4 ms·

An intellectual argument about morals requires a basis upon which to argue. There are psychology researchers doing work in this area: http://www.yourmorals.org

by SteveJS 15y ago

An intellectual argument about morals requires a basis upon which to argue. There are psychology researchers doing work in this area: http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular?

nessus42 15y ago
Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular? If you ask me, the only moral arguments that aren't going to be circular are those that are based on Utilitarianism (or some similar form of Consequentialism). Of course, the parties debating then have to agree on this basic premise, or they are going to get nowhere fast. But, if you ask me, those who reject all forms of Utilitarianism are just profoundly kidding themselves. This fact is shown quite clearly by the fact that no one would accept a moral theory that results in the most miserable of all possible worlds, even if it seemed at the start that the premises of the moral theory were reasonable ones. E.g., property rights being amongst the most important rights, or what have you.
mikeash 15y ago
I agree that it gets tough (although I think the Golden Rule answers the temple question, and a lot of others). The thing is, in this case, they aren't even trying. The whole "you don't have a choice" bit rests on the assumption that piracy is immoral, and the posts themselves serve simply to remind people of that. It's rather condescending, and entirely pointless if they don't accept the assumption that piracy is immoral, which they almost certainly do not.
- SteveJS 15y ago
  It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation. I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations." I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    The Golden Rule just needs a little more depth to be applied here. You have zero holy places, but if you had property, you'd want people to respect it. Therefore, you should respect other people's property. I think it's very much condescending if you treat the immorality of piracy as a base assumption held by both parties. If you treat it simply as your own base assumption, that's fine. But treating it as a base assumption of the other side and then arguing against their behavior based on that qualifies in my book.

by SteveJS 15y ago

nessus42 15y ago

Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular? If you ask me, the only moral arguments that aren't going to be circular are those that are based on Utilitarianism (or some similar form of Consequentialism). Of course, the parties debating then have to agree on this basic premise, or they are going to get nowhere fast. But, if you ask me, those who reject all forms of Utilitarianism are just profoundly kidding themselves. This fact is shown quite clearly by the fact that no one would accept a moral theory that results in the most miserable of all possible worlds, even if it seemed at the start that the premises of the moral theory were reasonable ones. E.g., property rights being amongst the most important rights, or what have you.

mikeash 15y ago

I agree that it gets tough (although I think the Golden Rule answers the temple question, and a lot of others). The thing is, in this case, they aren't even trying. The whole "you don't have a choice" bit rests on the assumption that piracy is immoral, and the posts themselves serve simply to remind people of that. It's rather condescending, and entirely pointless if they don't accept the assumption that piracy is immoral, which they almost certainly do not.

SteveJS 15y ago
It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation. I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations." I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.
- mikeash 15y ago
  The Golden Rule just needs a little more depth to be applied here. You have zero holy places, but if you had property, you'd want people to respect it. Therefore, you should respect other people's property. I think it's very much condescending if you treat the immorality of piracy as a base assumption held by both parties. If you treat it simply as your own base assumption, that's fine. But treating it as a base assumption of the other side and then arguing against their behavior based on that qualifies in my book.