or not what they want is all it takes to justify not having children)
I'm not sure if it sounds like this to anyone else, but this seems really ad hoc.
They're just so stories.
"Why isn't it wrong for someone to choose not to have children?"
"unwanted children are less likely to survive"
"Why isn't it wrong for police to arbitrarily detain citizens?"
"it would create instability"
@artie
On the former most, when first asked you - out of nowhere - bring up them "knowing it will be bad for them". But this wasn't part of what instantc asked. Though it did mean you could answer a question, it wasn't instantc's question.
He then said "What if they would make excellent parents, but yet they don't like the idea of having children?" you then responded "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."
Where did this "will like having children" come from?
Why would it matter what they want at any other moment anyway?
I then asked "Are you actually of the view that more children is better?" and you said "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."
Can murder be justified in some circumstances? Yes
Is less murder better? Yes.
This question is clearly answerable. If you have two scenarios where the only difference is the number of children, is more children better? I.e. no 'difference in survival rates', no 'difference in well-being' other than the parents own choice. (which is left out for an ought statement to have any meaning)
I then responded
"I think you know what I'm asking.
You quite clearly said,
"A family should have as many children as possible" "
And you then accused me of quote mining, of reducing "an entire paragraph to nine words so that they lose their context". This entire paragraph being 1 sentence that is in any way relevant - the actual statement and further words that at best help me understand what you're saying. I left out 18 words (or 66% if you want to make it sound like I'm misrepresenting you).
Here's what I left out:
"up to the point where the number doesn't jeopardize well-being or survivability for the family and the community."
But I asked "So, is more children better?"
As previously mentioned, this is similar to asking if less murder is better. Individual circumstances don't matter - if the circumstances are the same, is more children preferable? The part you tagged on is neither relevant nor would it be quote mining if it were - what you said was part of the reply chain, 2 clicks back. It's also on the same page. If I wanted to quote mine I wouldn't do it so ineffectually, would I?
Also omitted is the fact that you did reply to me using the same quote earlier, and made no reference to quote mining at all. Instead you objected to the qeustion.
Yet again, you didn't actually address what was brought up - whether or not the will/desires of the parents alone "justifies" them not having children. (if you call it a justification, rather than no need to have justification, not that the difference is particularly significant)
This is a long way of saying:
It's almost like you're dodging the question.
As for the ignore list part, seriously?
I, in a completely justified scenario, omitted unnecessary extra words that weren't relevant to make typing easier and quicker, using the same quote that you didn't object to earlier, and then I made a simple request.
I asked for either:
- a single example or scenario which would show you are correct
- a yes or no response to "Are people wrong for not choosing to have children ad libitum"
and said "if not, you should retract the claim".
Yes, I realise that you won't see this unless you click to show it.
Other people will. And I hope they find my objections to your assumed position adequate. (you haven't actually clarified, despite requests, whether or not what they want is all it takes to justify not having children)
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #64You haven't noticed that there has been some riots going in the US as a result of police arbitrarily going around arresting and shooting people? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -says.htmlinstantc wrote:Can you show that this would actually happen and isn't sheer speculation on your part? Isn't it possible that the fear of arrest without bureaucratic safe-guards would stabilize the society instead of destablizing it? Can you refer to a study that supports your theory?Artie wrote: If the police arbitrarily went around arresting people ... it would destabilize the society and create unrest and protests.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #65Those riots are due to the police shooting a kid, Artie, they've got nothing to do with circumventing procedural safe-guards with regard to arrests. In fact, the US has had the habit of doing precisely that in the not-so-distant past, and the violations have caused unrest mostly among the officials of the International Court of Justice.Artie wrote:You haven't noticed that there has been some riots going in the US as a result of police arbitrarily going around arresting and shooting people? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -says.htmlinstantc wrote:Can you show that this would actually happen and isn't sheer speculation on your part? Isn't it possible that the fear of arrest without bureaucratic safe-guards would stabilize the society instead of destablizing it? Can you refer to a study that supports your theory?Artie wrote: If the police arbitrarily went around arresting people ... it would destabilize the society and create unrest and protests.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #66Just put in the words arbitrary police arrests unrest in Google and read about the countries where this is taking place and whether it is regarded as good for the societies and makes them more stable. For example "Guinea unrest: Authorities must stop unlawful arrests and killings" ... "Unless the Guinean authorities put an immediate stop to the unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force by its military and police, there is a risk that the country will be plunged into a situation which could give rise to further, serious, human rights abuses." Wikipedia. Now why do they say that the Guinean authorities should put a stop to arbitrary arrests if they are good for the society I wonder?instantc wrote:Those riots are due to the police shooting a kid, Artie, they've got nothing to do with circumventing procedural safe-guards with regard to arrests. In fact, the US has had the habit of doing precisely that in the not-so-distant past, and the violations have caused unrest mostly among the officials of the International Court of Justice.
I think the conversation has deteriorated to a point where it's useless to continue.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #67So you think that you can justify a controversial socio-legal claim by sarcastically referring to google results?Artie wrote:Just put in the words arbitrary police arrests unrest in Google and read about the countries where this is taking place and whether it is regarded as good for the societies and makes them more stable.instantc wrote:Those riots are due to the police shooting a kid, Artie, they've got nothing to do with circumventing procedural safe-guards with regard to arrests. In fact, the US has had the habit of doing precisely that in the not-so-distant past, and the violations have caused unrest mostly among the officials of the International Court of Justice.
Note that here arbitrary arrests are feared to lead to more human rights abuses, not to an unstable society. I don't see why a society where human rights are being infringed couldn't be perfectly stable.Artie wrote: For example "Guinea unrest: Authorities must stop unlawful arrests and killings" ... "Unless the Guinean authorities put an immediate stop to the unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force by its military and police, there is a risk that the country will be plunged into a situation which could give rise to further, serious, human rights abuses."
Who has argued that they are good for the society? I have asked you to back up your claim that allowing arbitrary arrests results in a more unstable society. So far you have made dubious references to google results.Artie wrote:Now why do they say that the Guinean authorities should put a stop to arbitrary arrests if they are good for the society I wonder?
Is that because you realized that you have made a claim that you couldn't possibly back up without the appropriate expertise and thorough research on the topic?Artie wrote:I think the conversation has deteriorated to a point where it's useless to continue.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #68Sorry but I can't find any references to arbitrary arrests and detention taking place in civilized stable societies. I can only find loads of references to arbitrary arrests and detention taking place in unstable societies making them even more unstable. Could you reference some civilized stable societies where arbitrary arrests and detentions is a part of daily routine without causing less stability?instantc wrote:Who has argued that they are good for the society? I have asked you to back up your claim that allowing arbitrary arrests results in a more unstable society.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #69OK I'll bite. Name some.instantc wrote: Note that here arbitrary arrests are feared to lead to more human rights abuses, not to an unstable society. I don't see why a society where human rights are being infringed couldn't be perfectly stable.
Re: Keeping it simple: Morality and values
Post #70You haven't provided any support to the bolded part, which is precisely the claim that I challenged you to support. Thus, I ask again, can you show that the allowance of arbitrary arrests is causing these societies to become more unstable?Artie wrote:I can only find loads of references to arbitrary arrests and detention taking place in unstable societies making them even more unstable.
In order to do that, you'd have to show me that (1) the sample societies are becoming more unstable and (2) the destabilization of the society is directly or indirectly caused by the allowance of arbitrary arrests in those states. Can you do that?
I haven't made that claim. Therefore I don't have the burden of proof with regard to that claim.Artie wrote:Could you reference some civilized stable societies where arbitrary arrests and detentions is a part of daily routine without causing less stability?
I didn't say that there are such states. I said that I don't see why there couldn't be any.
