abcqwerty123

I can understand someone defending government by describing completely voluntary interactions is wrong, let alone legitimate government. However, how is subjective morality the same? How would you defend your argument? How would you convince a person that morals can only be objective and never subjective? Anarchy originally meant no-rulers. Many people have replaced what they were told would be the outcome of anarchy, by their rulers, with the actual definition. You are right. I have one more problem that I read somewhere else on the forums, that I will add to a little. I would like to hear what you have to say about it as well. If someone was on their own property playing music so loud that the neighbors who were on their own property were being harmed by the sound, then is there any action possible by the neighbors being harmed without being immoral? Another example could be something like poison gas. The people are letting off poison gas for whatever reason, from their own property, and it is affecting the neighbors. Again, is there any action possible by the neighbors being harmed without being immoral? (This is also under the assumption that the neighbors have asked the people playing the music or letting out poison gas to stop and those people have refused.) If someone is threatened and told to kill a person, then morality can't apply to the victim because they are being threatened. This goes for the victim that they are told to kill as well. The only person being immoral is the person that did the threatening. This doesn't mean that the first victim who is told to kill another person can't choose other options, it just means you can't say they are moral or immoral for a situation that was forced upon them by another person. There is that classic problem that I want to bring up to argue against you. You are on a train and if you do nothing, the track will end and you will crash into a large group of people, but if you pull the level right in front of you, the track will switch and you will kill only a single person that is tied to the tracks. Now, my answer to this would be, you should choose what you see as the best option, but you were coerced into this situation and no matter the decision, you can't be immoral for it. If coercion can't negate morality, then no matter what you choose, you will be immoral, correct? I have actually been slowly going over UPB, but it takes awhile for me to grasp it. for the suggestion though.

My apologies. That was a bad example since there wasn't another person involved. How about more like, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared my parents would be angry if I didn't understand it.". I completely understand the difference in severity between the two situations, but if someone tries to get this technical with me, I want to make sure I explain it well enough that only an illogical person would not accept. I have a hyperactive mind so it is tough to organize my thoughts. I feel I fully understand something in my head but I can't explain why, so I am working on this by asking questions to people like yourself who do a great job of explaining. I understand it seems as though I am not trying because after reading your replies, even I am shocked at my questions. However, I really am trying to fully understand and I appreciate the time you are spending to make that happen. So, after all we have discussed, would you agree with my understanding thus far? Objective morality can be defined as "The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others." and the immoral can be punished by the involuntary owner of the property. Subjective morality is the right from wrong values of each individual person that does not fall under objective morality and can't be punished without becoming objectively immoral themselves.

I apologize, I am still confused on this one. The horse doesn't go left or not try to pass through solid objects as a result of what such things? I agree. So, I want to ask a scenario to hear how your definition would apply, just to be clear in case I am ever asked the exact question. "The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others." If a person is walking down the street and they see a girl being raped, what would be the correct action? If you say that it doesn't matter since the person would be under coercion, then I must ask how? I can understand that if you run in there, then you will be threatened, but if you go down the street and ask for help or snap a quick photo, could you say that you are still being coerced? If you can since just seeing the rape happen can be taken as a threat, then even in a free world (no government or religion), couldn't most, if not everything you do in life have the fear of punishment, aka threat? An example would be, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared I wouldn't understand it.".

I am trying to create/discover/tweak a definition that I can apply consistently and does not have loopholes. Seems like we are saying the same thing but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Thank you! You said that morality requires no coercion, however, couldn't this depend on the amount of coercion? An example: If you have a gun to your head and you are told to kill another person or you will be killed; If a person has a sledgehammer held above your computer and tells you to kill someone or your computer will be annihilated. You also spoke of a horse as though it lacks reasoning. Is there proof that a horse or any animal lacks reasoning? How can a horse learn to run in the directions that the rider tells it too, or to not continue to run into a wired fence? Wouldn't you say that the horse uses the experiences to reason when to run left or right, or when to slow down and stop? Wouldn't you say the horse uses the experiences of running into a wired fence to reason that the wired fence is a boundary that can't be passed by simply running into it? This would be the same with a newborn. The newborn uses their experiences to reason and in turn, learn. If you could please answer my questions above, I could get a better understanding and accept the definition more, but thanks for the reply because it made me think differently. Especially with the problem of subjectivity. The problem I am having is creating a definition for morality that does not leave loop holes, but I do appreciate the different explanations because it helps me understand it better myself as well.

Hi everyone. I have looked up definitions of morality but most definitions talk about good and bad, or right and wrong. The problem I find in good/bad and right/wrong is that a person can be trained to believe things like spending time behind bars for smoking a plant inside of your own home is good/right. So, I need a definition that can be more specific while trying to keep it short. Here is a definition I came up with: "to not do to others what you do not want done to yourself, except when defending your property or the property of another person from actions that the property owner does not want done to their property." Along with this definition, I will explain that property is anything a person owns, including their own body. So, there are a few things I am looking for help with. First, I would like help finding any problems with this definition. Secondly, if there are any problems, I would like to hear possible solutions to be changed or added in. Third, I would love to hear the definition written differently to possibly make it easier to understand.