What Is Moral?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

An excerpt from another post:

===

For example: why is murder wrong? Because it steals someone's life. Why stealing wrong? Because it violates someone's property rights. Why's that wrong? Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. 

See the problem? I can't argue a moral reason, every time I try it ends practically. Therefore I either don't fundementally understand the differences between morality, preference, and pragmatism or I am correct and therefore to secure morality we must base it on what objectively works to ensure human happiness in the long run. And since the most moral countries are always the most powerful of the era, there seems some natural truth to this.

However I don't know yet. And I do know we need more people to admit they don't know so we can figure it out. The tricky part for me is what is moral? How do I know if something is truly moral? I'll start another thread about this. Maybe someone here can make the case.

===

My basic question is this: why is murder immoral? Because it cannot be universalized (i.e. you can't murder and want to be murdered at the same time because then it's no longer murder)? Why is that immoral? What does universalization matter, morally (not pragmatically) speaking? Or am I failing to understand what morality is? 

This very simple question: what is morality (objective preference?) is something I can't answer beyond a certain point. If someone wise to this, either a priest, a philosopher, or someone with really good handle on UPB or the New Testament, were to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[M.2]

We started the topic on another thread, where I brought up my issue regarding the Stefist UPB, and this is as far as we have gotten with Siegfried von Walheim . This is not an attack on the UPB, I'm sincerely curious about the reasoning.

Mr.Molyneux says the UPB is a methodology for determining what is right and wrong. What I am missing here is the golden standard.
The UPB is all about respecting human free will, which is awesome. But the reasoning begins from humans, which is what I find questionable. Just because you don't want to be stolen from, and nor does your neighbour, that does not make stealing objectively wrong. Human preference cannot be the gold standard for what is moral, because morality is not democratic. To this you may reply "UPB is scientific", but I have yet to see scientific proof for why murder is "wrong"? Can you even prove that with science? 

Following the UPB is supposedly essential for getting along on this planet of ours, but this claim already presupposes that "getting along" is a goal worth pursuing (aka "good"). Why is getting along objectively "good"?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

13 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

We started the topic on another thread, where I brought up my issue regarding the Stefist UPB, and this is as far as we have gotten with Siegfried von Walheim . This is not an attack on the UPB, I'm sincerely curious about the reasoning.

Mr.Molyneux says the UPB is a methodology for determining what is right and wrong. What I am missing here is the golden standard.
The UPB is all about respecting human free will, which is awesome. But the reasoning begins from humans, which is what I find questionable. Just because you don't want to be stolen from, and nor does your neighbour, that does not make stealing objectively wrong. Human preference cannot be the gold standard for what is moral, because morality is not democratic. To this you may reply "UPB is scientific", but I have yet to see scientific proof for why murder is "wrong"? Can you even prove that with science? 

You're right. I haven't thought about it like that--perhaps I am too tired or too ignorant about UPB and am therefore unqualified to argue. But if you're correct in your assessment of what UPB is then you just debunked it. Please email @MMD now since I'd like to hear what the Stefpai has to say.

EDIT: Murder is wrong because it cannot by definition be wanted for the murderer as well as others. However the problem I think is answering beyond pragmatism why the non-believer should believe. 

Quote

Following the UPB is supposedly essential for getting along on this planet of ours, but this claim already presupposes that "getting along" is a goal worth pursuing (aka "good"). Why is getting along objectively "good"?

Subjectively it's easy to argue because getting along produces rich empires. Also history seems to prove that the most moral society of the era is the one that grows the biggest and becomes the most powerful. I'd argue the Mongolian Empire being a challenge to that thesis but I can't say their enemies were morally superior to them so I might be right. I'll do some independent research about this thesis (and perhaps find if someone else had the same hypothesis) since I might be right and if I'm right then we might have found something objective.

Objectively the best I can come up with is objective relative to a given standard. A standard like the Bible for example. Problem is wrongful interpretation. UPB may be simpler (or not, given my struggle at the moment but again I am not in the best state to argue because I am very tired and perhaps shouldn't be typing but will anyway because I suspect come morning I'll have time enough to amend what I typed here before moderation passes me) than the Bible because it's as simple as "can you both want it and can others want other to have it at the same time?" But I think I got it wrong, so I really ought to stop typing about it and perhaps do some research. 

EDIT: I don't know what to say. How do we measure a ruler's objectivity in measuring? So far all I have is practical reasons why being good is good for all involved (at least in the long term). Yet morality by definition is objective. What are we missing???

EDIT EDIT: My answer to the quoted point is that "getting along is good" is not the ideal being put forward. Getting alone with bad people isn't good, for example. People being good however can be objectively proven based on how it enriches and empowers a nation. The strongest countries and longest lasting in history were the most moral relative to their continents. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Siegfried von Walheim]

UPDATE:

I think using pragmatism to explain why being moral is objectively good is valid.

The problem is figuring out what is moral.

I need to re-listen to UPB's audiobook because I am way too empty-handed to be saying what's moral/immoral if I can't answer why killing people is immoral. I can argue why it's pragmatically bad but not evil. I got a problem. I'm going to see Stefpai's solution again.

...Actually isn't UPB's basic answer something is moral/immoral based on whether it can be wanted/unwanted by everyone? I really need to revisit. Can't escape the cycle of "Killing is immoral because it robs someone of their life. Why is that immoral? Because I wouldn't want to be stolen from" and that's not morality that's preference. I am fearing morality may be a myth. Hence why I need to revisit it. 

EDIT: I'll come back once I've finished UPB but I had an epiphany regarding the definition of morality.

Morality: That which is universally preferable versus subjectively preferable. Objective preference. 

Murder and theft can never be universally preferable by definition. Universalization only applies to stuff that can be defined objectively as only ever being preferable subjectively, therefore a limited number of things can be called moral/immoral. 

I'll come back to this after UPB but I have to admit I think I made a personal breakthrough by revisiting what morality means and that it is basically "objective preference" because preference by itself is subjective. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Jsbrads]

Numerous philosophers in the past have tackled this problem differently.

Aristotle - Eudaimonia, maximize yourself

Hillel - The Golden Rule.

Bentham - Utilitarianism, maximize good, ends justify the means.

Von Neumann/Morgenstern - Game Theory

Ayn Rand - Egoism, intelligent selfishness

Determinism - Amoral, rational choices...

 

[M.2]

20 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. You're right. I haven't thought about it like that--perhaps I am too tired or too ignorant about UPB and am therefore unqualified to argue. But if you're correct in your assessment of what UPB is then you just debunked it. Please email @MMD now since I'd like to hear what the Stefpai has to say.
2. Murder is wrong because it cannot by definition be wanted for the murderer as well as others. However the problem I think is answering beyond pragmatism why the non-believer should believe.
3. Subjectively it's easy to argue because getting along produces rich empires. Also history seems to prove that the most moral society of the era is the one that grows the biggest and becomes the most powerful. I'd argue the Mongolian Empire being a challenge to that thesis but I can't say their enemies were morally superior to them so I might be right. I'll do some independent research about this thesis (and perhaps find if someone else had the same hypothesis) since I might be right and if I'm right then we might have found something objective.
4. Objectively the best I can come up with is objective relative to a given standard. A standard like the Bible for example. Problem is wrongful interpretation. UPB may be simpler (or not, given my struggle at the moment but again I am not in the best state to argue because I am very tired and perhaps shouldn't be typing but will anyway because I suspect come morning I'll have time enough to amend what I typed here before moderation passes me) than the Bible because it's as simple as "can you both want it and can others want other to have it at the same time?" But I think I got it wrong, so I really ought to stop typing about it and perhaps do some research.
I don't know what to say. How do we measure a ruler's objectivity in measuring? So far all I have is practical reasons why being good is good for all involved (at least in the long term). Yet morality by definition is objective. What are we missing???
5. My answer to the quoted point is that "getting along is good" is not the ideal being put forward. Getting alone with bad people isn't good, for example. People being good however can be objectively proven based on how it enriches and empowers a nation. The strongest countries and longest lasting in history were the most moral relative to their continents. 

1. If nobody gives a good answer here on the forums, then I think we will be justified to ask him directly. You can call in too if you're so inclined.
2. Precisely. If it is so that it is merely impractical, but not necessarily immoral, then the UPB has no right to the word "moral".
3. You are not far off, I think. I think it is reasonable to suggest that if there is a UPB, or a philosophy based on UPB, then it should be the most popular ideology on the planet, since it is most compatible with human beings. The issue here is that the current dominator, christianity, has once been the most pitiful little ideology not that long ago. So again, this is not a good standard.
4. Again, we are on the same track, I think. If the UPB os derived from physics or biology, then it cannot be constant, because there is such a thing as evolution. And there is no denying that there are various human subspecies. Does the same UPB apply to all of them? If so, why? Chromosomes? That fails instantly because even males and females don't have the same set of chromosomes. In conclusion, the UPB has to be derived from someplace else... be it from the bible or some aliens.
5. By "getting along", of course I meant both parties being mutually... good...? So yeah, I don't even know what word to use anymore.

19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. I think using pragmatism to explain why being moral is objectively good is valid. The problem is figuring out what is moral. I need to re-listen to UPB's audiobook because I am way too empty-handed to be saying what's moral/immoral if I can't answer why killing people is immoral. I can argue why it's pragmatically bad but not evil. I got a problem. I'm going to see Stefpai's solution again.
2. ...Actually isn't UPB's basic answer something is moral/immoral based on whether it can be wanted/unwanted by everyone? I really need to revisit. Can't escape the cycle of "Killing is immoral because it robs someone of their life. Why is that immoral? Because I wouldn't want to be stolen from" and that's not morality that's preference. I am fearing morality may be a myth. Hence why I need to revisit it.
3. Morality: That which is universally preferable versus subjectively preferable. Objective preference.  Murder and theft can never be universally preferable by definition. Universalization only applies to stuff that can be defined objectively as only ever being preferable subjectively, therefore a limited number of things can be called moral/immoral. I'll come back to this after UPB but I have to admit I think I made a personal breakthrough by revisiting what morality means and that it is basically "objective preference" because preference by itself is subjective. 

1. I morality is merely pragmatism (which I don't think is the case), then the Stefist UPB has no right to the word "moral". It should simply say "pragmatic".
2. Yeah, we have already gone through this higher up. I have read UPB, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy, but I haven't gotten an answer to this question. 
3. Do that, I'll be here,

19 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Numerous philosophers in the past have tackled this problem differently.
Aristotle - Eudaimonia, maximize yourself
Hillel - The Golden Rule.
Bentham - Utilitarianism, maximize good, ends justify the means.
Von Neumann/Morgenstern - Game Theory
Ayn Rand - Egoism, intelligent selfishness
Determinism - Amoral, rational choices...

This is all good info, but we are mostly discussing the Stefist UPB.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. If nobody gives a good answer here on the forums, then I think we will be justified to ask him directly. You can call in too if you're so inclined.

Answered this same question on the other thread. 

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

2. Precisely. If it is so that it is merely impractical, but not necessarily immoral, then the UPB has no right to the word "moral".

The problem is, I think we agree, justifying it morally. Not why is being moral practically good. Rather what is moral. I think we can use definitions as a start (like murder is by definition evil because it is unjust and unwanted) and make threads from there but how do we justify basic tenants like the NAP as being a moral claim from which more claims can be made (because if the NAP is true for example, then attacking people unprovoked and beating children is evil by definition) without resorting to pragmatism?

Pragmatism isn't immoral but doesn't have any moral direction either way. Therefore it can't argue what morality is, just why to be moral. 

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

3. You are not far off, I think. I think it is reasonable to suggest that if there is a UPB, or a philosophy based on UPB, then it should be the most popular ideology on the planet, since it is most compatible with human beings. The issue here is that the current dominator, christianity, has once been the most pitiful little ideology not that long ago. So again, this is not a good standard.

Not necessarily since people do change significantly over time due to evolution. If one group of people is basically savage r-selected rabbits while another is upright and conscientiable than they can't be called the same sub-species. 

Like with Christianity, it started off very small but got very big as the word spread and those that heeded it became the most powerful for it.

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

4. Again, we are on the same track, I think. If the UPB os derived from physics or biology, then it cannot be constant, because there is such a thing as evolution. And there is no denying that there are various human subspecies. Does the same UPB apply to all of them? If so, why? Chromosomes? That fails instantly because even males and females don't have the same set of chromosomes. In conclusion, the UPB has to be derived from someplace else... be it from the bible or some aliens.

In short, we need a way to be super duper objective about it and to be able to distill it to a populace that generally either doesn't have time for studying morality in depth or isn't capable of being objective enough. 

In other words, UPB needs a church. 

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

5. By "getting along", of course I meant both parties being mutually... good...? So yeah, I don't even know what word to use anymore.

Well in English at least it's an "agreeableness" phrase not one that requires mutual goodness. 

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. I morality is merely pragmatism (which I don't think is the case), then the Stefist UPB has no right to the word "moral". It should simply say "pragmatic".
2. Yeah, we have already gone through this higher up. I have read UPB, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy, but I haven't gotten an answer to this question. 

I elaborated more on these points on the other posts.

On 12/20/2017 at 11:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

3. Do that, I'll be here,

This is all good info, but we are mostly discussing the Stefist UPB.

Will do. 

[Jsbrads]

Subjective individuals cannot reach objective truths alone.

Getting along well with others is only a value if you desire rich empires, but that just begs the question, why do we want rich empires?

I personally want rich empires, and rich empires can protect the planet from planet killing asteroids, but why would you want that.

I like Peterson’s short circuit of my original premise. Individuals can’t reach objective truths, but large numbers of individuals interating many times can evolve a moral system that is more effective than other systems.

As for some higher objective truth, that can only come from outside the system, because even if tomorrow, immortal alien who manufactured our world and our DNA and evolved for 13 billion years with quantum brains say, This is what is Moral! The Dude may reply “Yeah, well, that’s just your opinion man.”

[neeeel]

As I understand it, it boils down to logical consistency. 

the statement "X is universally preferable"  means that all people, at all times, want everyone to do X

So if we have 2 people in a room, they are both ok both with doing X, and having X done to them.

The problem with some X's is that if you want X done to you, then its no longer X, thats where the logical consistency comes in

 

If X = "watch TV"

I can want you to watch TV, and that doesnt change what watching TV means, if you watch TV you are not both watching and not watching at the same time.

If X = "stolen from" then

I can want you to steal from me, but then if I want you to steal from me, its not stealing , because I am giving you permission to take my possessions. You would be stealing, and not stealing, at the same time.

So the test for morality is, does the definition or understanding of X change, when I want you to do X. If it does its immoral.

 

 

 

 

[ofd]

Y'all should read some Jonathan Haidt. He shows that moral judgments come intellectual argumens for the judgment are post hoc rationalisations.

[M.2]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎04 at 11:06 AM, neeeel said:

As I understand it, it boils down to logical consistency. 

the statement "X is universally preferable"  means that all people, at all times, want everyone to do X
So if we have 2 people in a room, they are both ok both with doing X, and having X done to them.
The problem with some X's is that if you want X done to you, then its no longer X, thats where the logical consistency comes in
If X = "watch TV"
I can want you to watch TV, and that doesnt change what watching TV means, if you watch TV you are not both watching and not watching at the same time.
If X = "stolen from" then
I can want you to steal from me, but then if I want you to steal from me, its not stealing , because I am giving you permission to take my possessions. You would be stealing, and not stealing, at the same time.
So the test for morality is, does the definition or understanding of X change, when I want you to do X. If it does its immoral.

We already know this argument. Essentially, according to the stefist UPB, respecting all human free will is good, anything less is not good. To this I ask: Why?

 

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎04 at 10:11 AM, Jsbrads said:

Subjective individuals cannot reach objective truths alone.

Getting along well with others is only a value if you desire rich empires, but that just begs the question, why do we want rich empires?
I personally want rich empires, and rich empires can protect the planet from planet killing asteroids, but why would you want that.

I like Peterson’s short circuit of my original premise. Individuals can’t reach objective truths, but large numbers of individuals interating many times can evolve a moral system that is more effective than other systems.

As for some higher objective truth, that can only come from outside the system, because even if tomorrow, immortal alien who manufactured our world and our DNA and evolved for 13 billion years with quantum brains say, This is what is Moral! The Dude may reply “Yeah, well, that’s just your opinion man.”

If I understand correctly,  you are saying that it is impossible to know the definite objective truth. Similarly how Mr.Molyneux says that nobody has a monopoly on truth. but it is out there.
Won't this be a problem though? So far in history, people said "I believe in this truth because I heard a guy say God said so". In our scenario, people will be saying "I believe in this truth because I heard a clever guy make a good case for it, and haven't heard a better case since." Does this present a problem only in my mind, or is this completely fine?

 

On ‎2017‎-‎12‎-‎24 at 4:43 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. The problem is, I think we agree, justifying it morally. Not why is being moral practically good. Rather what is moral. I think we can use definitions as a start (like murder is by definition evil because it is unjust and unwanted) and make threads from there but how do we justify basic tenants like the NAP as being a moral claim from which more claims can be made (because if the NAP is true for example, then attacking people unprovoked and beating children is evil by definition) without resorting to pragmatism?
Pragmatism isn't immoral but doesn't have any moral direction either way. Therefore it can't argue what morality is, just why to be moral. 

2. Not necessarily since people do change significantly over time due to evolution. If one group of people is basically savage r-selected rabbits while another is upright and conscientiable than they can't be called the same sub-species.
Like with Christianity, it started off very small but got very big as the word spread and those that heeded it became the most powerful for it.

3. In short, we need a way to be super duper objective about it and to be able to distill it to a populace that generally either doesn't have time for studying morality in depth or isn't capable of being objective enough. In other words, UPB needs a church. 

1. Whilst reading his books, the use of the word "moral" always bothered me, because I didn't see sufficient justification for its use. Maybe someone can enlighten me. But as far as I know, this system of morality is built on a sheet of ice on a lake. 
Morality is a very complex topic, and as far as I know, there are no simple solutons to complex problems. Thomas Aquinas wrote literally millions of pages on morality, which is just a spec of dust in the entire 6000 year works of Judeo-Christian thought, and here is Mr.Molyneux giving us the answers ( I know he doesn't claim to) in a 100 page handbook? You can't just run with your own definition like it's no biggie.

2. Could this mean that UPB is subject to change as well?

3. Knowing truth is just as important as the truth itself. The scientific method may be perfect, but here comes the Raven Paradox (the human variable) which completely undermines the entire process. Maybe not a church, but we definitely need some sort of stabiliser in order to make the scientific method work in the realm of morality. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

18 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Whilst reading his books, the use of the word "moral" always bothered me, because I didn't see sufficient justification for its use. Maybe someone can enlighten me. But as far as I know, this system of morality is built on a sheet of ice on a lake. 
Morality is a very complex topic, and as far as I know, there are no simple solutons to complex problems. Thomas Aquinas wrote literally millions of pages on morality, which is just a spec of dust in the entire 6000 year works of Judeo-Christian thought, and here is Mr.Molyneux giving us the answers ( I know he doesn't claim to) in a 100 page handbook? You can't just run with your own definition like it's no biggie.

Until I've finished I can't comment much, but I can say if it's by definition it isn't "his" or "your's" or "mine", it's true or untrue. However language does change therefore definitions change, so there's some fog to be traversed.

18 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Could this mean that UPB is subject to change as well?

Either it is true or it is untrue. If the former it cannot, it the latter it must. All I can say for now until I've gotten to the bottom of it.

18 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Knowing truth is just as important as the truth itself. The scientific method may be perfect, but here comes the Raven Paradox (the human variable) which completely undermines the entire process. Maybe not a church, but we definitely need some sort of stabiliser in order to make the scientific method work in the realm of morality. 

Agreed. Hence why I think a Church (i.e. a group of people dedicated to both learning the truth and disseminating it into actionable steps for the general populace) is necessary for any moral order.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/4/2018 at 4:11 AM, Jsbrads said:

Subjective individuals cannot reach objective truths alone.

Getting along well with others is only a value if you desire rich empires, but that just begs the question, why do we want rich empires?

I personally want rich empires, and rich empires can protect the planet from planet killing asteroids, but why would you want that.

I like Peterson’s short circuit of my original premise. Individuals can’t reach objective truths, but large numbers of individuals interating many times can evolve a moral system that is more effective than other systems.

As for some higher objective truth, that can only come from outside the system, because even if tomorrow, immortal alien who manufactured our world and our DNA and evolved for 13 billion years with quantum brains say, This is what is Moral! The Dude may reply “Yeah, well, that’s just your opinion man.”

The problem here is subjectivity. We're trying to discern what is true, not what is close to true or pragmatically close. Like how can I morally argue against murder? Pragmatism is always my end result after enough "why's". 

However there does seem a trend where the most moral societies become rich empires then eventually lose what made them rich and become poor again.

[meetjoeblack]

Friedrich Nietzsche depicts morality quite well with his book beyond good and evil. Its one thing to moralize, to virtue signal, and posture in cowardice fashion. Its another thing to have the capacity to commit evil and choose good thus, being moral.

[barn]

Hi @Siegfried von Walheim

I'm sorry, but am none of those (UPB, mathematician neither, if you can prove I'm 'talking out of my armpit' please do tell) although I think I might have some valuable contribution to add.

On 12/16/2017 at 7:11 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

This very simple question: what is morality (objective preference?) is something I can't answer beyond a certain point. If someone wise to this, either a priest, a philosopher, or someone with really good handle on UPB or the New Testament, were to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Short version:

There's no purely objective or subjective morality and there's no 'final definition' of morality. (Is that my final definition? Is it true that there's... no, I don't claim to be sure)

Mortality is like the vehicle that gets upgraded/changes over time to better suit the needs of the driver who doesn't always know what each alteration will do in regards to the journey. To make things even worse, there's a number of upgrades that while seemingly grant a great deal of benefit, most likely will end the journey prematurely for its unseen consequences down the road. Aaand... we are social beings, dependent on each other, and so on... no isolation but interconnectedness.

To your question about murder :

Yeah, it's always immoral. Even in self-defense. Why get born on the first place if not to exist?

Longest version of all-time:

Sure, the answer is 42. (Well, obviously not, but you can get a fun time out of reading Douglas Adams's Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a great sci-fi imo very wittily written.)

Whenever such humongous questions are brought up, I have the need to simplify it to the point of "known unknown" and the following is how I perceive its utility.

Life and morality is about the journey, not the end goal. Sure, we can't tell the exact location of our destination (Zeno's paradox of ad infinitum,or can we*? ) (Also Plank's shortest distance isn't the shortest... plank sized right angled triangle) but that doesn't mean there's no good or bad direction. Or that we get to convert good morals into bad ones(I think it is only possible to throttle intensity). It only means that we can make our current position seem closer or further by choosing ideals accordingly. Relatively closer/farther goalposts makes our progress seem less moral/immoral.

(Confirmation will only come when we think we 'got there', then rinse and repeat because we never did arrive, just seemingly = same as a movie you've never seen and about to watch, the expectations you go into the cinema with, the question of watching another flick from the same director in the future or not upon reflection, people with different preferences rate genres differently, perception changing over time... etc. .)

BUT

That doesn't mean it is possible to negate the effect the movie has on the audience in that very moment. The reality of the experience it occurred, no matter how it's being assumed before /interpreted after; it exists and can't be explained away. Only compared to.

It doesn't matter if you perceive *morality as 1/3=0.333.. or 0.999../3=0.333.. both has the same result and therefore it's logical though paradoxical to assume 0.999..=1 which is aaah! ... unconceivable, however I am sort of glad humanity has evolved with some capacity to handle bias to a certain degree (or perhaps we are too good at it, see the plethora of cognitive dissonances).

Ultimately it's an irrelevant question if morality/God(s) exist, because we will never get a satisfactory answer. We are here to search but not to find ultimate and solely objective/subjective answers. That's why I think Christianity and the scientific method goes exactly in the same direction, two flavours of the same ice cream. Neither are going to give a better answer to 0.999..=1?, it's the experience in the present we spend figuring it out, is what matters.

[Jsbrads]

Murder is always bad.

causing the death of someone else in your own defense is killing. You may argue killing is always bad, I wouldn’t. It is the simplest of ethical math, allowing yourself to be murdered is a greater wrong than killing someone in self defense.

[M.2]

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Murder is always bad.

causing the death of someone else in your own defense is killing. You may argue killing is always bad, I wouldn’t. It is the simplest of ethical math, allowing yourself to be murdered is a greater wrong than killing someone in self defense.

Murder is bad because it is in the definition. Murder = killing that is immoral. There is a variable here nonetheless: IMMORAL. You have to explain what makes something immoral.

UPB is usable only if you accept the premise that IMMORAL = something that nobody would like done to them. Unfortunately, now you have brought the human element into the equation, by which you have made it impossible to solve this problem; just because you don't want something, and as far as you know nobody else wants it, doesn't deem it objectively immoral.
The "P" in UPB is key and very fitting, but if you switch it with an M and make it Universally Moral Behaviour, that makes a problem. Had Mr.Molyneux never used the words "moral" and "objective" in his book about UPB, I wouldn't have a single issue. He wrote "moral" 446 times, and "objective" 101 times.

[Tyler H]

On 1/9/2018 at 9:14 PM, Mishi2 said:

Murder is bad because it is in the definition. Murder = killing that is immoral. There is a variable here nonetheless: IMMORAL. You have to explain what makes something immoral.

UPB is usable only if you accept the premise that IMMORAL = something that nobody would like done to them. Unfortunately, now you have brought the human element into the equation, by which you have made it impossible to solve this problem; just because you don't want something, and as far as you know nobody else wants it, doesn't deem it objectively immoral.
The "P" in UPB is key and very fitting, but if you switch it with an M and make it Universally Moral Behaviour, that makes a problem. Had Mr.Molyneux never used the words "moral" and "objective" in his book about UPB, I wouldn't have a single issue. He wrote "moral" 446 times, and "objective" 101 times.

If you were to debate him he would accuse you of having not read the book. 

[M.2]

4 hours ago, Tyler H said:

If you were to debate him he would accuse you of having not read the book. 

I am not trying to debate anything you fucking idiot. If I don't understand something, be helpful and point it out, or please don't bother engaging.

Didn't want to do this, because I thought it may be too mean, but it's for your own good.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I think I made a logical breakthrough in determining moral vs. immoral.

Is it unjustifiable in every case it's in???

Murder by definition cannot ever be justified, therefore murder is immoral. 

Is it justified in every case it's in???

Self-defense is not always justified, therefore it's not moral but not immoral either (it's context dependent). An easy example is "self-defense" against a toddler....

I figured this when I remembered what someone said about "if the definition has to change, it is not moral" and what "universally" actually means; it can be applied in every conceivable scenario. I.e. murder can never be justified no matter how hard I try. Killing is a different story (like self-defense against a killer) but murder, as a foundation, is always immoral. By extension, so is theft and rape. They can't ever be justified without changing the definitions and/or the scenario. Like to justify theft I have to somehow make it appear as if I owned what I'm stealing in the first place--i.e. I have to use a lot of BS to fog the reality of the situation. 

Honestly I made this topic because I feared the potential that morality is a myth; i.e. there is no right or wrong. Now that I made this breakthrough (which I'm sure if I heard Stefan or someone else say in a way that'd click in my mind I'd realize this is hardly "my" breakthrough rather my realization) I feel a lot more confident talking about whether something is moral or immoral. 

It is immoral if it can be broken down to murder or theft. 

It is moral if it is always in every situation a justifiable action. Saving a non-moral-criminal for example is always justified but saving people (their lives I mean, in a hypothetical situation) isn't always moral because what if the person I'm saving is a murderer/rapist/thief etc. 

I'm hardly done since I have to morally justify things I know are practically beneficial (like freedom and civil liberty) but are not as easily defensible. 

While not everyone was equally helpful (perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was asking for, or some people don't have the answers), from what help there was I had the means to figure this out. 

Thank you for all your participations, I'm not calling this thread over since I think more can be said (and I could still be wrong) but I think this a major step in the right direction (for me anyway). 

[richardbaxter]

To be moral is to be logically consistent, and to be immoral is to be logically inconsistent. The reason A1 acts in their own interest is because they value themselves, but if all like sentient entities (A2, A3, A4, etc) are equally valuable, then there is no reason for A1 to treat others different than how A1 would him/herself expect to be treated by them (the golden rule). Hence a) morality is objective not relative. There is no such thing as moral evolution; only changes in knowledge, circumstance and technology. Yet b) there are no “moral absolutes”. Even taking/killing/using can be justified if the perpetrator would expect to be treated that way if the situation were reversed (e.g. provocation). Traditionally we assign these actions as theft/murder/rape etc when the condition of logical inconsistency holds. Who is to be the final arbitrator in the matter however? Only someone with absolute knowledge of all parties can ever know what is universally moral (preferable), but just because we don’t know or can never know what is wrong doesn’t make it right. It is just plain wrong.

Likewise, moral imperatives (oughts) only exist to the extent that logical consistency exists. We only have reason to be moral to the extent that we have reason to be rational. If someone chooses to act irrationally however there is no reason for anybody to trust them (which is the traditional prelude to ostracism). Furthermore, for someone to disrespect reason is to signify direspect for nature: the force that conferred on us the Reason we take for granted as true in the declaration of any logical proposition (including the inference that there is a probability our universe evolved to produce reasonable creatures). And for a contemplative teleosian this is to disrespect creation (or another agent in the equation). This provides a metaphysical dimension to morality, often mistaken for its philosophical basis. In reality however, we can easily conceive of an immoral god.

Finally, there is reason to differentiate conscious from unconscious inconsistency in human relations; for which the terms evil and wrong (missing the mark aka sin) are generally associated. This has influence on meta judgement or conscience. Even without libertarian free will, we can still accept the justice of social consequences (punishment) for rejection of truth, because all such rejection coincides with some fleeting affective pleasure which would not exist otherwise. We instinctively reject the coherency of moral error in the face/light of truth and feel guilt as a consequence (cognitive dissonance), needing to make amends or get one’s honour back.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/13/2018 at 8:21 AM, richardbaxter said:

To be moral is to be logically consistent, and to be immoral is to be logically inconsistent. The reason A1 acts in their own interest is because they value themselves, but if all like sentient entities (A2, A3, A4, etc) are equally valuable, then there is no reason for A1 to treat others different than how A1 would him/herself expect to be treated by them (the golden rule). Hence a) morality is objective not relative. There is no such thing as moral evolution; only changes in knowledge, circumstance and technology. Yet b) there are no “moral absolutes”. Even taking/killing/using can be justified if the perpetrator would expect to be treated that way if the situation were reversed (e.g. provocation). Traditionally we assign these actions as theft/murder/rape etc when the condition of logical inconsistency holds. Who is to be the final arbitrator in the matter however? Only someone with absolute knowledge of all parties can ever know what is universally moral (preferable), but just because we don’t know or can never know what is wrong doesn’t make it right. It is just plain wrong.

Likewise, moral imperatives (oughts) only exist to the extent that logical consistency exists. We only have reason to be moral to the extent that we have reason to be rational. If someone chooses to act irrationally however there is no reason for anybody to trust them (which is the traditional prelude to ostracism). Furthermore, for someone to disrespect reason is to signify direspect for nature: the force that conferred on us the Reason we take for granted as true in the declaration of any logical proposition (including the inference that there is a probability our universe evolved to produce reasonable creatures). And for a contemplative teleosian this is to disrespect creation (or another agent in the equation). This provides a metaphysical dimension to morality, often mistaken for its philosophical basis. In reality however, we can easily conceive of an immoral god.

Finally, there is reason to differentiate conscious from unconscious inconsistency in human relations; for which the terms evil and wrong (missing the mark aka sin) are generally associated. This has influence on meta judgement or conscience. Even without libertarian free will, we can still accept the justice of social consequences (punishment) for rejection of truth, because all such rejection coincides with some fleeting affective pleasure which would not exist otherwise. We instinctively reject the coherency of moral error in the face/light of truth and feel guilt as a consequence (cognitive dissonance), needing to make amends or get one’s honour back.

If morality=logical consistency than a hitman can be moral if he is willing to be "hit" himself. 

On the topic titled "Socrates Jones: Pro-Philosopher" I have something more on this as I'm reading UPB from start to finish for the first time. 

Basically morality=logical consistency only because it is possible to come to very terrible though consistent conclusions. 

[M.2]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎13 at 5:03 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think I made a logical breakthrough in determining moral vs. immoral.

1. Is it unjustifiable in every case it's in???
Murder by definition cannot ever be justified, therefore murder is immoral.
Is it justified in every case it's in???

2. Self-defense is not always justified, therefore it's not moral but not immoral either (it's context dependent). An easy example is "self-defense" against a toddler.... I figured this when I remembered what someone said about "if the definition has to change, it is not moral" and what "universally" actually means; it can be applied in every conceivable scenario. I.e. murder can never be justified no matter how hard I try. Killing is a different story (like self-defense against a killer) but murder, as a foundation, is always immoral. 3. By extension, so is theft and rape. They can't ever be justified without changing the definitions and/or the scenario. Like to justify theft I have to somehow make it appear as if I owned what I'm stealing in the first place--i.e. I have to use a lot of BS to fog the reality of the situation. 

4. It is moral if it is always in every situation a justifiable action. Saving a non-moral-criminal for example is always justified but saving people (their lives I mean, in a hypothetical situation) isn't always moral because what if the person I'm saving is a murderer/rapist/thief etc. 

I'm hardly done since I have to morally justify things I know are practically beneficial (like freedom and civil liberty) but are not as easily defensible. 

1. Ok... here is the problem with that. "Murder" is already a morally charged word, and the same goes for theft. Saying that murder is immoral is like saying a white pigeon is white. You are not helping anyone by being a dictionary.
The same thing has addressed very well between Dennis Prager and Michael Shermer on the Rubin Report (if you are interested in how even extremely smart people don't see eye to eye on this). They never seemed to get on the same page with this, let alone argue about it.

2. Whether killing is ok in case of self defence is a legitimate argument to hold. Let's test it by the UPB. If everyone who ever PERCEIVED getting aggressed upon killed everyone they believed aggressed against them, what would the world look like? I don't know; I am genuinely curious.
My view does not accord with yours. I think that if someone aggresses against you, or at least so you perceive, then you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to make sure that never happens again, even if it means killing them. If you don't, what kind of person are you? HOWEVER, it is the christian way to retaliate only as much as you have to in order to make yourself safe to the extent that you are comfortable with, and at the same time give the aggressor a chance to repent, simply because you want to give them to go to heaven. Going back to the UPB, is it more preferable to paralyze a thief from the neck down and let the aggressor live, or rather to simply kill them? Again, I am genuinely curious about the answer.

3. Let's stick with "rape" for a second, because I think it is the perfect test case. You say it is not justifiable in every scenario. Ok... justified by whom? What do you mean by justified? 
You say "If it is not justifable in every scenario, it is not moral". 
I'm going to take down your world right here. The ground thesis of UPB is the respect for human free will. Do we respect the free will of a rapist? Of course not. (If you get the "of course not" thing, you know I have read the books, so please don't be a dick, Tyler.) So there are clearly exceptions. Does that mean respect of human free will is not always moral?

4. Again, you are charging scenarios with morality before judging them. Seems like cheating.

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎13 at 2:21 PM, richardbaxter said:

1. To be moral is to be logically consistent, and to be immoral is to be logically inconsistent.

2. The reason A1 acts in their own interest is because they value themselves, but if all like sentient entities (A2, A3, A4, etc)

3. ...are equally valuable,

4. ...then there is no reason for A1 to treat others different than how A1 would him/herself expect to be treated by them (the golden rule). Hence a) morality is objective not relative.

5. There is no such thing as moral evolution; only changes in knowledge, circumstance and technology.

6. Yet b) there are no “moral absolutes”. Even taking/killing/using can be justified if the perpetrator would expect to be treated that way if the situation were reversed (e.g. provocation). Traditionally we assign these actions as theft/murder/rape etc when the condition of logical inconsistency holds. Who is to be the final arbitrator in the matter however? Only someone with absolute knowledge of all parties can ever know what is universally moral (preferable), but just because we don’t know or can never know what is wrong doesn’t make it right. It is just plain wrong.

7. Likewise, moral imperatives (oughts) only exist to the extent that logical consistency exists. We only have reason to be moral to the extent that we have reason to be rational. If someone chooses to act irrationally however there is no reason for anybody to trust them (which is the traditional prelude to ostracism). Furthermore, for someone to disrespect reason is to signify direspect for nature: the force that conferred on us the Reason we take for granted as true in the declaration of any logical proposition (including the inference that there is a probability our universe evolved to produce reasonable creatures). And for a contemplative teleosian this is to disrespect creation (or another agent in the equation). This provides a metaphysical dimension to morality, often mistaken for its philosophical basis. In reality however, we can easily conceive of an immoral god.

8. Finally, there is reason to differentiate conscious from unconscious inconsistency in human relations; for which the terms evil and wrong (missing the mark aka sin) are generally associated. This has influence on meta judgement or conscience. Even without libertarian free will, we can still accept the justice of social consequences (punishment) for rejection of truth, because all such rejection coincides with some fleeting affective pleasure which would not exist otherwise. We instinctively reject the coherency of moral error in the face/light of truth and feel guilt as a consequence (cognitive dissonance), needing to make amends or get one’s honour back.

1. So says your premise. Why?

2. I find te key word here is "like sentient entities". There are genetic differences between me and a Tongolese. Are we alike enough? Even chromosomally, women and men are different. What if I draw the line at XY? Does UPB only apply to men?

3. Let's say they are truly "alike". Who says they are all equally valuable?

4. Correct me if I misunderstand you, but from what think you are saying: A1 wants to be treated somehow, and then he projects and presumes that everyone else wants to be treated like that. Where am I missing the objectivity?
- Who was it who gave us the golden rule anyway? Something beginning with J, right? I don't remember him saying anything about logical consistency though. I believe his reasoning was something like: haec est enim lex et prophetatae.

5. Do the same objective rules apply to the homo-erectus as do to us? If so, why? If not, why?

6. So we don't know for sure? Right then.

7. This looks like a strong case.
 If I say that I have seen a compelling case for the theory that jews are destroying the world, and go on a rampage to kill every jew, am I being logically consistent?

8. I work with mentally disabled people, and they are hardly ever logically consistent (whatever that is). Are they always immoral? Yes, they are consciously inconsistent because consistency is not something they really care about, and yes, they do have free will.

[RichardY]

What if morality is just what is good for ones own tribe? 

Is it immoral to slaughter a goat? What about the motive in which it was done? For instance, I'm going to bring as much meat back to my tribe as possible so they don't go hungry(Moral) or there's a starving family of a "potentially" hostile tribe(The Samaritans), give them some meat. (virtue?).

[Siegfried von Walheim]

14 minutes ago, RichardY said:

What if morality is just what is good for ones own tribe? 

If morality is subjective then there is no morality; just preference. Therefore morality cannot be redefined as anything other than "that which is objectively good vs. evil".

14 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Is it immoral to slaughter a goat? What about the motive in which it was done? For instance, I'm going to bring as much meat back to my tribe as possible so they don't go hungry(Moral) or there's a starving family of a "potentially" hostile tribe(The Samaritans), give them some meat. (virtue?).

It's easy to morally excuse killing animals because of the NAP and other principles; animals as a species are in constant violation of each other's property rights and if humans behaved as such they'd be jailed, killed, medicated, etc. 

Also feeding starving people cannot be moral because what if they are, for example, pedophiles? If there is one foreseeable case in which it is immoral than it is not automatically moral. 

[RichardY]

On 15/01/2018 at 10:58 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If morality is subjective then there is no morality; just preference. Therefore morality cannot be redefined as anything other than "that which is objectively good vs. evil".

I can't prefer to be a Masai Warrior or an Inuit. Can I prefer to have another personality than I have, if someone is irrational can they ever be shifted out of it? Perhaps in that case a person would be amoral, "The morality of Genghis Khan" or "The Joker".

Though morality only exists when at least 2 people acknowledge it? do they do so through talk or through action? False dichtonmy, talk being an action. Can one person be moral, when everyone else is immoral or amoral? is such a situation possible? I guess you could have a completely amoral society as with early man. 

So as Murder is Objectively Evil, and murder is distinguished from killing by the fact that someone has "Moral Agency" respect for property rights. That we are talking shows a preference for talk, as opposed to violence. (Stefan inspired, possibly word for word).

But what if respect for ones own property rights is not enough? Thinking of the Russian Revolution the most aggressive, culling the least.

How would you distinguish Morality from Virtue? Could it be possible to be amoral and virtous?

I think what I am getting at is, if morality is to have value or worth shouldn't it endure over immorality. If everyone was moral are they by that fact amoral? I guess that is why the question of Freewill is so prevelent. 

Few defintions, feel free to pick at...

Ethics: That which is universally preferable. Also the affirmation of Property Rights.
Morality: That someone has moral agency; a respect for property rights.
Immorality: That someone simultaneously attempts to affirm and deny, property rights.
Amorality: That someone neither affirms nor denies, property rights, merely that they act.
Virtue: Acting for the betterment of humanity a persons life?
Nietzschean Morality: A form of Amorality?; where the person reflects on, the fact that “To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures.”  
Tribal Morality?: Where member are supportinate to the rules and customs of the tribe, where property has not yet developed into a fully distinct concept and Dominance and Submission prevail, but also cooperation & community.
Ethos: 
Subjective:
Objective: 
Truth:
Logic:
True:
False:

Could do with a FDR Dictionary.

 

On 15/01/2018 at 10:58 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

 Also feeding starving people cannot be moral because what if they are, for example, pedophiles? If there is one foreseeable case in which it is immoral than it is not automatically moral. 

Yeah best let people starve if you can help.  

[richardbaxter]

1. This is not a premise as such, it is a claim; and the justification for the definition follows.
2. The logical imposition referenced only follows precisely for like entities. This is a qualifier. Any system of ethics suffers from the same constraint; how does its implementation account for different grades of sentience - see thread “Why is human life worth more than animal life?”. Although there may be an ontological difference between non-sentience and unique/sole instances of sentience, we don’t treat all such entities alike (there are 2 empirical factors which determine this treatment besides genetic proximity and reciprocal altruism; the sensitivity of the subject and the morality of the subject). Yet this is the only principle available to derive right treatment of differences (putting ourselves in another’s shoes) - despite all such inferences being imperfect due to a lack of absolute knowledge of the complete/entire system.
3. If two entities are identical then they are equally valuable by any standard of value (because they are interchangeable).
4. The golden rule is not claiming an objective standard (see 6.), it is a logical (moral) principle/maxim which is practically constrained by imperfect knowledge (who are the active/affected parties, no 2 entities will ever be identical so how should these differences/gradations be weighted). Assuming perfect self/universal knowledge of all actors, the principle could however be theoretically applied to derive the objective good; thus it is a demonstration of why morality is logical consistency (see 1.) ——The golden rule is not a specifically Christian ethic, it predates Christianity and is shared by a number of religions; the New Testament reference comes from the Torah.
5. It depends on their sentience (see 2.)
6. This is an epistomological not an ontological limitation; it has no influence on 1.
7. Arguably not because someone with sufficient knowledge of a person would be inclined not to dehumanise them (unless they were out of their mind). Important here is the distinction between conscious and unconscious error (8). Although a master mind contemplating mass extermination of a people is arguably being knowingly inconsistent (compromise with respect to the logic inherent in the golden rule), his persuaded/propagandised minions are not necessarily - they might think they are being consistent but only being in error with respect to the true nature of the facts.
8. It depends on their sentience (see 2.)

[M.2]

7 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

1. This is not a premise as such, it is a claim; and the justification for the definition follows.
2. The logical imposition referenced only follows precisely for like entities. This is a qualifier. Any system of ethics suffers from the same constraint; how does its implementation account for different grades of sentience - see thread “Why is human life worth more than animal life?”. Although there may be an ontological difference between non-sentience and unique/sole instances of sentience, we don’t treat all such entities alike (there are 2 empirical factors which determine this treatment besides genetic proximity and reciprocal altruism; the sensitivity of the subject and the morality of the subject). Yet this is the only principle available to derive right treatment of differences (putting ourselves in another’s shoes) - despite all such inferences being imperfect due to a lack of absolute knowledge of the complete/entire system.
3. If two entities are identical then they are equally valuable by any standard of value (because they are interchangeable).
4. The golden rule is not claiming an objective standard (see 6.), it is a logical (moral) principle/maxim which is practically constrained by imperfect knowledge (who are the active/affected parties, no 2 entities will ever be identical so how should these differences/gradations be weighted). Assuming perfect self/universal knowledge of all actors, the principle could however be theoretically applied to derive the objective good; thus it is a demonstration of why morality is logical consistency (see 1.) ——The golden rule is not a specifically Christian ethic, it predates Christianity and is shared by a number of religions; the New Testament reference comes from the Torah.
5. It depends on their sentience (see 2.)
6. This is an epistomological not an ontological limitation; it has no influence on 1.
7. Arguably not because someone with sufficient knowledge of a person would be inclined not to dehumanise them (unless they were out of their mind). Important here is the distinction between conscious and unconscious error (8). Although a master mind contemplating mass extermination of a people is arguably being knowingly inconsistent (compromise with respect to the logic inherent in the golden rule), his persuaded/propagandised minions are not necessarily - they might think they are being consistent but only being in error with respect to the true nature of the facts.
8. It depends on their sentience (see 2.)

1. You are working backwards twards your claim.
2. I thought my question was rather simple. So we don't know?
3. Now you have switched from "alike" to "identical". And you contradict yourself in the net point.
4. You used the word "objective" which confused me. And you are confusing me even more now.
I didn't say it was excluseively a christian ethic. I said the explanation of Jesus was not "logical consistency". 
5. I thought my question was rather somply. Clearly not.
7. So you can only be logically consistent of you are consistent with the Tuth? We still haven't determined what the Truth is.
8. You, sir, are dangerous. Thanks for the conversation. I learned a lot.

20 hours ago, RichardY said:

1. I can't prefer to be a Masai Warrior or an Inuit. Can I prefer to have another personality than I have, if someone is irrational can they ever be shifted out of it? Perhaps in that case a person would be amoral, "The morality of Genghis Khan" or "The Joker".
2. So as Murder is Objectively Evil, and murder is distinguished from killing by the fact that someone has "Moral Agency" respect for property rights. That we are talking shows a preference for talk, as opposed to violence. (Stefan inspired, possibly word for word).
3. But what if respect for ones own property rights is not enough? Thinking of the Russian Revolution the most aggressive, culling the least.
4. Few defintions, feel free to pick at...

Just a couple of things...

1. I love how you westerners just take it for granted that Genghis Khan was amoral or immoral. A third of Asia still worships him (literally). We got him sitting at the gates of our parliament for instance. We think he was a swell guy who lay the way to Pax Mongolica. Don't you like peace?
2. The fact that 60% of women have abortions by the end of their lives does not indicate that abortion is objectively preferable.
3. The Russian revolution was not nearly the most aggressive revolution. I could name 5 revolutions in chinese history that were more bloody.
4. None of your defintitions are justified. There is nothing to pick at. You can't just create your own definitions for words.

[RichardY]

@Mishi2

1. Yeah but he did kill his brother, ok he probably had it coming though."The scouruge of God" (Looking on Wikipedia a link The Scouruge of the Virtuous, Purification through mortification). Plus invade large swathes of the world, it didn't last long after he died with territory being devided up. Not sure if it is possible to be amoral and still have the capacity for virtue. What if the inquistion was in someway virtuous? How can someone judge Genghis Khan as moral or immoral? or even God? How would you make the case for Genghis Khan being moral? Personally I think he was perhaps virtuous in many ways, but I wouldn't say moral. 
2. Never said it was to have an abortion, I think it would be better if women were paid for the child instead, at least try and "break-even". Emotional baggage, pragmatic if not idealistic.
3. So more revolutions were more bloody, just shows the necessity sometimes of aggression in survival if not morality.
4. I prefer to pick and choose what definitions I find are more accurate, for example: Inflation; an increase in prices.(New Definition). Inflation; an increase in the money supply(Old Definition, and imho more correct) Find the defintion of Justice, like in a Socratic dialogue than through google search. However, importantly I figure Ishould write it down to avoid going over old ground and reach a position of certainty.

[RichardY]

3. Another thought just occured to me. "The Dragons Teeth"(Myth) What if those bloody revolutions in China led to an increase in Agreeableness, leading indirectly to a potential increase in bloody conflicts in the future. Communists are usally High in Agreeableness, the team first, above morality? or ethics. Relatively peaceful at the moment ,but what if that changes?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. Ok... here is the problem with that. "Murder" is already a morally charged word, and the same goes for theft. Saying that murder is immoral is like saying a white pigeon is white. You are not helping anyone by being a dictionary.
The same thing has addressed very well between Dennis Prager and Michael Shermer on the Rubin Report (if you are interested in how even extremely smart people don't see eye to eye on this). They never seemed to get on the same page with this, let alone argue about it.

It is difficult to discern morality without relying on either someone else as an "arbiter". Which is why I think in all honesty most people ought to have morality discerned and taught to them rather than be expected to figure it out themselves. If an IQ 145 (mostly verbal based) like myself struggles to discern morality from merely preference or whims, how can someone of average or dumb intelligence discern virtue???

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

2. Whether killing is ok in case of self defence is a legitimate argument to hold. Let's test it by the UPB. If everyone who ever PERCEIVED getting aggressed upon killed everyone they believed aggressed against them, what would the world look like? I don't know; I am genuinely curious.

I need to finish to know if you are correct in your knowledge of how UPB works. 

Hypothetically if "everyone" killed who they "perceived" to be an aggression than the world would be populated by trigger happy lambs. A.K.A. China. 

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

My view does not accord with yours. I think that if someone aggresses against you, or at least so you perceive, then you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to make sure that never happens again, even if it means killing them.

I think "what is self-defense" becomes a question. IF self-defense includes shooting a 4-year-old who was recklessly given his father's gun, then self-defense is not a moral question because it has the potential for an immoral situation (or execution). 

I think an argument needs to made as to why self-defense is moral because I consider it neither moral nor immoral because, from an invader's standpoint, he could justly claim self-defense upon conquest of a land if the old owners were to decide to reclaim it. Now this could only be justified if the old owners willfully abdicate the land and they're now breaking their word, but that could be excused if the invader himself is an oath-breaker whose invasion was a breaking of a promise. 

Therefore, because of the potential for gray/immoral situations, self-defense is a question of pragmatism not morality.

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

If you don't, what kind of person are you? HOWEVER, it is the christian way to retaliate only as much as you have to in order to make yourself safe to the extent that you are comfortable with, and at the same time give the aggressor a chance to repent, simply because you want to give them to go to heaven. Going back to the UPB, is it more preferable to paralyze a thief from the neck down and let the aggressor live, or rather to simply kill them? Again, I am genuinely curious about the answer.

I don't know what is "universally preferable". I am half-way through the book and frankly am as informed as I was when I merely heard him debate it. I understand how he reasons why certain things like "truth" is UPB because even liars prefer to know what's true or be told the truth even if they won't tell it themselves (I think). But beyond that I think a potential weakness of the system is its difficulty in comprehension. Either I am woefully ignorant, intellectually retarded, or UPB is false. I am assuming the first because I know I'm a genius and while it is technically Stefpai's job to disprove the latter I think it'd be lazy of me to simply denounce his "claim" without sufficient evidence for it. If he's correct then by God he's answered the age-old question of what is true and untrue. 

I don't know whether it's moral (or more moral versus less moral) to spare a thief from death. I think it could be if the thief honestly repents and reforms. However I think paralyzing him (deliberately at least) from the neck-down without killing him is an act of sadism, therefore even if the thief "repents" (which I wouldn't take seriously because it's like the asshole who acts nice to big brother because he suddenly "needs" him) the self-defender is no hero.

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

3. Let's stick with "rape" for a second, because I think it is the perfect test case. You say it is not justifiable in every scenario. Ok... justified by whom? What do you mean by justified? 

By somebody, I should think. Myself is too subjective; an arbiter might be more objective; if God could be reached, he'd be the most objective. Therefore I think if I commit a potential moral crime or a potential moral merit, I ought to be judged by a moral arbiter who is close to God.

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

You say "If it is not justifable in every scenario, it is not moral". 
I'm going to take down your world right here. The ground thesis of UPB is the respect for human free will. Do we respect the free will of a rapist? Of course not. (If you get the "of course not" thing, you know I have read the books, so please don't be a dick, Tyler.) So there are clearly exceptions. Does that mean respect of human free will is not always moral?

TO BE CLEAR, I mean "not moral" as in "not a question of morality". The logic is this: if it is moral, it is moral in every situation it could possibly be conceived in. If it is immoral; it is immoral in every situation it could be thought in. If it something that is moral in some situations but not others, it is "not moral" i.e. "not moral without qualifiers". Like feeding the hungry. If I fed a hungry Hitler or Stalin, I am not being virtuous (i.e. adherent to morality). However if I fed Augustus Caesar or Donald Trump, I am being moral because they are not evil (and better than that; good men therefore more moral than feeding the morally neutral). 

On 1/14/2018 at 3:18 PM, Mishi2 said:

4. Again, you are charging scenarios with morality before judging them. Seems like cheating.

Please clarify. I think you just misunderstood me given the above. 

 

[M.2]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

1. Yeah but he did kill his brother, ok he probably had it coming though."The scouruge of God" (Looking on Wikipedia a link The Scouruge of the Virtuous, Purification through mortification). Plus invade large swathes of the world, it didn't last long after he died with territory being devided up. Not sure if it is possible to be amoral and still have the capacity for virtue. What if the inquistion was in someway virtuous? How can someone judge Genghis Khan as moral or immoral? or even God? How would you make the case for Genghis Khan being moral? Personally I think he was perhaps virtuous in many ways, but I wouldn't say moral.
2. Never said it was to have an abortion, I think it would be better if women were paid for the child instead, at least try and "break-even". Emotional baggage, pragmatic if not idealistic.
3. So more revolutions were more bloody, just shows the necessity sometimes of aggression in survival if not morality.
"The Dragons Teeth"(Myth) What if those bloody revolutions in China led to an increase in Agreeableness, leading indirectly to a potential increase in bloody conflicts in the future. Communists are usally High in Agreeableness, the team first, above morality? or ethics. Relatively peaceful at the moment ,but what if that changes?
4. I prefer to pick and choose what definitions I find are more accurate, for example: Inflation; an increase in prices.(New Definition). Inflation; an increase in the money supply(Old Definition, and imho more correct) Find the defintion of Justice, like in a Socratic dialogue than through google search. However, importantly I figure Ishould write it down to avoid going over old ground and reach a position of certainty.

1. You are giving me a lot to pick at here. 
- Him killing his brother was probably the only sin we have documents of him actually regretting. Why did you have to bring that example?
- His empire lasted 160 years, and he was the one that divided it up. Do you know how many countries there are currently that are 160 years old? Less than 10.
- Here is my rule of thumb on the inquisition... If you say "inquisition", I just assume you are just an anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "spanish inquisition", I assume you are a cultured anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "papal inquisition", now we can have a debate. If you say "Dominicans", I don't bother because you have probably already won the argument.
- Asians look at morality very differently than westerners. In fact, the western way of looking at morality is very odd in comparison to other cultures, all thanks to christianity. The reason Mongols, kazakhs, Turks and others still worship the great khan is because he used every method in the book to create peace and unity in the world, and was even pretty successful. Which proves that he actually cared about that stuff. Asians are more pragmatic and utilitarian, so the end justifies the means.
2. You missed my point. "That we are talking shows a preference for talk, as opposed to violence." This argument is terrible because it argues morality from current human tendencies. Just because we prefer talking over killing each other, that does not indicate that arguments are objectively more moral than violence.
3. Missed my point again. Never mind.
The Japanese are even higher in agreeableness. In fact, asians are generally pretty high in agreeableness. On the other hand, Angolans are not, nor are Congolese, nor are Cubans. I don't think agreeableness is a good indicator for communism.
4. I suppose you can use your own definitions, and I can see your point, but that only means that you are using a different language. Or maybe you could justify your definitions so that we can learn your language.

[jpahmad]

Here ya go.

 

 

[RichardY]

On 19/01/2018 at 3:45 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. You are giving me a lot to pick at here. 
- Him killing his brother was probably the only sin we have documents of him actually regretting. Why did you have to bring that example?
- His empire lasted 160 years, and he was the one that divided it up. Do you know how many countries there are currently that are 160 years old? Less than 10.
- Here is my rule of thumb on the inquisition... If you say "inquisition", I just assume you are just an anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "spanish inquisition", I assume you are a cultured anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "papal inquisition", now we can have a debate. If you say "Dominicans", I don't bother because you have probably already won the argument.
- Asians look at morality very differently than westerners. In fact, the western way of looking at morality is very odd in comparison to other cultures, all thanks to christianity. The reason Mongols, kazakhs, Turks and others still worship the great khan is because he used every method in the book to create peace and unity in the world, and was even pretty successful. Which proves that he actually cared about that stuff. Asians are more pragmatic and utilitarian, so the end justifies the means.
2. You missed my point. "That we are talking shows a preference for talk, as opposed to violence." This argument is terrible because it argues morality from current human tendencies. Just because we prefer talking over killing each other, that does not indicate that arguments are objectively more moral than violence.
3. Missed my point again. Never mind.
The Japanese are even higher in agreeableness. In fact, asians are generally pretty high in agreeableness. On the other hand, Angolans are not, nor are Congolese, nor are Cubans. I don't think agreeableness is a good indicator for communism.
4. I suppose you can use your own definitions, and I can see your point, but that only means that you are using a different language. Or maybe you could justify your definitions so that we can learn your language.

2. "Arguments are not more moral than violence". How do you even establish morality being communcated. Tendencies. 

4. Justify........I care only that the defintions are logically consistent, so I can reach a higher degree of certainty, and what is this, "We can learn your language".

 Bullshit.

 

 

[M.2]

14 hours ago, RichardY said:

2. "Arguments are not more moral than violence". How do you even establish morality being communcated. Tendencies.
4. Justify........I care only that the defintions are logically consistent, so I can reach a higher degree of certainty, and what is this, "We can learn your language".Bullshit.

2. We disagree. That's fine.
3. You have not proven your definitions logically consistent. Not saying they are wrong, but they definitely differ from vernacular english.