3 ms·

> And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their de

> And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision. That's either vacuous or bullshit. If you mean that they do in fact decide what they do ... well, yeah? But that does not say anything about whether they should be doing it, nor whether I should agree with it, nor even whether I should try and do something to prevent it. On the other hand, if you mean that it's acceptable because it is compatible with their own moral codes ... now, that's some dangerous bullshit. If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all.

indigochill 9y ago
>If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all. Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. I'll take a stab at it from my perspective. We might say it doesn't justify anything because we have some moral code that we think everyone should abide by, and part of that might be "Don't go around killing people". Some people turn some parts of the collective moral code into laws so they can be tangibly enforced. But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution. To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference, or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position. To me, morality seems to fall prey to Tarski's undefinability theorem. There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. Well, sure, nothing wrong with asking the question, though the direct answer is pretty trivial: Because justification is by definition about reducing one claim to another (set of) claim(s), while "my moral code says I should kill witches" is simply a synonym for "I think I should kill witches", and as such just structurally is not a justification at all (as opposed to a bad or insufficient justification) when the question is "Why do you think you should kill witches?" because it just rephrases the same claim in different words. > But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? That question doesn't really make sense to me. What does "absolute wrong" even mean? That seems like an undefined term to me. And why would this standard of an "absolute wrong" be something that we would have any use for? > In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution. So?! > To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference That's both false and kindof self-contradictory. A major part of justification is exactly about convincing other people, or you could say "fighting for our personal preference". In that regard, exactly that which convinces other people is the justification. Another component of justification is about self-consistency and consistency with knowledge about the external world: Independently from trying to convince other people, you can try and find ways to falsify your moral claims, either by trying to find contradicting evidence in the external world, or by trying to identify internal inconsistencies within your moral framework. If you don't find any inconsistencies, that is a tentative justification for yourself. > or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position. How would that solve anything? You just have pushed back the problem of justification to the question of why this particular authority should be the one to use as the standard, haven't you? I don't see how that would possibly be an alternative?! > There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth. That seems like a category mistake to me?! Why is moral truth something that needs to be defined, let alone defined within itself, rather than just something that needs to be discovered, and formulated as tentative conclusions subject to revision, as all empirical discovery is?
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  > But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? I believe that you can strongly believe that witches should be killed and also know that you shouldn't do it, without having to subscribe to some universalising authority that tells you what to believe. Generally speaking, people should act on their strong beliefs, but they need to do so aware of the fact that any one of their strong beliefs could be wrong. When it comes to something as serious and permanent as killing, then you should know that even a small chance of your strong belief being wrong is unacceptable and strong belief is therefore not a sufficient reason to do such a thing.

indigochill 9y ago

>If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all. Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. I'll take a stab at it from my perspective. We might say it doesn't justify anything because we have some moral code that we think everyone should abide by, and part of that might be "Don't go around killing people". Some people turn some parts of the collective moral code into laws so they can be tangibly enforced. But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution. To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference, or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position. To me, morality seems to fall prey to Tarski's undefinability theorem. There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. Well, sure, nothing wrong with asking the question, though the direct answer is pretty trivial: Because justification is by definition about reducing one claim to another (set of) claim(s), while "my moral code says I should kill witches" is simply a synonym for "I think I should kill witches", and as such just structurally is not a justification at all (as opposed to a bad or insufficient justification) when the question is "Why do you think you should kill witches?" because it just rephrases the same claim in different words. > But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? That question doesn't really make sense to me. What does "absolute wrong" even mean? That seems like an undefined term to me. And why would this standard of an "absolute wrong" be something that we would have any use for? > In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution. So?! > To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference That's both false and kindof self-contradictory. A major part of justification is exactly about convincing other people, or you could say "fighting for our personal preference". In that regard, exactly that which convinces other people is the justification. Another component of justification is about self-consistency and consistency with knowledge about the external world: Independently from trying to convince other people, you can try and find ways to falsify your moral claims, either by trying to find contradicting evidence in the external world, or by trying to identify internal inconsistencies within your moral framework. If you don't find any inconsistencies, that is a tentative justification for yourself. > or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position. How would that solve anything? You just have pushed back the problem of justification to the question of why this particular authority should be the one to use as the standard, haven't you? I don't see how that would possibly be an alternative?! > There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth. That seems like a category mistake to me?! Why is moral truth something that needs to be defined, let alone defined within itself, rather than just something that needs to be discovered, and formulated as tentative conclusions subject to revision, as all empirical discovery is?
kybernetikos 9y ago
> But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? I believe that you can strongly believe that witches should be killed and also know that you shouldn't do it, without having to subscribe to some universalising authority that tells you what to believe. Generally speaking, people should act on their strong beliefs, but they need to do so aware of the fact that any one of their strong beliefs could be wrong. When it comes to something as serious and permanent as killing, then you should know that even a small chance of your strong belief being wrong is unacceptable and strong belief is therefore not a sufficient reason to do such a thing.