3 ms·

I can decide that it makes sense to kill the fat man without feeling obligated. The site conflates justification with obligation.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
yeah, it presupposes that peoples motivations are based in morality. What drives your decision if not morality?
- mockery 5y ago
  I think GP is reacting to the word "obligation" (I certainly did.) I'd claim there are actions that may be "morally justifiable" yet not raise to a level that creates a "moral obligation." The word "obligation" implies (to me at least) some sort of guilt or culpability if you don't undertake the action. In fact my instinct is that most morally justifiable actions aren't weighty enough to be obligations. Consider any "morally neutral" action (for example, eating an apple instead of an orange for a snack) - I would label such an action "morally justifiable" (since applying the rules of morality does not argue against it) but it's certainly not a "moral obligation" (even ignoring the fact that the alternative is also morally justifiable!) You could perhaps argue there is no such thing as a "truly neutral" action to an omniscient observer, who can measure and predict the impact on total human happiness of any action with certainty. Such an individual would indeed have a much more restrictive set of "morally justifiable" actions available to them - fortunately we mortals aren't burdened with that level of insight or certainty!
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Interesting, I can see something being morally neutral or unknowable, but still don't understand the distinction between moral and moral obligation. If you know an action is moral but you are not doing it, you're acting is implicitly not moral. The only remaining conclusion is admission that do not act in a moral way. If I understand correctly, your distinction between moral and morally justifiable is just a matter of uncertainty of facts, and if more facts were known, it would become moral or not? Is that correct?
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  I _desire_ to save more lives; I don't feel obligated to. Consider the difference between doing something out of love and doing something to avoid divine punishment (hell) which is the basis of morality for billions of often very shitty people.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Interesting, I consider morality a matter completely separate from religion and the basis of ethics. Is there a name for simply following one's desires with no basis in ethics? I would say hedonism, but I think even that ascribes a ethical imperative to seek pleasure
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      If the desire is positive outcomes for others, it's called being prosocial.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      > I would say hedonism, but I think even that ascribes a ethical imperative to seek pleasure Describing hedonism as an imperative is wrong IMO. Hedonism is a drive not a directive. Personally I think that it's the most accurate truth in the world that people do things only because they want to and not for any other reason[1]. I help others because doing things that I think helps others brings me pleasure, not actually because of anything else. 1 - Actions of course don't exist in a vacuum and often doing one thing precludes doing another. So certainly one might work a shitty demeaning job because they want to not starve to death on the street more than they want to not work that job. But a person doesn't give money to a homeless man if it doesn't make them feel good to do so.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

yeah, it presupposes that peoples motivations are based in morality. What drives your decision if not morality?

mockery 5y ago
I think GP is reacting to the word "obligation" (I certainly did.) I'd claim there are actions that may be "morally justifiable" yet not raise to a level that creates a "moral obligation." The word "obligation" implies (to me at least) some sort of guilt or culpability if you don't undertake the action. In fact my instinct is that most morally justifiable actions aren't weighty enough to be obligations. Consider any "morally neutral" action (for example, eating an apple instead of an orange for a snack) - I would label such an action "morally justifiable" (since applying the rules of morality does not argue against it) but it's certainly not a "moral obligation" (even ignoring the fact that the alternative is also morally justifiable!) You could perhaps argue there is no such thing as a "truly neutral" action to an omniscient observer, who can measure and predict the impact on total human happiness of any action with certainty. Such an individual would indeed have a much more restrictive set of "morally justifiable" actions available to them - fortunately we mortals aren't burdened with that level of insight or certainty!
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Interesting, I can see something being morally neutral or unknowable, but still don't understand the distinction between moral and moral obligation. If you know an action is moral but you are not doing it, you're acting is implicitly not moral. The only remaining conclusion is admission that do not act in a moral way. If I understand correctly, your distinction between moral and morally justifiable is just a matter of uncertainty of facts, and if more facts were known, it would become moral or not? Is that correct?
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
I _desire_ to save more lives; I don't feel obligated to. Consider the difference between doing something out of love and doing something to avoid divine punishment (hell) which is the basis of morality for billions of often very shitty people.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Interesting, I consider morality a matter completely separate from religion and the basis of ethics. Is there a name for simply following one's desires with no basis in ethics? I would say hedonism, but I think even that ascribes a ethical imperative to seek pleasure
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    If the desire is positive outcomes for others, it's called being prosocial.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    > I would say hedonism, but I think even that ascribes a ethical imperative to seek pleasure Describing hedonism as an imperative is wrong IMO. Hedonism is a drive not a directive. Personally I think that it's the most accurate truth in the world that people do things only because they want to and not for any other reason[1]. I help others because doing things that I think helps others brings me pleasure, not actually because of anything else. 1 - Actions of course don't exist in a vacuum and often doing one thing precludes doing another. So certainly one might work a shitty demeaning job because they want to not starve to death on the street more than they want to not work that job. But a person doesn't give money to a homeless man if it doesn't make them feel good to do so.