Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Jesus would say you whitewashed tombs to the Pharisees because they looked good on the outside but inside were rotten.

Why do we want to do bad things (like abortion) and still worry about whether we are moral?

Morality is clearly not real, we can say God is not real but morality we cling to?

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

Others. Yeah yeah God exists, morality is objective but who wants to hear that ....
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #11

Post by Wootah »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:50 pm And he's right. But the trouble is, life is better without him.
That's why we killed Jesus.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #12

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9]

Rules are mutually agreed to for the benefit of all. They have nothing inherently to do with morality.
True. Unless, they are a rule regarding the moral law. (ie: thou shall not steal).
Rules by themselves can be for any purpose. Think of the rules of a board game, like Monopoly or Candyland. The rules serve a purpose: So the game is fair and everyone has fun. It's no more moral for Park Place to cost $500 than for it to cost $600. And it's no more moral for green lights to mean go and red to mean stop than it is to just not have yellow or red.
True.
Ideally, anyway, everyone would get a say.
Sure, if we are simply talking about arbitrary societal rules that the majority vote on in order to form an organized society/community. But if we are talking about the moral law, there is no need for everyone to have a say since we would be talking about a moral truth -- something that simply is and not based on public opinion or imposed by the state, rather it is imposed by natural law itself. It would be immoral to murder someone whether the state makes some rule against it or not.
Because with rules, but no morality, someone would have to prove their special privilege to impose their way - to say, no, that rule you like that benefits you is immoral, my rule is moral, my rule is better, you obey me.
This is where you lose me. Of course you can have rules that have nothing inherently do with morality. For example, a state can say, our rule is no right turns on red. However, some rules can be inherently moral/immoral. For example, you cannot have sex with a 6 year old.

But with morality, someone more moral than I am gets to impose his way and that's the end of it.
Again, what does that mean, more moral than I am. If you are advocating an immoral rule, then yeah some other better rule should be enacted.
If red lights are immoral, then we can't have them whether they serve a good purpose or not. (A Libertarian I know actually argues this.)
He would be correct. You don’t agree with that? You can’t do something immoral because you want to argue some good can come from it. If something is immoral, it means it is not in man’s best interest, so it would be contradictory to say, we should be able to do something that is not in man’s best interest because it is in man’s best interest to do so.

Also, using a red light as an example, which as discussed already, has no inherent moral nature, makes it sound like what is moral/immoral is arbitrary (like a red light). But that simply isn’t true.
With morality introduced, purpose is secondary.
Of course. Because moral truth IS derived from purpose. One could argue it is the first principle. It is preeminent. We can’t shoot the neighbor because he abuses his dog, even if our purpose is to protect dogs.
It doesn't matter how good red lights are for everyone or how many accidents they prevent, because if it's immoral force to make someone stop when they could go, we can't do it.
Oh, I see what you are saying. Well, it may appear that sometimes that ends up looking like what’s going on. But I guess I would agree that we can’t use immoral means to force someone to do the right thing, but I would disagree that enforcing traffic lights is immoral or some kind of infringement on someone’s rights. It’s not immoral to have societal rules, unless they are immoral rules.
If it's moral to have traffic be dog-eat-dog Libertarian and punish people only if they run into others, then we must do that.
But it isn’t immoral to have traffic laws. It also isn’t immoral to impose rules on people. It would be immoral to impose immoral rules, but sounds like that’s not what you’re talking about here.
What we also observe is that some are more moral than others. If we want to do what is right (which isn't about want; it's a genuine obligation, otherwise it would not be called right versus wrong) then we must bow to them.
Bow to who? Truth? Yes, we all ought to bow to truth. However, we have no obligation to bow to the morally outraged. Being morally outraged and actual immorality aren’t the same thing.

For example, take social justice, which I agree is right. It gets extreme. You take a group of people playing around and saying something they find harmless, like, "That's gay." Or you take a group of friends who thought it was cool to have Japanese things in their houses and didn't give a thought to the fact that it was cultural appropriation and thus morally wrong.
Hmmm . . . I’m not sure I would agree that those things are morally wrong. They could be, if a person was purposely doing them to be insensitive or derogatory or hurt or make fun of someone. But the term gay originally meant happy/carefree, it then evolved into referring to those with same sex attraction, and also evolved into slang for embarrassing or stupid. I think when it was more common to use the expression, “That’s gay” in the ‘80’s/’90’s, it was not intended as some homophobic slur, but since the word gay became more and more adopted by homosexuals to describe themselves, it became insensitive to use the word to mean embarrassing or weird or queer. Even though, ironically, homosexuals also chose to adopt the English word queer to describe themselves, even though the definition of queer is strange/odd. Also, I would think the argument could be made that I have Japanese things in my house because I think they are beautiful and I respect the Japanese, in which case me having those things would not be immoral. I agree with you about being extreme in these matters.
The fellow with the higher moral standard comes in and ruins everyone's fun. He now gets to say what we can do and what we can't. And he's right. But the trouble is, life is better without him.
No, he’s not right and yes life would be better without the virtue signalers, but they aren’t acting morally. They are crossing the line in not permitting freedom of speech. They are entitled to their opinion, but you do not have to cave to their wokeism. THAT is not the same as morality.

I don't dispute that any of this is right, but it makes life suck. From my perspective, for no reason. It's a genuine obligation to follow the highest morality and I do it
Again, I am unclear on what you mean by highest morality[/]. I don’t think that is the right way to think about morality. You seem to be talking more about manners or again wokeness, but that’s not the same as morality. Also, moral truth is moral truth. It doesn’t really get any higher than that. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant.

,
but I don't want to, and if I'm away from anyone it might hurt, I don't see why I should have to. I want to take all the people who of the highest morals and leave them Earth and just move to another planet where the first rule will be, absolutely no morality.


I think you are misclassifying what morality is. The reason the ‘virtue signalers’, ‘moral police’, ‘wokes’, etc bug you is not because they are so high in their morality, rather because what they are saying/doing is actually not moral and you recognize it.

Nobody imposing their way unilaterally. The rules are for the benefit of all, and everyone gets a say. Something offends you? Tell me a logical reason it should be banned or go back to Earth.


Yes, I agree with you. I agree just because something offends you is not reason to ban it. But I’m sure you would also agree that some actual immoral behaviors should be banned like murder, rape, pedophilia, stealing, slander, etc.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #13

Post by Purple Knight »

RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 am
Because with rules, but no morality, someone would have to prove their special privilege to impose their way - to say, no, that rule you like that benefits you is immoral, my rule is moral, my rule is better, you obey me.
This is where you lose me. Of course you can have rules that have nothing inherently do with morality. For example, a state can say, our rule is no right turns on red. However, some rules can be inherently moral/immoral. For example, you cannot have sex with a 6 year old.
You can also have the rule no sex with 6-year-olds without any moral reason whatsoever. For example, statistics show that when you rape a child, he may go out and rape a child later in life. Since nobody wants to be sexually abused, we don't let it spread. But yes, as it is, that's a moral rule, meaning that nobody has to justify it and it's just wrong and that's the end of it. That's what I don't like. That's what I want torn down.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amIf you are advocating an immoral rule, then yeah some other better rule should be enacted.
Right, and you don't have to justify that. My immoral rule can be for the benefit of everyone, your moral rule can hurt everyone, and what should happen if morality is on your side is that you win and get your way. That's why it's called morality and not options or choices or opinions. What is immoral is wrong and one shouldn't do it. No explanation necessary.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amHe would be correct. You don’t agree with that? You can’t do something immoral because you want to argue some good can come from it.
Exactly.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amIf something is immoral, it means it is not in man’s best interest, so it would be contradictory to say, we should be able to do something that is not in man’s best interest because it is in man’s best interest to do so.
I disagree. That's why we have two separate terms to describe them. It would be in mankind's best interest to, for example, slaughter one healthy person, and distribute his organs to save the sick, if more can be saved. But it doesn't matter what good comes from it; you can't murder people.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amAlso, using a red light as an example, which as discussed already, has no inherent moral nature, makes it sound like what is moral/immoral is arbitrary (like a red light). But that simply isn’t true.
I'm agreeing that the red light has no moral value. That's why, when a Libertarian comes along and says, "I have morality, red lights are immoral because that is force levied against me, and force is immoral," then we must do away with red lights, because morality simply is and does not require any argument.

If he's right that force is immoral he just wins and we have to get rid of all the red lights, no matter the good they do. The minute someone introduces morality, he wins and the guy who built it all up on practicality must discard it all. Morality is higher than practicality. Practicality must defer to morality.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amOh, I see what you are saying. Well, it may appear that sometimes that ends up looking like what’s going on. But I guess I would agree that we can’t use immoral means to force someone to do the right thing, but I would disagree that enforcing traffic lights is immoral or some kind of infringement on someone’s rights. It’s not immoral to have societal rules, unless they are immoral rules.
So you're just matching his ante. You're saying, "No, actually red lights aren't immoral." You're making the same argument for the wokeism. You just disagree that it's moral. But think of it from the perspective of someone with no claim to morality.

Someone whose only argument is practical and has no claim to morality, must defer to the one who claims morality. That sucks. It sucks hard. What it means for me and anyone else who has no claim to morality is that anyone who does can just come and knock over our sandcastles. Well I want my immoral sandcastle, and a lot of other people do too. If everyone lives in it voluntarily and we don't bother others then we're not hurting anybody and we ought to be left alone.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amBow to who? Truth? Yes, we all ought to bow to truth. However, we have no obligation to bow to the morally outraged. Being morally outraged and actual immorality aren’t the same thing.
Someone without a claim to morality has absolutely no way to know the difference because morality does not require logical justification. This turns a moral society with some immoral people into a bullyocracy. Why is murder wrong? Because it is. Don't murder or go to jail. The anti-murder proponent states morality, doesn't have to justify, and gets his way. It's not that I'm recognising wokeism as wrong; it's the opposite. In order to say the murder bully is actually right and not just bullying, but the woke bully is wrong and doesn't actually have morality on his side, I would have to look at my own moral compass to check, and as a psychopath I don't have one of those. I don't see why (morally) we shouldn't commit murder if it's expedient, and I don't see why (morally) we shouldn't say what we like. But I just have to defer to anyone who says he has morality. If you don't believe me, ask a shrink what a psychopath should do and that's exactly what she'll tell you.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amAgain, I am unclear on what you mean by highest morality. I don’t think that is the right way to think about morality. You seem to be talking more about manners or again wokeness, but that’s not the same as morality. Also, moral truth is moral truth. It doesn’t really get any higher than that. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant.
In this way it's binary; I agree with that first of all. But let's say you follow the rule against murder but are sometimes rude and thus hurtful regardless of whether you intend it, and the fellow beside you follows that rule, plus all rules of wokeness and has perfect manners. Well, the person pregnant with thousands of babies is more pregnant than the person pregnant with just one. Saying that wouldn't be terribly incorrect, even if you think it's technically incorrect, and it's certainly descriptive of an aspect of reality so if you don't like the usage (saying the latter person is not technically more pregnant, and I think I actually agree) but then I could just sub a different word because I am describing an aspect of reality here. From my perspective, higher morals are just more morals, and more restrictive (on me) morals, since I have no way to say if any of them are true or not. So if someone adds another restriction to my back, I must carry it.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amI agree just because something offends you is not reason to ban it. But I’m sure you would also agree that some actual immoral behaviors should be banned like murder, rape, pedophilia, stealing, slander, etc.
Well, the Libertarian says paedophilia and slander should not be banned. You may be able to say that he is morally wrong but I am not able to make that assessment. So, if he says that I am morally wrong if I go to the evil aggressive government and use force to stop him from slandering me, what am I to do? I can't argue back, because there is no argument. There is no room for debate. The moralist states morality and wins.

The meta is that only moral people get rights, and I want to live in a world where everyone has the same rights.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #14

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #13]
You can also have the rule no sex with 6-year-olds without any moral reason whatsoever. For example, statistics show that when you rape a child, he may go out and rape a child later in life. Since nobody wants to be sexually abused, we don't let it spread. But yes, as it is, that's a moral rule, meaning that nobody has to justify it and it's just wrong and that's the end of it.
Uummm . . . that’s not what morality is at all. Morality is not arbitrary. It follows logic and reason. I’m not sure where you got this idea that morality can’t or need not be justified. It’s quite the opposite. It’s typically those that oppose some moral law that can’t justify his/her reasons beyond, “because I don’t want to do that”, or “it’s my right to do what I want!”. Morality on the other hand is what makes the most sense/is in man’s best interest/is most reasonable given observation of this world we live in and the way it works. Moral truth is based on logic/science/facts/biology/reason!
That's what I don't like. That's what I want torn down.
Ok. Well, then I think you have a huge misunderstanding regarding morality.
RightReason wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amIf you are advocating an immoral rule, then yeah some other better rule should be enacted.
Right, and you don't have to justify that.
I’m not sure what you mean you don’t have to justify it. In a way you’re right. It would be immoral to treat black and brown people differently than white people. I shouldn’t really have to provide you a list of reasons why that is. Of course, I could present the science showing a human being is a human being and we come in all different types of skin tones, if you really want, but often moral truth needs no explanation/justification because it actually is just THAT obvious.
My immoral rule can be for the benefit of everyone, your moral rule can hurt everyone
Sorry, but you just lost me again. Your immoral rule would not benefit everyone if it were immoral. That is illogical.
, and what should happen if morality is on your side is that you win and get your way.
Well, “getting my way” wouldn’t really be what it is about. We should do what is moral, because it is moral, not to win some argument or political issue. But even in doing what is right and good, doesn’t always mean immediate and instant “win”/”benefit”. Maybe I don’t have a one night stand with someone I meet at a bar. IMO, yes, in the long run, I “win” from such a decision/choice. Of course, in the short term, I might lose out on some instant gratification.

Anyway, in achieving moral truth, we are all winners. Morality isn’t on one person’s side.
That's why it's called morality and not options or choices or opinions.
Doing the right thing is always a choice. But just because we recognize that there IS a right thing to do doesn’t mean are freedom has been taken away. In fact, I could argue the opposite. When we think choice in itself is sovereign, God help us all. IOW, it isn’t simply about getting to do what you want to do. That seems like something an immature teenager would think. True freedom is being free to choose that which is right and good. There comes no peace/freedom in choosing immorality. It would be thinking any or all choices are equal/good as long as I am the one who chooses/decides. That’s silly. That’s almost like valuing tyranny – it’s good to be king kind of thing.
What is immoral is wrong and one shouldn't do it. No explanation necessary.
What is immoral is wrong and one shouldn’t do it, but that truth is never unreasonable. In fact, it is that which is the most reasonable. And it can also be explained. Also, there is no evoking of God necessary, if that is what you are worried about. All men, regardless of belief in God, can know and see the logic in moral truth.

RightReason wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amIf something is immoral, it means it is not in man’s best interest, so it would be contradictory to say, we should be able to do something that is not in man’s best interest because it is in man’s best interest to do so.
I disagree. That's why we have two separate terms to describe them. It would be in mankind's best interest to, for example, slaughter one healthy person, and distribute his organs to save the sick, if more can be saved.
But it isn’t in mankind’s best interest to kill each other, as we would then have to determine who decides who will be sacrificed? It isn’t in mankind’s best interest to pit one another against each other. It also isn’t in the best interest of the people being slaughtered. So, no sorry, but that is not a good example.

RightReason wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amAlso, using a red light as an example, which as discussed already, has no inherent moral nature, makes it sound like what is moral/immoral is arbitrary (like a red light). But that simply isn’t true.
I'm agreeing that the red light has no moral value. That's why, when a Libertarian comes along and says, "I have morality, red lights are immoral because that is force levied against me, and force is immoral," then we must do away with red lights, because morality simply is and does not require any argument.

If he's right that force is immoral he just wins and we have to get rid of all the red lights, no matter the good they do. The minute someone introduces morality, he wins and the guy who built it all up on practicality must discard it all. Morality is higher than practicality. Practicality must defer to morality.
No. That is exactly what morality is not. The libertarian is mistaken. You pit morality and reason/practicality against each other. Again, if the libertarian wants to claim it is immoral to have societal rules then he would first have to explain why we should have the rule to have no rules. Such absurdity!
RightReason wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:17 amOh, I see what you are saying. Well, it may appear that sometimes that ends up looking like what’s going on. But I guess I would agree that we can’t use immoral means to force someone to do the right thing, but I would disagree that enforcing traffic lights is immoral or some kind of infringement on someone’s rights. It’s not immoral to have societal rules, unless they are immoral rules.

So you're just matching his ante. You're saying, "No, actually red lights aren't immoral." You're making the same argument for the wokeism. You just disagree that it's moral.
It isn’t about disagreement. Moral truth is NOT personal opinion. There is nothing immoral about a city enforcing traffic lights. What is moral or immoral is not dependent on a person’s opinion. Some guy can disagree that rape is wrong or that we shouldn’t have laws against rape, but that does not mean the immorality of rape is dependent on his personal opinion or by popular vote. That’s not how morality works. Again, I think perhaps you are confused because so many people like to make claims about what they find offensive or immoral, but those claims might have nothing to do with actual moral truth. Someone saying it, doesn’t make it so.
But think of it from the perspective of someone with no claim to morality.
I don’t even know what pretending to have no claim to morality would be like. Everyone is subject to moral truth. In fact, we even all demand it on a regular daily basis. It’s why we can say, “No, that’s not right.” Or “that is an injustice.” We can all recognize when a person is violating the moral order.

Someone whose only argument is practical and has no claim to morality, must defer to the one who claims morality. That sucks. It sucks hard. What it means for me and anyone else who has no claim to morality is that anyone who does can just come and knock over our sandcastles. Well I want my immoral sandcastle, and a lot of other people do too.
I don’t think you mean what you think you mean. You do not want your immoral sandcastles. You want your moral sandcastles. Everyone does. Not sure where you got this idea that morality is a four letter word. I think you have created a strawman.
morality does not require logical justification. This turns a moral society with some immoral people into a bullyocracy. Why is murder wrong? Because it is. Don't murder or go to jail. The anti-murder proponent states morality, doesn't have to justify, and gets his way.
You don’t think murder is wrong? I think you think it is and the wrongness of murder can be explained/justified. What makes you think moral truth is that which can’t be justified? Where are you getting this? I’ve never known a moral truth beyond reason.
It's not that I'm recognising wokeism as wrong; it's the opposite. In order to say the murder bully is actually right and not just bullying, but the woke bully is wrong and doesn't actually have morality on his side, I would have to look at my own moral compass to check, and as a psychopath I don't have one of those
There is no such thing as my truth vs. your truth, or my own moral compass. That is a misunderstanding of moral truth. The psychopath doesn’t get to proclaim his own moral truth. Obviously, he can in his head, but we all know he is wrong, as he is a psychopath. Him believing it doesn’t make it so. In fact, it makes him wrong.
From my perspective, higher morals are just more morals, and more restrictive (on me) morals, since I have no way to say if any of them are true or not. So if someone adds another restriction to my back, I must carry it.
If they aren’t true than they aren’t moral. If they are true, they more than likely would be less restrictive and offer more freedom. I’m not understanding your dilemma.
Well, the Libertarian says paedophilia and slander should not be banned.
Really? I doubt that. At least, not in their practical everyday life. Gotta love theoretical libertarians whose very belief system falls apart once they have kids of their own. I’m pretty sure if someone slandered them, they would like to be able to have legal recourse.
You may be able to say that he is morally wrong but I am not able to make that assessment. So, if he says that I am morally wrong if I go to the evil aggressive government and use force to stop him from slandering me, what am I to do?
You could argue that it isn’t immoral to have societal rules/laws and this slander one happens to be a good one. You could show the reasoning and logic behind it.

You could also recognize, not unlike the libertarian, that sometimes morality need not be controlled by the state. I think it’s immoral to masturbate, but that doesn’t mean I think the state should set up cameras in people’s homes and arrest people for doing so.
I can't argue back, because there is no argument.
Of course there is.
There is no room for debate. The moralist states morality and wins.
I think you are mixing up what those who do not have moral truth on their side resort to. You are right, those people often think they can just end a discussion by calling something they disagree with, “hate speech” or typically some kind of “phobia”. They don’t want to have conversation or engage in discussion, so they try to silence the other by labeling them as transphobic, or xenophobic, or homophobic, or fill in the blank. This can be very effective in stopping actual debate. Those people are the ones who think they can just state or claim something and that in shouting it loud enough it makes it true.

However, those who have actual truth on their side are more than open to showing the reason. The welcome the science/the research/the observation/purpose/form/function.

The meta is that only moral people get rights, and I want to live in a world where everyone has the same rights.
Since when has morality always won out in the public square? We tend to see the opposite throughout history (slavery, abortion, the porn industry, groups like mbla being protected).

Also, curious, what rights do you think you don’t have?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmMorality is not arbitrary. It follows logic and reason. I’m not sure where you got this idea that morality can’t or need not be justified. It’s quite the opposite. It’s typically those that oppose some moral law that can’t justify his/her reasons beyond, “because I don’t want to do that”, or “it’s my right to do what I want!”. Morality on the other hand is what makes the most sense/is in man’s best interest/is most reasonable given observation of this world we live in and the way it works. Moral truth is based on logic/science/facts/biology/reason!
It can't be based on any of that, because of the is-ought dilemma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmI’m not sure what you mean you don’t have to justify it. In a way you’re right. It would be immoral to treat black and brown people differently than white people. I shouldn’t really have to provide you a list of reasons why that is. Of course, I could present the science showing a human being is a human being and we come in all different types of skin tones, if you really want, but often moral truth needs no explanation/justification because it actually is just THAT obvious.
But it is not immoral to treat ugly women different from beautiful ones. To give the beautiful ones good jobs where they don't have to do anything, shower them with gifts, tip them more if they're your waitress, and always dump on the ugly ones within the limit of what the law allows. The only reason you think it's obvious we can't treat skin colour the way we do physical attractiveness is because your morality is innate. You have a little cricket that whispers in your ear telling you how bad racism is, and I don't. If you tell me racism is bad and you give me reasons we shouldn't discriminate, all my immoral mind does is go to all the places we do discriminate, we ignore those reasons, and nobody cares.

But I know it is innate, because I observe people, and I accept that it's okay to tip a waitress more because she's beautiful, give her more pay, a better job, but it is definitely not acceptable to do that because she's white. There are no reasons. Morality simply is what it is, and is not what it is not. If I don't accept that I will end up fighting for things nobody should be fighting for and I will be in jail because I deserve to be.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmSorry, but you just lost me again. Your immoral rule would not benefit everyone if it were immoral. That is illogical.
My immoral rule would simply extend all of your reasons about why we can't be racist as far as they logically extend, or else discard them. So that one girl every workplace has whose job is to be the omega, and be dumped on and picked on and do all the work everyone else is supposed to be doing? Either she would be protected or nobody would. Realistically nobody would, because protecting everyone (redheads and atheists and people who put pictures of dolphins everywhere) from discrimination would be disastrous and unachievable. And moral people won't like this but they can stay off my planet.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmWell, “getting my way” wouldn’t really be what it is about. We should do what is moral, because it is moral, not to win some argument or political issue. But even in doing what is right and good, doesn’t always mean immediate and instant “win”/”benefit”. Maybe I don’t have a one night stand with someone I meet at a bar. IMO, yes, in the long run, I “win” from such a decision/choice. Of course, in the short term, I might lose out on some instant gratification.

Anyway, in achieving moral truth, we are all winners. Morality isn’t on one person’s side.
The conflicts arise when one person is minding his own business and a moral person shows up, telling him, you can't do that. I'll give you an example: Homosexuality. The Bible condemns it. And believe it or not there are reasons. The main reason, I think, is because it's very bad for the flourishing of a People when you allow superior male-male pairs who are made even fitter and more competitive than they already are from not having the burden of child care, to outcompete male-female pairs and occupy niches the male-female pairs need to reproduce.

All I'm saying is, make your case. Let your reasons be known. Let it be only that. If you really think morality actually is that, then we're not in disagreement.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pm
That's why it's called morality and not options or choices or opinions.
Doing the right thing is always a choice. But just because we recognize that there IS a right thing to do doesn’t mean are freedom has been taken away. In fact, I could argue the opposite. When we think choice in itself is sovereign, God help us all. IOW, it isn’t simply about getting to do what you want to do. That seems like something an immature teenager would think. True freedom is being free to choose that which is right and good. There comes no peace/freedom in choosing immorality. It would be thinking any or all choices are equal/good as long as I am the one who chooses/decides. That’s silly. That’s almost like valuing tyranny – it’s good to be king kind of thing.
What I mean is, there is a right choice and a wrong one. It's more like the right answer on a test than, say, choosing a favourite colour or getting a cat versus a dog. It's not a choice in that you have every obligation to make the right one, and if you make the wrong one, then, well, you're wrong.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmWhat is immoral is wrong and one shouldn’t do it, but that truth is never unreasonable. In fact, it is that which is the most reasonable. And it can also be explained. Also, there is no evoking of God necessary, if that is what you are worried about. All men, regardless of belief in God, can know and see the logic in moral truth.

Also, using a red light as an example, which as discussed already, has no inherent moral nature, makes it sound like what is moral/immoral is arbitrary (like a red light). But that simply isn’t true.

So, no sorry, but [murder] is not a good example. I think you think it is and the wrongness of murder can be explained/justified.
You say that, yet I am sitting right here and I'm one of these people who just goes along with it because I have to, and I don't see the logic in any moral declarations. Some moral declarations can also be justified by a greater good (like murder which you're right about not being a good example) or some agreed upon end, but frankly most cannot. Don't murder for example, very easy, nobody wants to be murdered and it has benefits for all to live in a world where we don't have to worry about it. It is benefiting me right now, sitting here typing, not having to worry about whether anyone wants my house and has the ability to take it from me by force. Traffic lights benefit me too, but that's not moral at all, and this is what proves the difference. If morality was the benefit of man, then traffic lights would be moral. The fact that you admit they're not means you very well know there's a difference between morality which doesn't have to be justified, and things that are done for some benefit, which must show that benefit. There's just an overlap in the case of preventing murder. The examples that nail the coffin shut are too numerous to count, that we simply must follow because morality and we can't ask justification for, or extend the justifications to all they logically extend to when we do get them, like no racism. Again, I don't dispute that a rule against racism is moral, and I follow it because it is moral, but the world I want to live in is one that either extends the reasons, or discards the rule.

Basically, I want a fair world, not a moral one.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmNo. That is exactly what morality is not. The libertarian is mistaken. You pit morality and reason/practicality against each other. Again, if the libertarian wants to claim it is immoral to have societal rules then he would first have to explain why we should have the rule to have no rules. Such absurdity!
Because force is immoral. There he stands and from that perch he may not be budged. Force is immoral. It's a baseless moral declaration. Every single time someone asks why, you're ultimately going to have to pull it back to a baseless and moral declaration. You've pulled it back to the benefit of mankind, which seems pretty solid, but by doing that, you have made one of these baseless moral declarations that we should all act for the benefit of mankind and not just ourselves.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmIt isn’t about disagreement. Moral truth is NOT personal opinion. There is nothing immoral about a city enforcing traffic lights. What is moral or immoral is not dependent on a person’s opinion. Some guy can disagree that rape is wrong or that we shouldn’t have laws against rape, but that does not mean the immorality of rape is dependent on his personal opinion or by popular vote. That’s not how morality works. Again, I think perhaps you are confused because so many people like to make claims about what they find offensive or immoral, but those claims might have nothing to do with actual moral truth. Someone saying it, doesn’t make it so.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmIt isn’t about disagreement. Moral truth is NOT personal opinion. There is nothing immoral about a city enforcing hate speech laws. What is moral or immoral is not dependent on a person’s opinion. Some guy can disagree that hate speech is wrong or that we shouldn’t have laws against hate speech, but that does not mean the immorality of hate speech is dependent on his personal opinion or by popular vote. That’s not how morality works. Again, I think perhaps you are confused because so many people like to make claims about what they find to be their own personal freedom, but those claims might have nothing to do with actual moral truth. Someone saying it, doesn’t make it so.
Oddly you're saying exactly what the woke people say. And I agree with both of you, you just don't agree with each other, though you should. Look what I did there. I just changed a few terms. I changed the baseless claims to other baseless claims.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmI don’t even know what pretending to have no claim to morality would be like. Everyone is subject to moral truth. In fact, we even all demand it on a regular daily basis. It’s why we can say, “No, that’s not right.” Or “that is an injustice.” We can all recognize when a person is violating the moral order.
Exactly!!! It would look like being a blind person in a world where everyone is required to drive a car and exceptions aren't given for being blind.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmThe psychopath doesn’t get to proclaim his own moral truth. Obviously, he can in his head, but we all know he is wrong, as he is a psychopath. Him believing it doesn’t make it so. In fact, it makes him wrong.
Exactly. And because I am one, I would like a world where morality is taken off the board, only practicality exists, and everyone gets to have their say. If you really mean it about morality being justifiable by logic, science, reason, and the greater good, then we want the same world. If you really mean that, them just imagine I agreed with you and said, yes, that is precisely why nobody should just go around morally declaring on others and when someone says no, you can't do that, they should have to justify it by a premise that extends to all - like, we shouldn't hurt each other - or leave the fellow he's bullying the heck alone.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmIf they aren’t true than they aren’t moral. If they are true, they more than likely would be less restrictive and offer more freedom. I’m not understanding your dilemma.
You're not understanding because you happen to know which morals are true because your cricket, and I don't have one of those, so I just have to carry any and all morals people lump on me. They might not be true, but I've no way to know that. When someone beeps at me, saying I've violated the right of way, I have to yield, because I am a blind person driving a car which is ridiculous and society shouldn't force on anyone. In reality everyone just always beeps at me, I must always yield, and frankly I don't think that's fair.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmReally? I doubt that. At least, not in their practical everyday life. Gotta love theoretical libertarians whose very belief system falls apart once they have kids of their own. I’m pretty sure if someone slandered them, they would like to be able to have legal recourse.
Fun fact, one of the libertarians I argue with did this very thing (though it was not about slander, but something else he said should not be a law) and then when he cried to the government, what he said was, all he did was use his free speech, and the government punishing was in fact immoral, but he didn't do it, so he didn't do anything wrong. Even though he told me I shouldn't cry to the government, he later amended, well, of course you shouldn't, but it's not exactly force to do so. And it's not force to tell people not to do things or claim they're morally wrong when they're not, either.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmYou could argue that it isn’t immoral to have societal rules/laws and this slander one happens to be a good one. You could show the reasoning and logic behind it.
I can do the latter but not the former. If someone says, that law is actually immoral, because it is force, and force is immoral, to me, they win and that's the end of it.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmYou could also recognize, not unlike the libertarian, that sometimes morality need not be controlled by the state. I think it’s immoral to masturbate, but that doesn’t mean I think the state should set up cameras in people’s homes and arrest people for doing so.
I also think leaving people alone when they're not hurting people is a good darn idea. The person barging into the masturbator's home and insisting he stop because it's immoral is hurting people. The masturbator himself really isn't.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmHowever, those who have actual truth on their side are more than open to showing the reason. The welcome the science/the research/the observation/purpose/form/function.
If you really believe this, then we are not in disagreement because all I want is a world where everyone has an equal obligation to show the reason before they impose moral edicts on others.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmSince when has morality always won out in the public square? We tend to see the opposite throughout history (slavery, abortion, the porn industry, groups like mbla being protected).
Always the current time thinks it is moral, so in the now, whenever that may be, the going truth is that the good guys have finally won. And perhaps that, they need to do just a bit more, work is not entirely done. But always, the old ideas are bad, the bad guys lost, and now is the most moral time in history.
RightReason wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmAlso, curious, what rights do you think you don’t have?
The right to stand on equal ground with the moral person making baseless moral edicts. All moral people do this. You just disagree with one another. I showed you when I posted it in green.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #16

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15]
Morality is not arbitrary. It follows logic and reason. I’m not sure where you got this idea that morality can’t or need not be justified. It’s quite the opposite. It’s typically those that oppose some moral law that can’t justify his/her reasons beyond, “because I don’t want to do that”, or “it’s my right to do what I want!”. Morality on the other hand is what makes the most sense/is in man’s best interest/is most reasonable given observation of this world we live in and the way it works. Moral truth is based on logic/science/facts/biology/reason!
It can't be based on any of that, because of the is-ought dilemma.
Of course it can. We use science and facts about the world we live in to determine what makes the most sense and what is right and good and in man’s best interest. Yes, moral truth is about what we should or should not do, but we can know what we should or should not do based on the reality of the world we live in.

Hume falsely assumes there is no ought in nature. But it can be argued otherwise – eyes are for seeing, the heart is for pumping blood. From that we of course can say if an eye is working properly, it allows us to see. If the heart is working properly it allows us to live. This would be using an objective standard in judging whether an eye or a heart are good/bad and doing what they should.

Also, Hume seems to be guilty of scientism in his so called is/ought problem. His theory makes the mistake of holding that only science can produce Truth. Who said man can only reduce everything to science. We are always expected to come to Truth via science AND reason.

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmI’m not sure what you mean you don’t have to justify it. In a way you’re right. It would be immoral to treat black and brown people differently than white people. I shouldn’t really have to provide you a list of reasons why that is. Of course, I could present the science showing a human being is a human being and we come in all different types of skin tones, if you really want, but often moral truth needs no explanation/justification because it actually is just THAT obvious.

But it is not immoral to treat ugly women different from beautiful ones.
It can be. It might not be illegal, but it certainly could be immoral to not show an ugly woman the same respect that you would show a beautiful woman.

To give the beautiful ones good jobs where they don't have to do anything, shower them with gifts, tip them more if they're your waitress, and always dump on the ugly ones within the limit of what the law allows.
Uhhh, yeah, that actually would be immoral, not to mention be being a jerk.
The only reason you think it's obvious we can't treat skin colour the way we do physical attractiveness is because your morality is innate.
Yeah, morality is innate to a degree. It takes some hefty indoctrination to make people think it is ok to treat people differently according to the color of their skin (of course we often see that throughout history – indoctrination that is, convincing people that other people are inferior or less than those “like us”) It can take years of speaking derogatorily of others to fill people’s minds with false claims until they come to believe/accept these false stereotypes. We often see the greatest accepters of others very small children, who have not yet been tainted.
You have a little cricket that whispers in your ear telling you how bad racism is, and I don't.
Everyone has a little cricket that whispers in their ear when they do something that is immoral, including you.
If you tell me racism is bad and you give me reasons we shouldn't discriminate, all my immoral mind does is go to all the places we do discriminate, we ignore those reasons, and nobody cares.
The fact that you recognize the wrongness of discriminating and accuse people of ‘not caring’ shows you admit we should care. Your moral conscience is coming through loud and clear.

But I know it is innate, because I observe people, and I accept that it's okay to tip a waitress more because she's beautiful, give her more pay, a better job, but it is definitely not acceptable to do that because she's white.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I’m not really sure how to respond to this. I can assure you, if you had a very plane Jane waitress, physically speaking, but she was funny and had a great personality, and did her job well, you would actually consider her more beautiful and would tip her. I have a hard time believing you would pay a female engineer who worked for your company more if she had large breasts than one who was flat chested, and not based on performance. If you actually would, then that would be both immoral and idiotic for the success of your company.
There are no reasons. Morality simply is what it is, and is not what it is not. If I don't accept that I will end up fighting for things nobody should be fighting for and I will be in jail because I deserve to be.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmSorry, but you just lost me again. Your immoral rule would not benefit everyone if it were immoral. That is illogical.
My immoral rule would simply extend all of your reasons about why we can't be racist as far as they logically extend, or else discard them.
Then it isn’t an immoral rule. THAT is what we would call moral. Why do you have such a problem with admitting one - morality is good/right and two - that you are moral?
protecting everyone (redheads and atheists and people who put pictures of dolphins everywhere) from discrimination would be disastrous and unachievable.
What are you talking about? What employer disrespects someone just for having red hair or putting pictures of dolphins up? Where are these employers who pay their red heads less? Or the cat ladies who work for them less for doing the same job? I think you overestimate how disastrous it would be to actually make sure people are getting equal pay for equal work and not being judged by what poster they hang next to their desk. This really shouldn’t be causing you stress.
And moral people won't like this but they can stay off my planet.
I think you are simply talking about how we all have likes and dislikes in people – that some people rub us the wrong way, or some people we find more attractive than others, or some people annoy us with their little dolphin pictures, but I’m not talking about saying you aren’t allowed to not prefer some humans over other humans. You just can’t refuse to serve them if they come to your restaurant or prevent them from sitting next to you on a bus, or bully them in your office or school. You are simply expected to at least treat them with the minimum respect for being human. If you can’t do that, I would sure like to know why not.
The conflicts arise when one person is minding his own business and a moral person shows up, telling him, you can't do that. I'll give you an example: Homosexuality.
What about homosexuality? Yes, you cannot hurt a person with same sex attraction. THAT doesn’t mean I have to agree with them that having sex with another person of the same sex is A-Ok. They can’t make me say it is and be punished for holding the position I do regarding homosexual acts. I’m permitted to say some guy who cheats on his wife is acting immorally and even say I think he is wrong for doing so. Of course I can’t hurt him or do anything about his immoral behavior, but I can think and say what I want about it. The same goes for homosexual behavior. Not sure what the problem is.

Plus, we “meddle” so to speak in lots of immoral things, where the person might claim, “I’m not hurting anyone. Why don’t you just mind your own business!” We show up to the junkie and say, “you can’t do that!”. We say to the adulterer, “you can’t do that”, We sometimes say to the porn industry, “you can’t do that!”. We say the same thing to the shoplifter, the underage kid trying to buy alcohol, to the bully, to the guy having sex with a cow, to the polygamist, to the Octomom who purposely implants 8 embryos in her womb, well, I guess because she can, etc. We all make these moral judgments about others. Usually, because we all do innately recognize when something isn’t right/good. To the offender, it might seem like it’s none of someone else’s business. But none of us live on an island and often what we do, does affect others. Also, often it isn’t simply about gossip or moral superiority. It’s about genuine concern and not wanting someone to go down some path that will not bring peace/happiness/fulfillment. Because violating the moral order can never bring peace/happiness.
All I'm saying is, make your case. Let your reasons be known. Let it be only that. If you really think morality actually is that, then we're not in disagreement.
I do. And this is exactly what I’ve been arguing. All men can know right from wrong via logic/reason, and acknowledging the way the world IS.
What I mean is, there is a right choice and a wrong one. It's more like the right answer on a test than, say, choosing a favourite colour or getting a cat versus a dog. It's not a choice in that you have every obligation to make the right one, and if you make the wrong one, then, well, you're wrong.
Yes! This, I agree with! Thank you.
I don't see the logic in any moral declarations.
I do not believe this. I think you just seem to think morality is a four letter word and you pretend you want nothing to do with it because seems you equate it with religious puritans or something. However my position is the same as yours. Present the facts, observe the world and the way it works, use reason and logic to determine that which is right/good. Religion/bias/opinion need not apply.
Some moral declarations can also be justified by a greater good (like murder which you're right about not being a good example) or some agreed upon end, but frankly most cannot. Don't murder for example, very easy, nobody wants to be murdered and it has benefits for all to live in a world where we don't have to worry about it. It is benefiting me right now, sitting here typing, not having to worry about whether anyone wants my house and has the ability to take it from me by force. Traffic lights benefit me too, but that's not moral at all, and this is what proves the difference. If morality was the benefit of man, then traffic lights would be moral.
The moral issue is that you shouldn’t drive recklessly, or you might endanger someone else. There are laws that come come about via popular vote and then there is the moral law – that which is right/wrong regardless of whether there is a law in the books. We can differ on whether we think there should be a traffic light at the corner of main and 8th, but we wouldn’t differ on knowing that a person should be considerate of others and not drive recklessly endangering themselves and others.

Here is an excerpt from a great article I just read this morning. It is in reference to Biden’s pro abortion position, but it applies to our conversation:

And while I’m at it, may I say, I am mightily tired of the way the President and his allies use the term “impose.” Time and again, they say some version of, “I’m unwilling to impose my beliefs on others.” Now that we’ve established that opposition to abortion is not a matter of sectarian doctrine, can we also admit that any law, by its very nature, imposes on others? If a majority of federal representatives formulated a piece of legislation to set the speed limit at 65, and if the executive agreed with this determination, a law would go into effect imposing this viewpoint on the entire society. The same goes for tax codes, anti-trust regulations, minimum wage requirements, civil rights statutes, etc. Laws don’t suggest; they impose. And behind every truly just law, there is some moral principle: preserving life, establishing greater justice, protecting the poor, fostering the common good, etc. So if you were to ask me whether I was working to impose on the entire society a law that would protect the rights of the unborn, I would say, “Yes.” And then I would add: “And what’s your point?”

https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/bar ... -our-time/

Feel free to read the whole article. It is pretty short.

So, I’m afraid your libertarian friends’ positions are simply weak/lame/illogical in trying to argue the immorality of “imposing” laws on others.
The fact that you admit they're not means you very well know there's a difference between morality which doesn't have to be justified, and things that are done for some benefit, which must show that benefit. There's just an overlap in the case of preventing murder. The examples that nail the coffin shut are too numerous to count, that we simply must follow because morality and we can't ask justification for
Again, like what? Please feel free to be specific, as I have no idea what you are talking about. Are we back to traffic lights?
, or extend the justifications to all they logically extend to when we do get them, like no racism. Again, I don't dispute that a rule against racism is moral, and I follow it because it is moral, but the world I want to live in is one that either extends the reasons, or discards the rule.
Agree. And every moral truth I’ve ever known can be reasoned. Unfortunately, people say they want the reasons, but they really don’t. They just want to keep living immorally and so keep saying the reasons aren’t good enough. But this is more to support their addiction/selfish behavior/and appease their conscience than it is anything else.
Basically, I want a fair world, not a moral one.
Well, no one can promise you a fair world, because well, what’s fair actually is subjective, but also, even with the best intentions, we aren’t always guaranteed fairness in life. Is it fair that a tree fell on your house and not mine? Is it fair your dad split when you were 8 and not mine? Is it fair you have Crohn’s disease and I don’t?

In reality, I think what you really want is a moral world, not a fair one. It might not be fair that you lost both your arms in a factory accident, but in a moral world, you wouldn’t simply be thrown out to pasture. You would receive the medical care you need and your family would be taken care of. Fairness might not always be easily remedied, but we can always respond in a moral manner.

I for one, would never put my money on trying to be fair or even seeing that as an end goal. But we all could see morality as an end goal, as we have control regarding moral behavior.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmNo. That is exactly what morality is not. The libertarian is mistaken. You pit morality and reason/practicality against each other. Again, if the libertarian wants to claim it is immoral to have societal rules then he would first have to explain why we should have the rule to have no rules. Such absurdity!
Because force is immoral.
Says the mistaken libertarian. Please see my quote from Bishop Barron above to explain better. Also, claiming force is immoral and saying, “You can’t force someone . . . “ would in fact be forcing someone if you’ve now made it a rule to not force someone. See how that works? The Libertarian position is self defeating.
There he stands and from that perch he may not be budged. Force is immoral. It's a baseless moral declaration.
Correct. It is a baseless declaration, but it is not moral. Force is often necessary. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about force. So, no, the libertarian would need to declare and justify his reasons.
Every single time someone asks why, you're ultimately going to have to pull it back to a baseless and moral declaration.
Not at all. Where are you getting this?
You've pulled it back to the benefit of mankind, which seems pretty solid, but by doing that, you have made one of these baseless moral declarations that we should all act for the benefit of mankind and not just ourselves.
You misunderstand then. Doing that which is moral is for the benefit of the individual AND society at large. It is in man’s best interest to do that which is right and just.
It isn’t about disagreement. Moral truth is NOT personal opinion. There is nothing immoral about a city enforcing hate speech laws. What is moral or immoral is not dependent on a person’s opinion. Some guy can disagree that hate speech is wrong or that we shouldn’t have laws against hate speech, but that does not mean the immorality of hate speech is dependent on his personal opinion or by popular vote. That’s not how morality works. Again, I think perhaps you are confused because so many people like to make claims about what they find to be their own personal freedom, but those claims might have nothing to do with actual moral truth. Someone saying it, doesn’t make it so.
Oddly you're saying exactly what the woke people say. And I agree with both of you, you just don't agree with each other, though you should. Look what I did there. I just changed a few terms. I changed the baseless claims to other baseless claims.
No, you compared one specific city law/rule against another specific city law/rule. Those types of things are for the most part up to debate and can be a matter of opinion. I’ve already stated as much earlier. Again, a town can vote on whether they want to make J-walking illegal or not, but a J-walking law/rule would neither be moral or immoral. The underlying moral law would be things like can a city ‘impose’ laws on its people? Or is it immoral to put oneself in a situation that could be a danger to them or a danger to others?

You're not understanding because you happen to know which morals are true because your cricket, and I don't have one of those, so I just have to carry any and all morals people lump on me. They might not be true, but I've no way to know that. When someone beeps at me, saying I've violated the right of way, I have to yield, because I am a blind person driving a car which is ridiculous and society shouldn't force on anyone. In reality everyone just always beeps at me, I must always yield, and frankly I don't think that's fair.
I fail to see the hardship in yielding at a traffic corner. It is for your benefit and the other driver. Why be so dramatic about something that makes sense? We both agree moral truth can be explained/demonstrated/justified soooooo what’s the problem in yielding to that which can be known and is good? If the person cannot explain/justify their law, then we have the right and possibly duty to oppose it.

We do have a way of knowing whether something is true or not. It’s called logic/reason.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmHowever, those who have actual truth on their side are more than open to showing the reason. The welcome the science/the research/the observation/purpose/form/function.
If you really believe this, then we are not in disagreement because all I want is a world where everyone has an equal obligation to show the reason before they impose moral edicts on others.
Well, ok then.
Always the current time thinks it is moral, so in the now, whenever that may be, the going truth is that the good guys have finally won. And perhaps that, they need to do just a bit more, work is not entirely done. But always, the old ideas are bad, the bad guys lost, and now is the most moral time in history.
Ha, ha, ha . . . perhaps we are in agreement and on the same page. These are some of my favorite quotes from G.K. Chesterton . . .

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.”

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”


“I say that a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it.”

“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmAlso, curious, what rights do you think you don’t have?
The right to stand on equal ground with the moral person making baseless moral edicts.
You’ll have to tell me what these baseless moral edicts are. It isn’t enough to simply keep repeating moral people make baseless moral edicts. Moral truth can be demonstrated. If they are baseless, they aren’t true. So I really am not sure where this fear of yours comes from.

Sometimes the presentation of moral truth causes people to do all sorts of crazy things to keep from admitting they might have to adjust their behavior. Many often end up having to redefine terms, or invent straw men to justify their opposition to moral truth, as a defense mechanism. The person ends up saying, “the only reason you believe X is because of your religion”, and they claim they don’t have to listen to the argument because it is a “religious one.” Often they simply try to say you have no reasons, you are simply asserting that, even thought the person lists the reasons.

Not sure if you are interested, but here are two short videos that touch on the topics we’ve discussed. Some really good points are made in these. Hope you’ll take a listen. We might be in more agreement on much of this then first appeared.





Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #17

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:01 pm Huh? Living in accordance with that which is right and good is freeing and in man’s best interest. We want others to live according to the moral law because it will bring them peace and fulfilment.

For example, saying one should not be sexually promiscuous is not to be a buzzkill or ruin someone else’s fun or weight someone down (chains). It’s so that they can live a happy fulfilling life and not go down some empty road.
What if they don't care about peace and fulfilment, just instant gratification? That's where the chain comes in, you say to them, don't do that, it's wrong.
What veneer? Morality is not for the sake of morality. It isn’t arbitrary. It is what is in man’s best interest.
Which man's best interest though? Sacrificing one's life to save another is moral but not in the one dying's best interest.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #18

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:00 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:50 pm And he's right. But the trouble is, life is better without him.
That's why we killed Jesus.
Well I don't want to kill anyone. I just want to go where the billions of modern-day moral revolutionaries are not are not and leave them theirs. Anyone who wants can leave with me. Heck, we can call it Hell. But it'll be the nice place and the billions of Jesuses (who aren't all on the same page, but all absolutely believe they are the correct one) can work out amongst themselves what is moral to impose on one another while in Hell we won't even have the discussion. At least, not founded on the this-is-moral-and-that's-not premise.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmOf course it can. We use science and facts about the world we live in to determine what makes the most sense and what is right and good and in man’s best interest. Yes, moral truth is about what we should or should not do, but we can know what we should or should not do based on the reality of the world we live in.
Benefit of mankind is your unfounded assumption. Anti-racism is the woke assumption. Neither is superior to the other. The first video complains that the woke are about power, and has some complaints about reductionism. It's irrelevant. Because we're talking about the ideology. The video complains about cancel culture but offers NO REASON cancel culture isn't moral. The video just says people don't want it. The second makes your same argument, which is based on benefit to man.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmHume falsely assumes there is no ought in nature. But it can be argued otherwise – eyes are for seeing, the heart is for pumping blood. From that we of course can say if an eye is working properly, it allows us to see. If the heart is working properly it allows us to live. This would be using an objective standard in judging whether an eye or a heart are good/bad and doing what they should.
Then don't eat meat because that muscle is for moving that organism, not for you to eat. Really there is no ought in Nature, just a series of organisms using things for what they are usually used for. These are not oughts, more like traditions.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmAlso, Hume seems to be guilty of scientism in his so called is/ought problem. His theory makes the mistake of holding that only science can produce Truth. Who said man can only reduce everything to science. We are always expected to come to Truth via science AND reason.
I agree. Morality is one of those other ways of knowing. But science only knows science. So if you don't have one of the other ways of knowing, such as morality, people who only have science must move aside and accept that truth, because we can't check it. So this actually proves my ultimate point.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
But it is not immoral to treat ugly women different from beautiful ones.
It can be. It might not be illegal, but it certainly could be immoral to not show an ugly woman the same respect that you would show a beautiful woman.
I'm afraid this doesn't fit with your benefit of mankind argument. Beauty shows fitness and intelligence. The best benefit of man in this case, is for ugly women to die off, preferably as early as possible, stop sucking up resources, and definitely not spread their genes. Ideally we should kill them off as soon as it becomes apparent that they aren't 10's, to make room for those who are. We're overpopulated after all.

Unless you think that's immoral.

Unless you think morality does not actually just equal pragmatism.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmEveryone has a little cricket that whispers in their ear when they do something that is immoral, including you.
Psychopaths do not have one.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
If you tell me racism is bad and you give me reasons we shouldn't discriminate, all my immoral mind does is go to all the places we do discriminate, we ignore those reasons, and nobody cares.
The fact that you recognize the wrongness of discriminating and accuse people of ‘not caring’ shows you admit we should care. Your moral conscience is coming through loud and clear.
This isn't morality. You don't need morality to apply a rule from one circumstance to another circumstance. You do need morality to tell you, on the fly, when a rule applies and when it shouldn't.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmBeauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I’m not really sure how to respond to this. I can assure you, if you had a very plane Jane waitress, physically speaking, but she was funny and had a great personality, and did her job well, you would actually consider her more beautiful and would tip her.
I decide what tip to give when I see the waitress. It's regardless of service. It's how she rates in terms of the 1 - 10 scale. It's what I've observed others to do and determined is socially correct to do. I get respect for it, so I do it.
Man - 15%
1 - 4 - Nothing
5 - 6 - 10%
7 - 8 - 15%
9 - 20%
10 - 25%
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmI have a hard time believing you would pay a female engineer who worked for your company more if she had large breasts than one who was flat chested, and not based on performance. If you actually would, then that would be both immoral and idiotic for the success of your company.
A lot of companies do suffer for this exact reason. I watch it happen. And if someone is taking a personal hit, suffering some personal harm for some end, the only end that fits is morality.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
There are no reasons. Morality simply is what it is, and is not what it is not. If I don't accept that I will end up fighting for things nobody should be fighting for and I will be in jail because I deserve to be.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I gave you examples of me extending a rule to where that rule no longer belongs. So if someone tells me, fight for Quiesha because Quiesha is black and she is discriminated against and is downtrodden, I will end up also fighting for Sarah because she's abused and downtrodden because she's ugly. I do not want to fight for Sarah, because I observe that it is not moral and not correct by observing other people.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pmSorry, but you just lost me again. Your immoral rule would not benefit everyone if it were immoral. That is illogical.
My immoral rule would simply extend all of your reasons about why we can't be racist as far as they logically extend, or else discard them.
Then it isn’t an immoral rule. THAT is what we would call moral. Why do you have such a problem with admitting one - morality is good/right and two - that you are moral?
Because of all the times I've been put in my place by moral people after simply trying to follow a rule some moral person sets. You are a moral person. You say benefit of mankind. So then I say death camps for the genetically unfit and eugenics. See how this works?

But we both know (you innately and me because I observe others) that your benefit of mankind is not a real rule. It doesn't apply everywhere.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
protecting everyone (redheads and atheists and people who put pictures of dolphins everywhere) from discrimination would be disastrous and unachievable.
What are you talking about? What employer disrespects someone just for having red hair or putting pictures of dolphins up? Where are these employers who pay their red heads less? Or the cat ladies who work for them less for doing the same job? I think you overestimate how disastrous it would be to actually make sure people are getting equal pay for equal work and not being judged by what poster they hang next to their desk. This really shouldn’t be causing you stress.
I've literally seen workplace discrimination happen for these sorts of ridiculous reasons.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
And moral people won't like this but they can stay off my planet.
I think you are simply talking about how we all have likes and dislikes in people – that some people rub us the wrong way, or some people we find more attractive than others, or some people annoy us with their little dolphin pictures, but I’m not talking about saying you aren’t allowed to not prefer some humans over other humans. You just can’t refuse to serve them if they come to your restaurant or prevent them from sitting next to you on a bus, or bully them in your office or school. You are simply expected to at least treat them with the minimum respect for being human. If you can’t do that, I would sure like to know why not.

What about homosexuality? Yes, you cannot hurt a person with same sex attraction. THAT doesn’t mean I have to agree with them that having sex with another person of the same sex is A-Ok. They can’t make me say it is and be punished for holding the position I do regarding homosexual acts. I’m permitted to say some guy who cheats on his wife is acting immorally and even say I think he is wrong for doing so. Of course I can’t hurt him or do anything about his immoral behavior, but I can think and say what I want about it. The same goes for homosexual behavior. Not sure what the problem is.

Plus, we “meddle” so to speak in lots of immoral things, where the person might claim, “I’m not hurting anyone. Why don’t you just mind your own business!” We show up to the junkie and say, “you can’t do that!”. We say to the adulterer, “you can’t do that”, We sometimes say to the porn industry, “you can’t do that!”. We say the same thing to the shoplifter, the underage kid trying to buy alcohol, to the bully, to the guy having sex with a cow, to the polygamist, to the Octomom who purposely implants 8 embryos in her womb, well, I guess because she can, etc. We all make these moral judgments about others. Usually, because we all do innately recognize when something isn’t right/good. To the offender, it might seem like it’s none of someone else’s business. But none of us live on an island and often what we do, does affect others. Also, often it isn’t simply about gossip or moral superiority. It’s about genuine concern and not wanting someone to go down some path that will not bring peace/happiness/fulfillment. Because violating the moral order can never bring peace/happiness.
You say you fail to understand the problem and you give an example in the next bit. You would be upset IN THE EXACT SAME WAY AS I AM UPSET, and you probably are, when someone comes in and says, "I have morality, no you may not hold the position that homosexuality isn't okay, your way is immoral, you go to jail now, you lose your business now, you get cancelled now."

You're doing to the bestiality guy exactly what the woke person is doing to you: Trying to force him to change for moral reasons. He's in the wrong, isn't he? I mean, that's soooo gross, having sex with a cow. Offends you, doesn't it?

Well guess what? What you're doing (believing something abhorrent) offends the woke guy for the exact same reason! And his conscience says that you are in the wrong.

Everyone would be better off on my planet, where morality is banned. You just have to leave cow-kisser alone, but the woke guy has to leave you alone.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
All I'm saying is, make your case. Let your reasons be known. Let it be only that. If you really think morality actually is that, then we're not in disagreement.
I do. And this is exactly what I’ve been arguing. All men can know right from wrong via logic/reason, and acknowledging the way the world IS.
What I mean is, there is a right choice and a wrong one. It's more like the right answer on a test than, say, choosing a favourite colour or getting a cat versus a dog. It's not a choice in that you have every obligation to make the right one, and if you make the wrong one, then, well, you're wrong.
Yes! This, I agree with! Thank you.
Good, you agree that there is one right answer. So does the woke guy. And just the way his right answer, just declaring you wrong, makes life cruddy for you, anyone with morality is making life suck for me.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmI do not believe this. I think you just seem to think morality is a four letter word and you pretend you want nothing to do with it because seems you equate it with religious puritans or something. However my position is the same as yours. Present the facts, observe the world and the way it works, use reason and logic to determine that which is right/good. Religion/bias/opinion need not apply.
Again, then this means many nasty things that work for the greater good like eugenics.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmThe moral issue is that you shouldn’t drive recklessly, or you might endanger someone else. There are laws that come come about via popular vote and then there is the moral law – that which is right/wrong regardless of whether there is a law in the books. We can differ on whether we think there should be a traffic light at the corner of main and 8th, but we wouldn’t differ on knowing that a person should be considerate of others and not drive recklessly endangering themselves and others.

Here is an excerpt from a great article I just read this morning. It is in reference to Biden’s pro abortion position, but it applies to our conversation:

And while I’m at it, may I say, I am mightily tired of the way the President and his allies use the term “impose.” Time and again, they say some version of, “I’m unwilling to impose my beliefs on others.” Now that we’ve established that opposition to abortion is not a matter of sectarian doctrine, can we also admit that any law, by its very nature, imposes on others? If a majority of federal representatives formulated a piece of legislation to set the speed limit at 65, and if the executive agreed with this determination, a law would go into effect imposing this viewpoint on the entire society. The same goes for tax codes, anti-trust regulations, minimum wage requirements, civil rights statutes, etc. Laws don’t suggest; they impose. And behind every truly just law, there is some moral principle: preserving life, establishing greater justice, protecting the poor, fostering the common good, etc. So if you were to ask me whether I was working to impose on the entire society a law that would protect the rights of the unborn, I would say, “Yes.” And then I would add: “And what’s your point?”

https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/bar ... -our-time/

Feel free to read the whole article. It is pretty short.
Yes, I highlighted the meaty bit. Laws stand on morals. Morals come first, laws to enforce them.

I fail to see how you can just not empathise here. I was born with zero empathy and I had to cultivate it. And what I have looks like the brown, strangled remains of some plant somebody overwatered. But you really should be able to see this. You happen to agree with those morals: Preserving life, protecting the poor, fostering the common good, protecting the rights of the unborn. But when the woke person comes in and says: Stamping out racism, protecting POCs, eliminating whiteness, then you're in exactly my position, which is that the morality imposed is something you disagree with.

I disagree with laws against having sex with cows btw. I literally do not care what sickos do with their cows. I kill them and eat them so I can't talk. But it doesn't affect me since I am not attracted to cows. Some laws I disagree with do affect me, laws made for moral reasons I don't see as having any backing behind them.
RightReason wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pm
The fact that you admit they're not means you very well know there's a difference between morality which doesn't have to be justified, and things that are done for some benefit, which must show that benefit. There's just an overlap in the case of preventing murder. The examples that nail the coffin shut are too numerous to count, that we simply must follow because morality and we can't ask justification for
Again, like what? Please feel free to be specific, as I have no idea what you are talking about. Are we back to traffic lights?
You keep agreeing that morality simply is what it is, but then disagreeing. There is one right answer. For you, that one right answer is benefit of mankind. For the woke person, that answer is anti-racism. You can't object to the woke person putting you in a position you don't like because of morality you disagree with, while not understanding that you're doing the same to mister cow-kisser. You're backing him against the wall, telling him he's wrong, maybe even using force to stop him, because of a morality he doesn't agree with.

I want everyone to stop doing it. Or just a place where nobody does it. That's it.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #19

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]
I just want to go where the billions of modern-day moral revolutionaries are not are not and leave them theirs.
Like I said before, you are conflating moral truth with “modern-day moral revolutionaries” or wokests. Morality does not change with the fashions. There is no such thing as modern day morality. If it was moral/immoral 2000 years ago, it is moral/immoral today.

in Hell we won't even have the discussion about what is moral to impose on one another

Again, you seem to be oblivious to your own contradiction: You want to impose your value judgment that we can’t impose value judgments? Hmmmm . . .



Benefit of mankind is your unfounded assumption.

You keep saying that, but I have already explained 1- that isn’t what I’m doing and 2- that isn’t what morality is. Just because something might “benefit” mankind, doesn’t make it moral. I have already said morality is NOT simply about survival of the fittest.

The video complains about cancel culture but offers NO REASON cancel culture isn't moral.
Yes, it does. It shows the unreasonableness and lack of logic in reductionism. It makes no sense to say, just because some white people enslaved black people in the past, all white people now are racists. The Wokeism claims do not logically follow.

Really there is no ought in Nature, just a series of organisms using things for what they are usually used for.


Yes, because it is reasonable, and ordered, and they have come to realize the best results occur in doing so – that’s what it means to be reasonable. And this is precisely, how/why we can speak in terms of moral truth being derived from observation of nature and the way the world works and man’s relationship with this world. But you can’t get past your stereotype of morality being some kind of arbitrary “rule” that can’t be justified, imposed on others for some kind of power trip reasoning. LOL! Birds do not build nests to protect their eggs because some other bird arbitrarily decided to make it a rule. Moral truth comes from the natural world we live in and is about humans recognizing and acknowledging what makes the most sense in how something should be used.

RightReason wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmAlso, Hume seems to be guilty of scientism in his so called is/ought problem. His theory makes the mistake of holding that only science can produce Truth. Who said man can only reduce everything to science. We are always expected to come to Truth via science AND reason.
I agree. Morality is one of those other ways of knowing. But science only knows science. So if you don't have one of the other ways of knowing, such as morality, people who only have science must move aside and accept that truth, because we can't check it. So this actually proves my ultimate point.
No! What you just said proves my point. No one is asking or expecting a person to “step aside from science”, rather to use it in conjunction with reason/logic to know Truth. Otherwise, one cannot come to Truth. The problem with scientism is believing we can come to Truth with science alone. To believe such is narrow thinking. It is actually limiting oneself to believe such.



I'm afraid this doesn't fit with your benefit of mankind argument. Beauty shows fitness and intelligence.

There you go again with this straw man. I do not believe morality is simply about ‘benefit to mankind’. That seems to be what you aren’t getting. Yes, there are often consequences to violating the natural moral order. For example, if one cheats on his wife with a prostitute and contracts an STD, that could be argued to be a consequence of his immoral behavior. However, even if he didn’t get an STD, what he did would have still been wrong.

RightReason wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:47 pmEveryone has a little cricket that whispers in their ear when they do something that is immoral, including you.
Psychopaths do not have one.
Correct. Which is why we all agree something is not right with them and often why they are typically a huge danger to society. You would not want a planet full of psychopaths. You keep arguing as if you would, but you and I both know you would not want that, because 1- you can’t eliminate moral truth – it exists in the world whether one recognizes it or not and 2- no one would actually want to live in a world where moral truth didn’t exist. We all crave and sometimes even demand justice and good over bad. Your little planet would not be the paradise you hope for. It would be a horrible, wretched place with no peace, love, or hope. We don’t witness a woman being beaten and say, “live and let live”.

The fact that you recognize the wrongness of discriminating and accuse people of ‘not caring’ shows you admit we should care. Your moral conscience is coming through loud and clear.
This isn't morality. You don't need morality to apply a rule from one circumstance to another circumstance. You do need morality to tell you, on the fly, when a rule applies and when it shouldn't.
Oops! You did it again. “You do not need morality to tell you, on the fly, when a rule applies and when it shouldn’t.”

Thought you didn’t want to deal in ought’s and should’s? But we can’t really escape it, can we?

You are a moral person. You say benefit of mankind. So then I say death camps for the genetically unfit and eugenics. See how this works?
No. And I don’t think you do either. You seem to be confused. The ends do not justify the means.

But we both know (you innately and me because I observe others) that your benefit of mankind is not a real rule. It doesn't apply everywhere.
Again benefit to mankind is not the entirety of morality and I never said it was. Also, you continue to be describing what moral truth is NOT. Moral truth does apply to everyone everywhere. That is the difference between what you are talking about and what I am talking about.

You're doing to the bestiality guy exactly what the woke person is doing to you
Nope. I can show the science and reason behind the immorality of humans having sex with animals. Wokism would be the mistaken belief that since some humans have sex with cows, we treat anyone who owns a cow as someone who must be having sex with his cows and that even supporting any farmer must mean you are cool with people having sex with cows. That’s illogical. See how that works?

Everyone would be better off on my planet, where morality is banned. You just have to leave cow-kisser alone, but the woke guy has to leave you alone.

Yeah? Are you gonna just leave those people torturing babies alone? Are you going to ignore all the rape on your planet? Gonna be chill with dad getting it on with his 18 year old daughter? Look the other way when Bob shoots Joe because he’s wearing a green baseball cap? Let the looters walk off with Mr. Brown’s inventory because they think they are owed something?

Should be some planet.


Good, you agree that there is one right answer. So does the woke guy. And just the way his right answer, just declaring you wrong, makes life cruddy for you, anyone with morality is making life suck for me.

That doesn’t make sense. You don’t understand morality. Is the guy who thinks we ought not let the pedophile molest the 4 year old, making your life suck? Is there more than one right answer in this situation? Is the town imposing it’s laws on you to make pedophilia illegal? Yes, they are and rightly so! So what’s your point?


Present the facts, observe the world and the way it works, use reason and logic to determine that which is right/good. Religion/bias/opinion need not apply.

Again, then this means many nasty things that work for the greater good like eugenics.
Not even a little. Have no idea why you would think that. For the last time, moral truth is not about “for the greater good” in the sense you keep meaning it like, ‘the ends justify the means’ way. ‘The ends justifying the means’ is actually NOT true and never WHAT makes something moral (right or wrong).

And behind every truly just law, there is some moral principle: preserving life, establishing greater justice, protecting the poor, fostering the common good, etc. So if you were to ask me whether I was working to impose on the entire society a law that would protect the rights of the unborn, I would say, “Yes.” And then I would add: “And what’s your point?”


Yes, I highlighted the meaty bit. Laws stand on morals. Morals come first, laws to enforce them.

I fail to see how you can just not empathise here. I was born with zero empathy and I had to cultivate it. And what I have looks like the brown, strangled remains of some plant somebody overwatered. But you really should be able to see this. You happen to agree with those morals: Preserving life, protecting the poor, fostering the common good, protecting the rights of the unborn. But when the woke person comes in and says: Stamping out racism, protecting POCs, eliminating whiteness, then you're in exactly my position, which is that the morality imposed is something you disagree with.
Wokism is NOT moral. Again, stamping out racism is moral, but wokism often encourages more racism. Wokism says I can hurt you, because you’re white and your great grandfather was a slave owner. Stamping out racism is good. Creating racist policies to stamp out racist policies is illogical, makes no sense, and is NOT an example of morality.


You can't object to the woke person putting you in a position you don't like because of morality you disagree with, while not understanding that you're doing the same to mister cow-kisser. You're backing him against the wall, telling him he's wrong, maybe even using force to stop him, because of a morality he doesn't agree with.
Nope. I can object to the woke person, because what they are doing is not moral. It isn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone. And the man who has sex with his cow is wrong whether he thinks it is wrong or not. It isn’t a matter of opinion. It can be known via observation of the world we live in and acknowledging the science/way the world works and man’s relationship with this world. That doesn’t mean, and I’ve said this before that I have any intention of enforcing a rule about bestiality. Like I said, I think masturbating is wrong, but have no intention to make laws against it. I could and would however voice my opinion about the wrongness of bestiality and would oppose any measures trying to make the definition of marriage include marriage between humans and farm animals.
I want everyone to stop doing it. Or just a place where nobody does it. That's it.
No, you don’t. What you want is to live in a place that actually upholds moral truth and the moral law. You simply recognize that we currently live in a place that actually doesn’t do a very good job at that. Utopia could only exist in adherence to moral Truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why do people want the chains of morality still?

Post #20

Post by Purple Knight »

RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amLike I said before, you are conflating moral truth with “modern-day moral revolutionaries” or wokests. Morality does not change with the fashions. There is no such thing as modern day morality. If it was moral/immoral 2000 years ago, it is moral/immoral today.
I agree. But just as you must believe that more of that fundamental eternal moral truth is sometimes revealed and discovered, you can't prove that the woke people are not prophets who are doing just that. Put yourself in place of someone who was doing something against one of the less intuitive Commandments, and then suddenly, Moses comes down from the mountain and he has some new rules. Hold on, you say, my graven images weren't hurting anyone. And my parents are heathens - I shouldn't have to honour them. What is this new crud? Morality doesn't change.

Morality might not change, but to those who aren't in possession of the whole shabang yet, it effectively changes. I just demonstrated that.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amAgain, you seem to be oblivious to your own contradiction: You want to impose your value judgment that we can’t impose value judgments? Hmmmm . . .
Not at all, I just want to leave any place where people impose values. If people want to impose their values, they can... in some other place. I have nothing against imposing moral values on others. I agree it's right. I just want to be away from it.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
Benefit of mankind is your unfounded assumption.
You keep saying that, but I have already explained 1- that isn’t what I’m doing and 2- that isn’t what morality is. Just because something might “benefit” mankind, doesn’t make it moral. I have already said morality is NOT simply about survival of the fittest.
So you say, morality isn't about benefit of mankind. So far we agree. That's what I'm demonstrating. But you also say we can use logic and reason to decipher morality. So what is your first assumption you build on? If you don't have one then logic can't be used.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
The video complains about cancel culture but offers NO REASON cancel culture isn't moral.
Yes, it does. It shows the unreasonableness and lack of logic in reductionism. It makes no sense to say, just because some white people enslaved black people in the past, all white people now are racists. The Wokeism claims do not logically follow.
There's more to it than that. The racism is broadly enough defined so that the claims do follow. By the power + privilege definition of racism, all you have to do is look at the statistics and find that yes, as members of the dominant group, all whites are racist by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

They do this in the definition of the word. Only the dominant group can commit racism, and everyone with even a slight prejudice (which we both know is everyone) is racist. So yes it follows. Only white people can be racist. It's not surprising then, since their first assumption is that racism is bad and should be eliminated, that whites are targeted. It follows. Perfectly. They've defined the terms so that it does follow. You can disagree that it's fair but you can't say it doesn't follow.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
Really there is no ought in Nature, just a series of organisms using things for what they are usually used for.


Yes, because it is reasonable, and ordered, and they have come to realize the best results occur in doing so – that’s what it means to be reasonable. And this is precisely, how/why we can speak in terms of moral truth being derived from observation of nature and the way the world works and man’s relationship with this world. But you can’t get past your stereotype of morality being some kind of arbitrary “rule” that can’t be justified, imposed on others for some kind of power trip reasoning. LOL! Birds do not build nests to protect their eggs because some other bird arbitrarily decided to make it a rule. Moral truth comes from the natural world we live in and is about humans recognizing and acknowledging what makes the most sense in how something should be used.
You keep saying morality comes from nature but you now disagree that it's about the benefit of mankind. You must realise that people finding out how to use things in a way that makes sense is because they are all starting from an assumption of benefit. A bird doesn't just build a nest to protect her eggs because that makes sense, she also does so because she wants to reproduce and make more birds and that is unjustified morally. What can she say when the moralist comes, and demands, "Make more birds? How DARE you?!"
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amHume seems to be guilty of scientism in his so called is/ought problem. His theory makes the mistake of holding that only science can produce Truth. Who said man can only reduce everything to science. We are always expected to come to Truth via science AND reason.
I agree. Morality is one of those other ways of knowing. But science only knows science. So if you don't have one of the other ways of knowing, such as morality, people who only have science must move aside and accept that truth, because we can't check it. So this actually proves my ultimate point.
No! What you just said proves my point. No one is asking or expecting a person to “step aside from science”, rather to use it in conjunction with reason/logic to know Truth. Otherwise, one cannot come to Truth. The problem with scientism is believing we can come to Truth with science alone. To believe such is narrow thinking. It is actually limiting oneself to believe such.
So we have science. You say that's good. And we have logic. You say that's good. So far we agree. We can use logic on the results of science because we just got both. We still agree, I think. If there is no moral premise introduced which we must trust without reason then there's nothing more, just science and logic. So what's there beyond science and logic that you're saying we can't get to Truth without?
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amThere you go again with this straw man. I do not believe morality is simply about ‘benefit to mankind’. That seems to be what you aren’t getting. Yes, there are often consequences to violating the natural moral order. For example, if one cheats on his wife with a prostitute and contracts an STD, that could be argued to be a consequence of his immoral behavior. However, even if he didn’t get an STD, what he did would have still been wrong.
So you aren't stuck on benefit of man. What then, is the reason we should avoid being unfaithful? Because it might give you an STD? Why is giving out STDs wrong? Is it right then to try to eliminate them? What if we progress and eliminate STDs? Can we be unfaithful then?
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
Psychopaths do not have one.
Correct. Which is why we all agree something is not right with them and often why they are typically a huge danger to society. You would not want a planet full of psychopaths. You keep arguing as if you would, but you and I both know you would not want that, because 1- you can’t eliminate moral truth – it exists in the world whether one recognizes it or not and 2- no one would actually want to live in a world where moral truth didn’t exist. We all crave and sometimes even demand justice and good over bad. Your little planet would not be the paradise you hope for. It would be a horrible, wretched place with no peace, love, or hope. We don’t witness a woman being beaten and say, “live and let live”.
I would want a world where we are all on the same page about that, including psychopaths. If society wants this rule then fine. But then it's for everyone. Everyone gets the script.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
This isn't morality. You don't need morality to apply a rule from one circumstance to another circumstance. You do need morality to tell you, on the fly, when a rule applies and when it shouldn't.
Oops! You did it again. “You do not need morality to tell you, on the fly, when a rule applies and when it shouldn’t.”
I'm not dealing in should and shouldn't. They are. Those who will come and chastise me if I guess wrong. I have to look at other people to do what you do from your little cricket. I don't want to, because I don't like being at this sort of disadvantage. Therefore I want a world with rules for all, laws for all, and no morality imposing more rules on some people.

You could tell me I have to go and do something and if I didn't know I could get away with ignoring you (which I conveniently do know since you don't know me and can't impose social consequences) I would have to just go out and do it.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amThe ends do not justify the means.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amMoral truth does apply to everyone everywhere.
I agree. Morality simply is. It's not about best benefit. That's what I'm proving by saying eugenics and death camps. We could get rid of almost every genetic disease. But it's still wrong. Because morality is not about best benefit. Morality is about morality. You should see how this puts the immoral at a disadvantage, just having to do whatever the moral tell them to.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
You're doing to the bestiality guy exactly what the woke person is doing to you
Nope. I can show the science and reason behind the immorality of humans having sex with animals. Wokeism would be the mistaken belief that since some humans have sex with cows, we treat anyone who owns a cow as someone who must be having sex with his cows and that even supporting any farmer must mean you are cool with people having sex with cows. That’s illogical. See how that works?
You're misrepresenting wokeism for one. It's more like saying that having a cow makes you guilty of pre-bestiality, including then defining breeding, owning, and selling cows as enabling bestiality which is then defined as part of pre-bestiality, and then simply relabeling pre-bestiality as bestiality. This is still oversimplified but it's a more accurate picture. Are you literally guilty of sex with a cow because you sold some guy a cow and he raped it? No. No one's saying you are. They're just saying you're part of the problem and they would rather define bestiality to include all parts of the problem, because if no one owns, breeds, or sells cows, then cow-bestiality is gone for good.

For two, no you can't prove bestiality is wrong with just science. You need that other thing you were referring to when you said, no, you can't just use science. It's not logic and reason, because using only logic on science is just science. Reason and logic are part of the scientific process.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
Everyone would be better off on my planet, where morality is banned. You just have to leave cow-kisser alone, but the woke guy has to leave you alone.
Yeah? Are you gonna just leave those people torturing babies alone? Are you going to ignore all the rape on your planet? Gonna be chill with dad getting it on with his 18 year old daughter? Look the other way when Bob shoots Joe because he’s wearing a green baseball cap? Let the looters walk off with Mr. Brown’s inventory because they think they are owed something?
Yes, if society wants to. And if instead, society wants to impose a law against rape, we do that. But until society does want that, moral people shut the heck up. Go through the proper channels. Get a law. Don't harass people. Don't heckle people. And don't protest either. You have your vote. No signatures necessary, put an issue forth and we all vote on it.

On my planet, green baseball caps are protected by default, meaning Joe is allowed to wear one. And so is Bob shooting Joe. But so is everyone else shooting Bob. The only thing you can't do is proselytize, so if you're caught whipping up a mob against MAGA hats, you go get kicked out of the society. This is how it works until the society agrees there should be a law. I suspect that if they can't agree, the guy who shoots someone for wearing a cap they don't like is going to be at least beaten pretty badly without anyone having to intentionally whip up a mob. This is not because they see it's more immoral to shoot someone than to wear a MAGA hat. This is because each individual benefits vastly more from being able to wear the hat he likes without being shot, then he does from siding with Bob who shot Joe for wearing one.

My benefit is taking Bob out of the society. I do not benefit at all from Joe being taken out of the society. So if I act for my own benefit, without morality, I kill Bob.

As a side note I don't think it's productive to tell people what they can and can't do with their own babies, and I think you probably get two innocent people for innocently dropping a baby for every actual abuser you catch.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
Good, you agree that there is one right answer. So does the woke guy. And just the way his right answer, just declaring you wrong, makes life cruddy for you, anyone with morality is making life suck for me.
That doesn’t make sense. You don’t understand morality. Is the guy who thinks we ought not let the pedophile molest the 4 year old, making your life suck?
Yes, because he need not give a good reason or defer to anyone. I get no input. I don't happen to want to molest a 4-year-old, but I do like women who are younger than I am. Suppose he says the same except he replaces 4-year-old with 19-year-old? Do you see why he's making my life suck? Because he gets to unilaterally decide what's right, and what I can and cannot do. It's about whether I get input, not about whether I might happen to agree with him.

You happen to agree with him about the 4-year-old. In fact I'm pretty sure we all happen to agree. Only Paedo Al is left out in the cold with no input. But when the moralist goes woke and YOU'RE the one left out in the cold with no input, you start getting upset. Now, even Paedo Al jumps on the bandwagon and starts pointing and jeering at you. I'm the only one saying, hold on, I don't want to do this to Paedo Al or anyone else because I know how much it sucks. I know how much it ends up sucking for everyone.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am‘The ends justifying the means’ is actually NOT true and never WHAT makes something moral (right or wrong).
I actually agree. I was demonstrating that benefit of mankind does not work as a first principle because then eugenics. But see how you say, the ends don't justify the means? It means it's not about any end. It's not about making the world better or making a nest to protect eggs to make more birds or anything else. Some things are moral, some aren't. End of story. No reason, no science, those things just speak to practicality.

As an example, I can use science to determine that a fertile chicken egg should be heated to a temperature of 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit for 21 days in order to produce a baby chicken. But this says nothing about the morality of producing a baby chicken. Nothing can tell you that but a moralist who doesn't have to justify anything.

RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amWokism is NOT moral. Again, stamping out racism is moral, but wokism often encourages more racism. Wokism says I can hurt you, because you’re white and your great grandfather was a slave owner. Stamping out racism is good. Creating racist policies to stamp out racist policies is illogical, makes no sense, and is NOT an example of morality.
Racism by your definition, not theirs. By their definition, something that hurts the dominant group is not racism. Their policies follow logically from their definitions. You might think a policy stripping $10,000 from every white person and giving it to Black people is racist, but they don't see that because under their definition, only white people can be racist.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amNope. I can object to the woke person, because what they are doing is not moral. It isn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone. And the man who has sex with his cow is wrong whether he thinks it is wrong or not. It isn’t a matter of opinion.
So why can't you be wrong whether you think you are or not? You keep saying observations of the world and man's relationship in it. But I don't see any justification from that for you being a part of the problem of racism, which as it's defined, only white people can commit.
RightReason wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 am
I want everyone to stop doing it. Or just a place where nobody does it. That's it.
No, you don’t. What you want is to live in a place that actually upholds moral truth and the moral law. You simply recognize that we currently live in a place that actually doesn’t do a very good job at that. Utopia could only exist in adherence to moral Truth.
I really don't want a moral world because I can leave people the heck alone. I don't masturbate because I think it's gross. Nobody told me it was, I just think mating and the pleasure of mating is for making babies. But that's not me observing Nature and coming to a conclusion I can impose on everyone. That's me, making a choice for me. In my world, everyone can do that, and not just about private things, but about everything. Abuse your animals if you like. I won't do it to mine.

Post Reply