Can morality be reduced to merely having good intentions?

[McCulloch]

I think that some people who support abortion have good intentions, and are generally concerned about women's rights. These are not the grounds of immorality though.

Even people with good intentions can act immorally. Or is it that all that is required, in your view, to be moral is to have good intentions?

To be moral is to have good intentions. If I slip on a bannana peel and kill a dog, it is not an immoral action because it was not my intent to do so.

Can morality be reduced to merely having good intentions?

[mgb]

The hair splitting is an attempt to either have you define an objective morality or to cease claiming that it exists.
That humans have a general sense of 'right' and 'wrong' means little.

Many of life's most sublime and important things will
not lend themselves to narrow academic definitions.

Aesthetics for example; there are no mathematical
equations that will produce a masterfull symphony;
no Theory of Aesthetics that will produce great art;
no Axioms of Literature that will produce great novels,
and because there are no such things does not mean
that great music, art and literature does not have meaning.

Are you implying that because morality is not easily
squeezed into an academic hypothesis that it has no meaning?
If you are that is your choice but if someone done great
harm to you, just for the sheer hell of it, you would be
in no doubt that there is a difference between right
and wrong.

[LiamOS]

Aesthetics for example; there are no mathematical
equations that will produce a masterfull symphony;
no Theory of Aesthetics that will produce great art;
no Axioms of Literature that will produce great novels,
and because there are no such things does not mean
that great music, art and literature does not have meaning.

What makes it great? Almost any definition of art or music you can give does not discern good art from bad art. If you can find one that's not based on the popular opinion, I'll be impressed.

If you contest that good music exists, show me some and explain what makes it good.

Are you implying that because morality is not easily
squeezed into an academic hypothesis that it has no meaning?

Objectively, yes.

If you are that is your choice but if someone done great
harm to you

Is that what caused my snowboarding accident? :O

just for the sheer hell of it, you would be
in no doubt that there is a difference between right
and wrong.

If one could objectively define right and wrong, I'd de in no doubt about it.

There are no acts that can be objectively shown to be inherently wrong. It can't even be shown that raping and killing six billion people would be wrong, despite the cringe-worthy nature of such an act.

If morality cannot be defined, one cannot speak objectively of it. Simple as that, really.

[mgb]

Aesthetics for example; there are no mathematical
equations that will produce a masterfull symphony;
no Theory of Aesthetics that will produce great art;
no Axioms of Literature that will produce great novels,
and because there are no such things does not mean
that great music, art and literature does not have meaning.

What makes it great? Almost any definition of art or music you can give does not discern good art from bad art. If you can find one that's not based on the popular opinion, I'll be impressed.

Some realities cannot be encompassed by the intellect.
That does not mean they are not real. That two people may not agree on a point of aesthetic beauty does not mean aesthetic beauty has no meaning or reality. Such things are concerned with direct consciousness and do not lend themselves to the academic definitions.

Your world view seems to be essentially Logical Positivism which has been discredited.

[LiamOS]

Some realities cannot be encompassed by the intellect.

Which ones?
why not?

That does not mean they are not real. That two people may not agree on a point of aesthetic beauty does not mean aesthetic beauty has no meaning or reality.

It means that there is no objective standard for beauty.

As such, in an objective discussion the idea of beauty has no meaning until it is appropriately defined.

Your world view seems to be essentially Logical Positivism which has been discredited.

Close enough, and where has it been discredited? I guess I missed that part.

Rather than stating that my view is untenable, I'd rather you show that it is.

[mgb]

Some realities cannot be encompassed by the intellect.

Which ones?
why not?

That does not mean they are not real. That two people may not agree on a point of aesthetic beauty does not mean aesthetic beauty has no meaning or reality.

It means that there is no objective standard for beauty.

As such, in an objective discussion the idea of beauty has no meaning until it is appropriately defined.

Your world view seems to be essentially Logical Positivism which has been discredited.

Close enough, and where has it been discredited? I guess I missed that part.

Rather than stating that my view is untenable, I'd rather you show that it is.

We have been discussing the realities
that cannot be encompassed by the intellect;
aesthetics, morality, spiritual matters...

Why not? I have said; outside methematics
the intellect has no access to truth about
the existence or nonexistence of the kinds
of things we are discussing. There are no
proofs for or against aesthetic meaning.
The human intellect is ultimately subjective.

Why? Because it cannot find unqualified fundamental
realities. Therefore it has nothing to build on.
If you disagree, provide me with an indisputable
fundamental reality that can be defined completely.
(outside methematics/logic/set theory)

You cannot show that your world view, Logical
Positivism, is consistent. It was abandoned by
Ayers, one of its founders. He tried for a long
time to retrieve it and failed.

The great scientistic illusion of the modern age
is that the intellect is dealing with objective
fundamentals. It is not. Even matter is not
fundamental so how do you form nonmaterial
axioms that make a foundation for the intellect?
The intellect is condemned to subjectivity.
(It is no surprise that in Buddhism the intellect
is seen to be a sensory organ.)

The universe of intellectual certainty that you
seem to imagine exists is an illusion. It is as
subjective as anything else we are discussing
in this thread. So it is not reasonable for
you to demand proofs or objective certainties
when you do not have any yourself.

In the absence of proof our agreed upon procedure
is discussion.

But apart from all this we are still left with
our experience. What are we experiencing?
That is a fundamental question. We cannot put it
in a test tube or measure it in such a way that we
will be able to come to final objective definitions
or proofs. But we are still left with our experience
and we are trying to find a cogent convincing argument
for its source and to determine what that objective
source is - but it most certainly is not the physical
universe. That physical universe is only an intermediary.

As such, in an objective discussion the idea of beauty has no meaning until it is appropriately defined.

There is no such thing as an "objective discussion" outside mathematics.

[LiamOS]

We have been discussing the realities
that cannot be encompassed by the intellect;
aesthetics, morality, spiritual matters...

Please prove that a spiritual reality exists or qualify it as opinion, as per the rules of the forum.

Also, you've yet to show that there exist good moral or aesthetic things.

Why not? I have said; outside methematics
the intellect has no access to truth about
the existence or nonexistence of the kinds
of things we are discussing. There are no
proofs for or against aesthetic meaning.
The human intellect is ultimately subjective.

Therefore you're right?
I'm sorry, if morality, art and aesthetic value had any bearing on reality it would be demonstrable.

Why? Because it cannot find unqualified fundamental
realities. Therefore it has nothing to build on.
If you disagree, provide me with an indisputable
fundamental reality that can be defined completely.

Nobody in the universe can fulfil this challenge, as far as I am aware.

I can give you aspects of our apparent reality, define them and their properties such that they can be quantified. You cannot do this with morality because it is not a real part of reality or absolute.

You cannot show that your world view, Logical
Positivism, is consistent. It was abandoned by
Ayers, one of its founders. He tried for a long
time to retrieve it and failed.

Well, that's not really my view to begin with, and you've also not shown it's consistent.
Please refrain from stating things about my positions which you have not shown to be true and which are missing the point anyway.

The great scientistic illusion of the modern age
is that the intellect is dealing with objective
fundamentals. It is not. Even matter is not
fundamental so how do you form nonmaterial
axioms that make a foundation for the intellect?
The intellect is condemned to subjectivity.

In that the hypotheses of physics are entirely self-consistent and consistent with what we can deem reasonably objective experience, it has more going for it than your advocate of spiritual and moral realities.

The universe of intellectual certainty that you
seem to imagine exists is an illusion. It is as
subjective as anything else we are discussing
in this thread. So it is not reasonable for
you to demand proofs or objective certainties
when you do not have any yourself.

If you accept that nothing you say can ever be considered correct beyond opinion, I'll gladly concede that point.

In the absence of proof our agreed upon procedure
is discussion.

You're asserting something which I have no reason to believe and giving me no reason to believe it. Discussion isn't warranted at such a stage.

But apart from all this we are still left with
our experience. What are we experiencing?
That is a fundamental question. We cannot put it
in a test tube or measure it in such a way that we
will be able to come to final objective definitions
or proofs. But we are still left with our experience
and we are trying to find a cogent convincing argument
for its source and to determine what that objective
source is - but it most certainly is not the physical
universe. That physical universe is only an intermediary.

Why is this certain?
It appears to be the height of hypocrisy to claim that I can know nothing for definite and then to claim absolutes.

There is no such thing as an "objective discussion" outside mathematics.

When I say objective discussion, I mean that what we are discussing can be repeatedly demonstrated, defined, quantified and explained. With this, parallels can be drawn with mathematics in that it is somewhat definite given the initial assumptions.

[mgb]

Why not? I have said; outside methematics
the intellect has no access to truth about
the existence or nonexistence of the kinds
of things we are discussing. There are no
proofs for or against aesthetic meaning.
The human intellect is ultimately subjective.

Therefore you're right?
I'm sorry, if morality, art and aesthetic value had any bearing on reality it would be demonstrable.

No. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But you use the word 'demonstrable'. Well art has an effect on our consciousness and our consciousness is part of reality. So art does demonstrably have a bearing on reality.

[mgb]

Why? Because it cannot find unqualified fundamental realities. Therefore it has nothing to build on.
If you disagree, provide me with an indisputable fundamental reality that can be defined completely.

Nobody in the universe can fulfil this challenge, as far as I am aware.

So I rest my case; the intellect is subjective and cannot construct a perfectly true map of reality. This is one of my arguments against Logical Positivism.

[LiamOS]

But you use the word 'demonstrable'. Well art has an effect on our consciousness and our consciousness is part of reality. So art does demonstrably have a bearing on reality.

No, the perception of art has demonstrable effects.

So I rest my case; the intellect is subjective and cannot construct a perfectly true map of reality. This is one of my arguments against Logical Positivism.

One might also note that you have made positive claims. Given that intellect is subjective, if you stand by this as an argument against my position, I'd request that you qualify every assertion you've made on this forum as speculation and/or opinion, as you can't possibly know.

[mgb]

But you use the word 'demonstrable'. Well art has an effect on our consciousness and our consciousness is part of reality. So art does demonstrably have a bearing on reality.

No, the perception of art has demonstrable effects.

All perception is a process. We are trying to determine if there is meaning in these processes. An important part of this concerns the question of whether these processes involve some kind of methphorical language that indicates there is pattern or order in our experience.

So I rest my case; the intellect is subjective and cannot construct a perfectly true map of reality. This is one of my arguments against Logical Positivism.

One might also note that you have made positive claims. Given that intellect is subjective, if you stand by this as an argument against my position, I'd request that you qualify every assertion you've made on this forum as speculation and/or opinion, as you can't possibly know.

What I have been trying to get across is that both intellectual constructions and opinions that come from direct consciousness are both subjective. There is no reason to reject one subjectivity in favour of another.