Jsbrads Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 I agree, murder is bad I do not agree murder is the same as killing.
RichardY Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 17 minutes ago, Jsbrads said: I agree, murder is bad I do not agree murder is the same as killing. Rhetorical Question, but isn't philosophy supposed to be independent of agreement? Whether murder is bad or not is not dependent on concensus. Although I wonder if it would be murder to kill someone at a low point in their life, when they do not resist. Perhap that would be a question to consider in aggregate. Is the distinction between manslaughter and murder valid? Also whether people equate philosophy to morality, which many do not.
Jsbrads Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 Depends on your moral system. utilitarianism would argue you are engaging in a net bad as the person’s future potential is be dissolved for no equal benefit. we can go thru countless other systems, but you know it would be heroic to help another and a wide range of net zero to net really bad in moats systems. note: many today accept if a person is going to die in a day, and the pain can’t be alleviated, an increasing dose of morphine until the body shuts down is moral.
RichardY Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Jsbrads said: Depends on your moral system. utilitarianism would argue you are engaging in a net bad as the person’s future potential is be dissolved for no equal benefit. we can go thru countless other systems, but you know it would be heroic to help another and a wide range of net zero to net really bad in moats systems. note: many today accept if a person is going to die in a day, and the pain can’t be alleviated, an increasing dose of morphine until the body shuts down is moral. Moral systems is something I'm trying to eliminate in my own mind, perhaps out of entertainment, which might be a poor reason. Utiltarianism and Potential, do they really go together, utility having current value? To help another I guess could be virtuous, because it is optional, morality is perhaps more obligatory? I think if they were incapicitated beyond communication or recovery, it would be moral to "end him rightly".
Jsbrads Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 Utilitarianism argues the ends justify the means (101) so yeah, it works thru time too. Not that expressing in terms of utility specifically was important, merely easily quantifiable and communicable.
RichardY Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jsbrads said: Utilitarianism argues the ends justify the means (101) so yeah, it works thru time too. Not that expressing in terms of utility specifically was important, merely easily quantifiable and communicable. So how are the ends determined? Through the means... which are? and for what purpose? "The greater good" which is what exactly? and compared to what?
Jsbrads Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 Utilitarianism allows you to choose your own goals. It dispenses with universality. “Ends justifying the means” means you can do things you think are evil now if at the end you will get a good result. Lying to Nazi soldiers that you aren’t hiding Jews in your basement.
RichardY Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, Jsbrads said: Utilitarianism allows you to choose your own goals. It dispenses with universality. “Ends justifying the means” means you can do things you think are evil now if at the end you will get a good result. Lying to Nazi soldiers that you aren’t hiding Jews in your basement. Wouldn't that eliminate morality all together, choosing your own goals despite consequences. Justifying again implies consensus. By that logic concentration camps could be "justified" as a moral principle, whether S.Africa or anywhere else. Lying to Nazi Soldiers, would not be evil if you believed the people were innocent, if you were "honest" you would be simultaneously be dishonest with yourself about their intent.
Jsbrads Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 True utilitarian is about maximizing good for the most people. It is a little like Sam Harris, we can scan all the brains of people in Los Angeles and quantify their happiness points and write laws that maximize total happiness points. It has some flaws, like empathy monsters, people who get tons of happiness points from murdering old people who still have actuarily a year to live and are sufficiently infirm that their whole remaining year of life only attains a minimal number of happiness points. where as I say it is morally good to kill murderers, utilitarianism requires I quantify somehow total happiness points of the kill vs the leave alive. AND it would in theory apply to any murder as well.
RichardY Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 52 minutes ago, Jsbrads said: True utilitarian is about maximizing good for the most people. It is a little like Sam Harris, we can scan all the brains of people in Los Angeles and quantify their happiness points and write laws that maximize total happiness points. It has some flaws, like empathy monsters, people who get tons of happiness points from murdering old people who still have actuarily a year to live and are sufficiently infirm that their whole remaining year of life only attains a minimal number of happiness points. where as I say it is morally good to kill murderers, utilitarianism requires I quantify somehow total happiness points of the kill vs the leave alive. AND it would in theory apply to any murder as well. Turning morality into some form of video game. Happiness or joy, I remember mentioning once an example once of arson being motivated through joy rather than happiness, I think you mentioned the ancient greeks using other examples. "I got out Frank. I've been carrying on the good work. Got me a score of forty." That Russian cannibal creep is telling everyone he did 50 plus. That reflects badly on both of us, Patty. This record should be held by an American." - The Frighteners Killing murderers as "morally good for society"? or "morally good for yourself"? Personally I'd be more inclined to harvest them for organs(which I guess is done in China) or work them as slaves (also done in China). Though rope might be a cheaper more practical option in a free market, whatever works I guess. Quantify how? by dopamine hits or cold hard cash.
Jsbrads Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 Yeah, what you are going to look for in those brain scans is as distant to us as those brain scans. It may be possible to measure cortisol production, and reducing that may be a moral good, I guess.
Bluefairy513 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 One of the few useful things the UN ever did was to come up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has no roots in any religion and belief in religion or a deity is unnecessary. If this can be the source of the rule of law, we can actually have morality without fear of a mythological entity that will punish us if we stray from it. This is all we need. I would still fight for anyone's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't violate my human rights... Ahhh but there's the rub, 57 states claim that they can not follow this Declaration of Human Rights because it goes against their religious beliefs. They came up with their own: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Wonder what religion that could be?
Siegfried von Walheim Posted February 10, 2018 Author Posted February 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Bluefairy513 said: One of the few useful things the UN ever did was to come up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has no roots in any religion and belief in religion or a deity is unnecessary. If this can be the source of the rule of law, we can actually have morality without fear of a mythological entity that will punish us if we stray from it. This is all we need. I would still fight for anyone's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't violate my human rights... Ahhh but there's the rub, 57 states claim that they can not follow this Declaration of Human Rights because it goes against their religious beliefs. They came up with their own: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Wonder what religion that could be? Here's the golden question: why is the UDHR the true way as compared to say, Islam? It is rather difficult to objectively define what is moral without resorting to pragmatism. I.e. murder is wrong (besides because definition) because we fear being murdered. What murder is relative to killing becomes gray since murder=Immoral killing. What is "immoral killing" versus "allowed killing"? Practically speaking "immoral killing" is basically violating the NAP while "allowed killing" is self-defense. However I have not been able to give an objective measure for what is right or wrong beyond what is practical towards achieving my societal ideal of the Peaceful Parented NAP Roman Catholic AnCapitstan. Or its next best thing the genius/20% aristocracy over the masses. Perhaps morality is only morality if it is being compared to an ideal. I don't know. The best I can come up with beyond that is essentially whether or not I could justify it to God or my conscience. However if I was an atheist and lacked a conscience, why not do away with morality and use it to bind others for my own supremacy? I don't like to refer to "this text is moral" because unless it has an objective proof for it, it is essentially no different than "because God said so" but at least "God", real or not, has come the closest to getting to what's true than any known mortal. Therefore I am inclined to take "because God said so" quite seriously even though I am not sure he exists.
barn Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) The U.N. Ermm... "Obviously, the best method to combat human rights atrocities is to appoint one of the most oppressive and violent countries in the world to the head of the board meant to help the problem. Sounds reasonable." (source) annnd this too... “Electing Turkey’s Erdogan regime to oversee the work of human rights activists at the U.N. is like picking the fox to guard the henhouse, as he is still wiping the feathers off his mouth from his last meal,” Actually, ... yes. (source 2) Edited February 10, 2018 by barn sources
RichardY Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 "Human Rights." "Divine Right of Kings." What gives a person the moral authority to state & to force what is right or not for another? Is morality a component of Ethics or is it a distinct entity in its "own right"?
Recommended Posts