5 ms·

"Where there is no God, all is permitted." As much as I like Dostoyevsky, this is bullshit in this context. Perhaps "Where there is no God, as well as the lac

by kaens 18y ago

"Where there is no God, all is permitted." As much as I like Dostoyevsky, this is bullshit in this context. Perhaps "Where there is no God, as well as the lack of critical thought about what is best for group survival, all is permitted" I'm an atheist, and I think that all common morality is based off of one concept - consent. I think one can very easily come to logical conclusions about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power - one just has to think about it.

ars 18y ago
No you can't. You can not come up with a common morality from first principles. It always must be imposed/started from above. Two people can think about the same very difficult moral situation, and come up with opposite answers - each person thinks the other is a horrible amoral human being. There is no way from logic to decide who is right. To go with the simplest example: abortion. Is it murder? How about: is it OK to kill in self defense? What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive? What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive? What about kill a baby to save 100 people? None of these questions can be answered by thinking about them.
- kaens 18y ago
  By "common morality", I did not mean a base set of "this is right, this is wrong" absolutes. I meant that in all existing moral codes, the base parts of them are derived from the concept of consent. Your "simplest" example is a can of worms that I don't even want to try to open. The answer to that depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be human, or at what stage you do. In most cases such as your examples, there are no "moral" choices by my definition. Ending the life of another, thinking, capable of consent persons life is never a moral action. It may be the "best" choice, or it may be the choice that leads to the least breaking of the "consent" rule, but that does not make it moral - consent is still being broken. As a general rule, I would think that if someone has taken actions that imply that they do not care about the consent-based groundings of morality, then they should be treated as if those rules do not apply to them. That does not mean that breaking those rules for that person is moral, but that it shouldn't weigh heavily on ones conscience. My argument is mainly that the varying moral codes are based on the idea that non-consensual action should be avoided. There are very few, if any, cultures that consider cold-blooded murder to not be immoral - or rape, or thievery, etc. This makes sense in the context of group survival. EDIT: Also, assuming you're responding in part to my assertion that "one can very easily come to logical conclusions about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power", I do not see how the existence of logical conundrums counter that. For the vast majority of human interactions, the vast majority of people will arrive at the conclusion that it is best overall to follow the "golden rule" - which is more or less an alternate expression of "don't break others consent" - through the process of critical analysis - edge cases do not change that.
  - ars 18y ago
    That's a pretty good answer (the best so far from all the people I've asked) - but it's also a non-answer. Which you acknowledge, which is why is's a good answer. You are right that most of the time that's enough. But I disagree about the fact the edge cases don't matter. They matter because they happen, and they happen a lot. You can not just ignore them - you have to pick something. And people do, and other people argue, and ultimately the person with the most power (or numbers) wins. And then of course you have lot of yelling, like right now in california. People are very happy with the democratic process - until they loose. And since I'm talking about it - that's not an issue of allowing people to do what they want. It's an issue of forcing other to recognize something they don't want to. That's one of your edge cases - can you do that? Can you go against someones will and make them do something because you think it's better? A few decades ago black-white marriage went through the same process and said "allow it", but this time we get a different result. It seems pretty random to me. Which is what I expect because there is no guiding principle you can look to. Anyway, getting back on topic. You always have to "break others consent" - I don't want trucks driving by my house, the gov says they may. You just broke my consent. I don't want to go into quarantine - but I have to. Again - one of those edge cases when you have to balance the consent of multiple people. They happen a lot. I can understand saying "I don't know" - but you can not call your code complete without them.
    - kaens 18y ago
      I don't think that edge cases like you described happen very often at all. You're right, you always do have to break others consent. Unlike what it seems that you think, I do not think that all actions need to be evaluated in the context of morality. You don't want trucks driving by your house, but people driving the trucks don't know that. Furthermore, you have the option of moving to an area in which they won't - and someone driving a truck by your house causes no measurable negative effect on yourself, and is arguably not something you should even have an opinion on (in my opinion). Meh, this is one of those issues that it's hard to really explain my full views on online without writing something close in length to that of a novel. The consent-based rule for dealing with other people is a generally applicable rule for direct interaction - not for indirect. (Also, do you actually have to go into quarantine? Or was that just an example? If you do, I'm sure it's for good reason, and I can't think of a valid reason that you would be unwilling to do so. Of course this depends on whether or not you view a purely individualistic mindset as a valid one, or what valid means, another messy question.) Again, I don't think that there are absolutes in answering questions such as "what is moral". There's too much abstraction over that base concept of consent - and once you go past simple human-to-human interaction, things get very messy. I also don't think that morality coming "from above" is any more valid than how I view it. There are certainly no moral codes that describe what is moral in every possible situation, and there will always be ambiguities - a lot of this, IMO, has to do with the nature and propagation of human culture, and with how our brains (and personalities) develop - which is a complex web of dependencies and influences, weights, values, and patterns. The above stuff, in combination with other things, makes me lean towards thinking that morality is an invalid concept - that it doesn't really exist at all. The way that I view what is moral and what is not is based on a viewpoint that views all humans capable of thinking for themselves as equal beings, and the assumption that we should act in such a way that attempts to benefit the majority of humans. The reason that I feel that that is "correct" is something of a tautology, and I am aware of that - and aware that others may come to other conclusions about the ways that it is appropriate for humans to interact. Can I force someone to recognize something they don't want to? No. Can I go against someones will and make them do something because I think it's "better"? Depending on the situation, yes - particularly in situations involving physical violence. As an example, I once ran up and brained a neo-nazi with my combat boots. He, and another neo-nazi were beating down a scrawny black kid. I don't feel that that was an inappropriate action, as they were acting in such a way that it was apparent that they didn't give a shit about what the black kid thought about getting in a fight. Was it a moral action, in my view? No, but then again very few actions end up being purely moral in my view. I'm not concerned with aligning myself with a concept of morality - I simply evaluate my possibilities of action, based on my experiences, and try to choose the course of action that is best for everyones (at least for everyone in my circle of influence) ease of survival. Even that is, admittedly, a gross oversimplification. I'm very close to thinking that people should stop worrying about morality at all, and start only worrying about the well-being of humanity. For a lot of people, questions of morality end up banning consenting actions between adults - which I think is rather ridiculous. Anyhow, yeah - it's a messy issue. I don't expect to be able to fully and eloquently express my views on the matter anytime soon, but I'm still young. Who knows. I'm sure my view on the matter will evolve much like my views on everything else as I grow older as well.
- dgordon 18y ago
  Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the Internet, I will. "is it OK to kill in self defense?" Yes. Someone who threatens your life has removed themself from any concept of morality, like any other person initiating force against anyone else. "What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive?" If they're ten gangsters trying to rob or rape or kill you, see the above. If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion. "What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive?" Assuming no madman scenario, so no coercion (which would make it the same as the above), no. Not for organs for transplant, nor for money to pay rent, nor for two dollars for a loaf of bread. A person does not gain the right to use force against others to get what they need to live by their inability to get it by other means. "What about kill a baby to save 100 people?" I can't see any way this would apply outside of the madman scenario I answered above. All of these answers are based on my understanding of morality, which is derived from first principles, as you put it. I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail, and besides, the works of Ayn Rand provide a good first approximation to it. (Read the part of Atlas Shrugged nobody actually reads [in before "You mean any of it?"] -- John Galt's radio speech -- and you'll get a good idea. The key phrase, as I recall, is "human life as the standard of value.")
  - ars 18y ago
    [Kill in self defense] "yes" And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and you'd think something else. In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the answer. "If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion." Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more importantly how do you decide which to choose? "no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive: You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that troubled by killing someone outside their group. I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so. Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet. Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the bible (which is where they originated). "I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail" But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer, they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally different logical answers. I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great, then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works. But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can you disagree? I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick. Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately based on the ideas of the bible.

by kaens 18y ago

ars 18y ago

No you can't. You can not come up with a common morality from first principles. It always must be imposed/started from above. Two people can think about the same very difficult moral situation, and come up with opposite answers - each person thinks the other is a horrible amoral human being. There is no way from logic to decide who is right. To go with the simplest example: abortion. Is it murder? How about: is it OK to kill in self defense? What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive? What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive? What about kill a baby to save 100 people? None of these questions can be answered by thinking about them.

kaens 18y ago
By "common morality", I did not mean a base set of "this is right, this is wrong" absolutes. I meant that in all existing moral codes, the base parts of them are derived from the concept of consent. Your "simplest" example is a can of worms that I don't even want to try to open. The answer to that depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be human, or at what stage you do. In most cases such as your examples, there are no "moral" choices by my definition. Ending the life of another, thinking, capable of consent persons life is never a moral action. It may be the "best" choice, or it may be the choice that leads to the least breaking of the "consent" rule, but that does not make it moral - consent is still being broken. As a general rule, I would think that if someone has taken actions that imply that they do not care about the consent-based groundings of morality, then they should be treated as if those rules do not apply to them. That does not mean that breaking those rules for that person is moral, but that it shouldn't weigh heavily on ones conscience. My argument is mainly that the varying moral codes are based on the idea that non-consensual action should be avoided. There are very few, if any, cultures that consider cold-blooded murder to not be immoral - or rape, or thievery, etc. This makes sense in the context of group survival. EDIT: Also, assuming you're responding in part to my assertion that "one can very easily come to logical conclusions about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power", I do not see how the existence of logical conundrums counter that. For the vast majority of human interactions, the vast majority of people will arrive at the conclusion that it is best overall to follow the "golden rule" - which is more or less an alternate expression of "don't break others consent" - through the process of critical analysis - edge cases do not change that.
- ars 18y ago
  That's a pretty good answer (the best so far from all the people I've asked) - but it's also a non-answer. Which you acknowledge, which is why is's a good answer. You are right that most of the time that's enough. But I disagree about the fact the edge cases don't matter. They matter because they happen, and they happen a lot. You can not just ignore them - you have to pick something. And people do, and other people argue, and ultimately the person with the most power (or numbers) wins. And then of course you have lot of yelling, like right now in california. People are very happy with the democratic process - until they loose. And since I'm talking about it - that's not an issue of allowing people to do what they want. It's an issue of forcing other to recognize something they don't want to. That's one of your edge cases - can you do that? Can you go against someones will and make them do something because you think it's better? A few decades ago black-white marriage went through the same process and said "allow it", but this time we get a different result. It seems pretty random to me. Which is what I expect because there is no guiding principle you can look to. Anyway, getting back on topic. You always have to "break others consent" - I don't want trucks driving by my house, the gov says they may. You just broke my consent. I don't want to go into quarantine - but I have to. Again - one of those edge cases when you have to balance the consent of multiple people. They happen a lot. I can understand saying "I don't know" - but you can not call your code complete without them.
  - kaens 18y ago
    I don't think that edge cases like you described happen very often at all. You're right, you always do have to break others consent. Unlike what it seems that you think, I do not think that all actions need to be evaluated in the context of morality. You don't want trucks driving by your house, but people driving the trucks don't know that. Furthermore, you have the option of moving to an area in which they won't - and someone driving a truck by your house causes no measurable negative effect on yourself, and is arguably not something you should even have an opinion on (in my opinion). Meh, this is one of those issues that it's hard to really explain my full views on online without writing something close in length to that of a novel. The consent-based rule for dealing with other people is a generally applicable rule for direct interaction - not for indirect. (Also, do you actually have to go into quarantine? Or was that just an example? If you do, I'm sure it's for good reason, and I can't think of a valid reason that you would be unwilling to do so. Of course this depends on whether or not you view a purely individualistic mindset as a valid one, or what valid means, another messy question.) Again, I don't think that there are absolutes in answering questions such as "what is moral". There's too much abstraction over that base concept of consent - and once you go past simple human-to-human interaction, things get very messy. I also don't think that morality coming "from above" is any more valid than how I view it. There are certainly no moral codes that describe what is moral in every possible situation, and there will always be ambiguities - a lot of this, IMO, has to do with the nature and propagation of human culture, and with how our brains (and personalities) develop - which is a complex web of dependencies and influences, weights, values, and patterns. The above stuff, in combination with other things, makes me lean towards thinking that morality is an invalid concept - that it doesn't really exist at all. The way that I view what is moral and what is not is based on a viewpoint that views all humans capable of thinking for themselves as equal beings, and the assumption that we should act in such a way that attempts to benefit the majority of humans. The reason that I feel that that is "correct" is something of a tautology, and I am aware of that - and aware that others may come to other conclusions about the ways that it is appropriate for humans to interact. Can I force someone to recognize something they don't want to? No. Can I go against someones will and make them do something because I think it's "better"? Depending on the situation, yes - particularly in situations involving physical violence. As an example, I once ran up and brained a neo-nazi with my combat boots. He, and another neo-nazi were beating down a scrawny black kid. I don't feel that that was an inappropriate action, as they were acting in such a way that it was apparent that they didn't give a shit about what the black kid thought about getting in a fight. Was it a moral action, in my view? No, but then again very few actions end up being purely moral in my view. I'm not concerned with aligning myself with a concept of morality - I simply evaluate my possibilities of action, based on my experiences, and try to choose the course of action that is best for everyones (at least for everyone in my circle of influence) ease of survival. Even that is, admittedly, a gross oversimplification. I'm very close to thinking that people should stop worrying about morality at all, and start only worrying about the well-being of humanity. For a lot of people, questions of morality end up banning consenting actions between adults - which I think is rather ridiculous. Anyhow, yeah - it's a messy issue. I don't expect to be able to fully and eloquently express my views on the matter anytime soon, but I'm still young. Who knows. I'm sure my view on the matter will evolve much like my views on everything else as I grow older as well.
dgordon 18y ago
Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the Internet, I will. "is it OK to kill in self defense?" Yes. Someone who threatens your life has removed themself from any concept of morality, like any other person initiating force against anyone else. "What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive?" If they're ten gangsters trying to rob or rape or kill you, see the above. If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion. "What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive?" Assuming no madman scenario, so no coercion (which would make it the same as the above), no. Not for organs for transplant, nor for money to pay rent, nor for two dollars for a loaf of bread. A person does not gain the right to use force against others to get what they need to live by their inability to get it by other means. "What about kill a baby to save 100 people?" I can't see any way this would apply outside of the madman scenario I answered above. All of these answers are based on my understanding of morality, which is derived from first principles, as you put it. I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail, and besides, the works of Ayn Rand provide a good first approximation to it. (Read the part of Atlas Shrugged nobody actually reads [in before "You mean any of it?"] -- John Galt's radio speech -- and you'll get a good idea. The key phrase, as I recall, is "human life as the standard of value.")
- ars 18y ago
  [Kill in self defense] "yes" And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and you'd think something else. In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the answer. "If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion." Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more importantly how do you decide which to choose? "no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive: You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that troubled by killing someone outside their group. I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so. Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet. Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the bible (which is where they originated). "I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail" But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer, they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally different logical answers. I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great, then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works. But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can you disagree? I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick. Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately based on the ideas of the bible.