Why be moral? (answered)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Because it's correct.

[Will Torbald]

Because it's correct.

 

This is then followed by "Why be moral in situations where being immoral is better than being moral?" Which is a more interesting question than one that simply questions morality as a whole without context. If your moral rules would deem me to be evil even in an extreme scenario (which all theories should be tested against, moral or scientific) then people would feel discouraged to accept your thesis because it condemns the common sense people use to operate without a formally structured theory of ethics.

[Lykourgos]

The whole debate is pointless and incoherent until you figure out what you mean by "better" and "moral".

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This is then followed by "Why be moral in situations where being immoral is better than being moral?" Which is a more interesting question than one that simply questions morality as a whole without context. If your moral rules would deem me to be evil even in an extreme scenario (which all theories should be tested against, moral or scientific) then people would feel discouraged to accept your thesis because it condemns the common sense people use to operate without a formally structured theory of ethics.

Those would be matters of aesthetic and personal preference. 

[Will Torbald]

Those would be matters of aesthetic and personal preference. 

 

Not if the choice involves breaking the NAP for some goal like not dying. This is what all the critics of morality always converge on.

 

 

The whole debate is pointless and incoherent until you figure out what you mean by "better" and "moral".

 

Give a definition yourself before you want to interject that we're being pointless. We know what kind of ethics we are debating here, no need for redundancy. Unless your definitions are different, we know what we meant already.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The whole debate is pointless and incoherent until you figure out what you mean by "better" and "moral".

"Better" would mean subjectively preferred or preferable given set criteria.  "Moral" in this context means "adhere to a valid / preferable ethical behavior". When someone asks "Why be moral?" they are asking "Why adhere to correct moral behavior?". Other ways of putting it are "Why be good?" or "Why conform to UPB?".

Not if the choice involves breaking the NAP for some goal like not dying. This is what all the critics of morality always converge on.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. 

[Lykourgos]

Give a definition yourself before you want to interject that we're being pointless. We know what kind of ethics we are debating here, no need for redundancy. Unless your definitions are different, we know what we meant already.

 

That's absurd, why would I give the definitions for another person's claim? They need to decide what they mean by "better" and "moral" if they want to have a chance at proving their case.

 

"Better" would mean subjectively preferred or preferable given set criteria.  "Moral" in this context means "adhere to a valid / preferable ethical behavior". When someone asks "Why be moral?" they are asking "Why adhere to correct moral behavior?". Other ways of putting are "Why be good?" or "Why conform to UPB?".

 

So if you say something is better or worse, you just mean that someone likes or dislikes it? So it's a subjective term, and something can be better and worse depending on who's considering it?

 

It sounds like moral is just synonymous with "logically valid", but you prefer to use that term when talking about actions. Why do you write, "why adhere to correct moral behavior" instead of just, "why adhere to correct behavior"? Sounds superfluous.

[Will Torbald]

I don't know what you're talking about. 

 

The lifeboat scenarions, hangling from flagpoles, starving people in the desert, all the extreme situations that critics use to try to invalidate any principle. The only answers I've heard are either to dismiss them as almost never happening, or to say that you can make an exception in that case, or to just break code anyway and it doesn't matter. None of these are satisfying answers.

[jpahmad]

Not if the choice involves breaking the NAP for some goal like not dying. This is what all the critics of morality always converge on.

 

 

 

Give a definition yourself before you want to interject that we're being pointless. We know what kind of ethics we are debating here, no need for redundancy. Unless your definitions are different, we know what we meant already.

 

 

No one said you had to be moral.  You can do whatever you want

[Will Torbald]

No one said you had to be moral.  You can do whatever you want

 

And if you can do whatever you want, why be moral? That's the full circle right there, and you haven't escaped nihilism.

[inquirius]

If you want to know why being good is better than being bad, read the beginning of Plato's The Republic.  I don't agree with everything Socrates says, but I think it's a solid, basic argument for good over bad.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

And if you can do whatever you want, why be moral? That's the full circle right there, and you haven't escaped nihilism.

Because it's correct. Correct. 

If you want to know why being good is better than being bad, read the beginning of Plato's The Republic.  I don't agree with everything Socrates says, but I think it's a solid, basic argument for good over bad.

Better or worse has nothing to do it. We don't answer "Why follow the scientific method?" with "because it's better". We answer with, "because it's correct". We don't answer "Why use valid reasoning?" with "it's better". We answer, "because it's correct". So why when it comes to ethics do we suddenly shift into aesthetics? I would suggest that's because ethics have BEEN nothing but aesthetics for thousands of years. 

[Will Torbald]

Because it's correct. Correct. 

So why when it comes to ethics do we suddenly shift into aesthetics? I would suggest that's because ethics have BEEN nothing but aesthetics for thousands of years. 

 

Again, I can just reply with my previous questions and continue the circle. What do you have that I can't circle back with?

 

I think I'm understanding your use of aesthetics to be different from what I use it for. I think you're equating opinions like "better" with aesthetics. Like saying "ethics is better than egoism". But aesthetics as I understand from UPB is behavior that doesn't include the use of force. What I think you mean is that ethics have been nothing but unsubstantiated opinions for thousands of years.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Again, I can just reply with my previous questions and continue the circle. What do you have that I can't circle back with?

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure it's nonsense. The answer to "Why be moral?" is "because it's correct". You can ask "Why be correct?" but I think that would be the ultimate self-detonating question.

 

 

What I think you mean is that ethics have been nothing but unsubstantiated opinions for thousands of years.

 

 

Well that's largely true as well but what I mean is that ethics have been aesthetics. What people claim is moral has simply been what that happens to conform to their tastes. I like rape or rape is good has been the same as I like chocolate or chocolate is good.

[Will Torbald]

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure it's nonsense. The answer to "Why be moral?" is "because it's correct". You can ask "Why be correct?" but I think that would be the ultimate self-detonating question.

 

 

 

Well that's largely true as well but what I mean is that ethics have been aesthetics. What people claim is moral has simply been what that happens to conform to their tastes. I like rape or rape is good has been the same as I like chocolate or chocolate is good.

 

I'm pretty sure it's not nonsense. The arguments from extremities are valid objections to any theory. Universality has to reach the most common interaction to the least common one.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I'm pretty sure it's not nonsense. The arguments from extremities are valid objections to any theory. Universality has to reach the most common interaction to the least common one.

I honestly do not know what you're talking about. Tell you what? Apply it to YOUR question / argument as so as I can see how it applies there. Show me how you applied this standard to yourself first (I assume you did that otherwise you would be spouting nonsense). Then maybe I can know how it applies to my answer to the question "Why be moral?". 

[Max Hartford]

Because it's correct.

 

This 'answer' is perhaps even a step below: 'Because Jesus says so!'. Why would anyone but a fanatic sacrifice any aspect of their personal well-being in order to follow things that are 'True' or 'Correct'? This seems like a bizarre form of idol worship to me.

[shirgall]

This 'answer' is perhaps even a step below: 'Because Jesus says so!'. Why would anyone but a fanatic sacrifice any aspect of their personal well-being in order to follow things that are 'True' or 'Correct'? This seems like a bizarre form of idol worship to me.

 

The difference is that you can check a logical proof. Checking with Jesus is a one-way trip.

[jpahmad]

And if you can do whatever you want, why be moral? That's the full circle right there, and you haven't escaped nihilism.

 

I never said there was no such thing as morality.  Morality exists and you can be moral or can choose to not be moral.  I don't see what this has to do with nihilism.  I enjoy being moral and I try to surround myself with people who do the same.   

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This 'answer' is perhaps even a step below: 'Because Jesus says so!'. Why would anyone but a fanatic sacrifice any aspect of their personal well-being in order to follow things that are 'True' or 'Correct'? This seems like a bizarre form of idol worship to me.

Okay, so now you're question has changed to "Why make sacrifices to follow things that are true?". That's moving the goal-posts.  

I've answered the question. My answer is correct. You don't get to ask new questions until you tell me why I'm wrong. 

I'm not sure why you put commas around the word "answer" (to show contempt for me providing an actual answer I guess) but insulting my answer as being "a step below Jesus" and telling me it "seems" like idol worship is stupid and not something I can rationally rebut. 

I've answered your question. Why be moral? Because it's correct.

 

We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct.

Do you have a valid rebuttal? 

[Max Hartford]

Okay, so now you're question has changed to "Why make sacrifices to follow things that are true?". That's moving the goal-posts.  

I've answered the question. My answer is correct. You don't get to ask new questions until you tell me why I'm wrong. 

I'm not sure why you put commas around the word "answer" (to show contempt for me providing an actual answer I guess) but insulting my answer as being "a step below Jesus" and telling me it "seems" like idol worship is stupid and not something I can rationally rebut. 

I've answered your question. Why be moral? Because it's correct.

 

We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct.

Do you have a valid rebuttal? 

 

It's not "moving the goal-posts', it's a necessary question to answer in order to determine whether the answer that you gave is a persuasive one or not.

 

"We should conform to those principles that are correct": You have not proven this premise. Why should we?

[Will Torbald]

I never said there was no such thing as morality.  Morality exists and you can be moral or can choose to not be moral.  I don't see what this has to do with nihilism.  I enjoy being moral and I try to surround myself with people who do the same.   

 

Yeah, but why choose to be moral? Your personal answer is because you enjoy it. What if I enjoy being immoral instead?

 

 

I honestly do not know what you're talking about. Tell you what? Apply it to YOUR question / argument as so as I can see how it applies there. Show me how you applied this standard to yourself first (I assume you did that otherwise you would be spouting nonsense). Then maybe I can know how it applies to my answer to the question "Why be moral?". 

 

 

If you use synonyms to the question "Why be moral" and the answer "because it's correct" you can get "Why be good? because it's good. This is begging the question. People should be moral because it's good. People should be good because it's correct. People should behave correctly because it's moral.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's not "moving the goal-posts', it's a necessary question to answer in order to determine whether the answer that you gave is a persuasive one or not.

 

Persuasive? You mean correct, right?

 

"We should conform to those principles that are correct": You have not proven this premise. Why should we?

 

 

You're asking why is it correct that we should conform to principles that are correct?

Because otherwise you will be wrong.

If that's not true (conforming to reason and evidence) then there's no requirement to accept any of your arguments or conclusions. Why should we? (this is what I asked you in the first place on your original post). 

If you use synonyms to the question "Why be moral" and the answer "because it's correct" you can get "Why be good? because it's good. This is begging the question.  

 

 I didn't answer "Why be moral?" with "Because it's moral." That would be begging the question (which apparently people ought not do in this debate about whether there is a reason why we ought do X). I answered with "Because it's correct". 

So your claim that I can then get "Because it's good" from "Why be good?" is wrong. I would give the answer "Because it's correct".

 

People should be moral because it's good. People should be good because it's correct. People should behave correctly

 

 

I said or argued no such thing. Drop it.. 

[Jot]

Yeah, but why choose to be moral? Your personal answer is because you enjoy it. What if I enjoy being immoral instead?

 

Does the fact that some people enjoy being logical and others don't mean that logic is invalid?

[Will Torbald]

Does the fact that some people enjoy being logical and others don't mean that logic is invalid?

 

I make no claim about the validity of the logic, which is another can of worms, but the fact that you try to diverge the question in that direction might suggest you have no answer to what I actually asked.

[Jot]

I make no claim about the validity of the logic, which is another can of worms, but the fact that you try to diverge the question in that direction might suggest you have no answer to what I actually asked.

 You made no claim about that but morality and logic are interchangeable in that context since UPB is an extension of logic.

 

There is no "ought" for which one should be moral as there is no 'ought" for which one should be logical. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 You made no claim about that but morality and logic are interchangeable in that context since UPB is an extension of logic.

 

There is no "ought" for which one should be moral as there is no 'ought" for which one should be logical. 

 

You're right. The oughts are activated once you interact with people. But some people keep looking for oughts outside of that interaction. 

[Will Torbald]

 You made no claim about that but morality and logic are interchangeable in that context since UPB is an extension of logic.

 

There is no "ought" for which one should be moral as there is no 'ought" for which one should be logical. 

 

I agree with this insofar as it has been proven that UPB is logical as a system of ethics. I don't argue against the logic of UPB as a system of all behaviors, but only of the behaviors that are morally relevant. In that subset the logic of UPB can be contested without an axiomatic contradiction.

[Jot]

I agree with this insofar as it has been proven that UPB is logical as a system of ethics. I don't argue against the logic of UPB as a system of all behaviors, but only of the behaviors that are morally relevant. In that subset the logic of UPB can be contested without an axiomatic contradiction.

 

To answer your question another way...from the UPB's standpoint there are no positive moral obligations, UPB tells you what is immoral, it doesn't tell you what is moral...we figure out what is not immoral by substracting the immoral actions from the category of all actions and we are left with actions that are universalizable.

 

The question "Why should we be moral" implies that there are positive moral obligations.

[jpahmad]

Yeah, but why choose to be moral? Your personal answer is because you enjoy it. What if I enjoy being immoral instead?

 

 

 

Many people enjoy being immoral.  Politicians for example.  You can add dictators to that as well.  There is nothing stopping you from doing the same.

[Will Torbald]

To answer your question another way...from the UPB's standpoint there are no positive moral obligations, UPB tells you what is immoral, it doesn't tell you what is moral...we figure out what is not immoral by substracting the immoral actions from the category of all actions and we are left with actions that are universalizable.

 

The question "Why should we be moral" implies that there are positive moral obligations.

This is something that bothers me profoundly. I've been writing a theory that addresses my objections to this way of thinking, which while it isn't erroneous, it is unrefined. It's in the other thread about morality or in its own thread on the philosophy section. The first part was about distinctions within immoral behaviors, but I am working on a second part that explains the problems of thinking binarily about the aspect that deals with being good. The basic premise of my objection is that not doing something immoral has no information on the actual activities of the person, and it conflates inaction with action together and that us a categorical mistake. As an example, a person who spent all day sleeping would be as good as the person who found a cure for cancer. One did something for others,and the other one didn't. Those two different states of being and interaction have to be differentiated appropriately, which UPB doesn't do. I'll keep refining those ideas until I post them in full.

[Jot]

This is something that bothers me profoundly. I've been writing a theory that addresses my objections to this way of thinking, which while it isn't erroneous, it is unrefined. It's in the other thread about morality or in its own thread on the philosophy section. The first part was about distinctions within immoral behaviors, but I am working on a second part that explains the problems of thinking binarily about the aspect that deals with being good. The basic premise of my objection is that not doing something immoral has no information on the actual activities of the person, and it conflates inaction with action together and that us a categorical mistake. As an example, a person who spent all day sleeping would be as good as the person who found a cure for cancer. One did something for others,and the other one didn't. Those two different states of being and interaction have to be differentiated appropriately, which UPB doesn't do. I'll keep refining those ideas until I post them in full.

 I understand your concern.

 

The example that used to bother me was along the lines...if one sees another man drowning and it is in his power to save that man by throwing him a lifeline and he doesn't do it, under UPB his choice not to save that man is just as valid as him saving that guy...

[Will Torbald]

I understand your concern.

 

The example that used to bother me was along the lines...if one sees another man drowning and it is in his power to save that man by throwing him a lifeline and he doesn't do it, under UPB his choice not to save that man is just as valid as him saving that guy...

Yes, that is a very poignant example. In do think that I have modified theory that would answer it in a way that helping and not helping do end with different categories even if not helping isn't evil per se.

[Jot]

Yes, that is a very poignant example. In do think that I have modified theory that would answer it in a way that helping and not helping do end with different categories even if not helping isn't evil per se.

 

Well, does your theory differ that much from Stefan's distinction between aesthetically preferable behavior and non-aesthetically preferable behavior?

[square4]

We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct.

Do you have a valid rebuttal? 

 

 

To build a bridge, it is required to follow the correct principles of bridge building. Therefore we should build a bridge, because it is correct ??