Philosophy Now Forum

You have no clue how to argue for your assumption that moral acts are across-the-board either right or wrong.

This is your argument:
Premise 1: A moral act is by definition across-the-board right or wrong.
Conclusion: moral acts are across-the-board right or wrong.

How pathetic. Your "because it is an oxymoron" doesn't introduce a reason for believing your conclusion; it's something that could only follow from your conclusion. Nobody who contests your conclusion is going to grant you your premise. That's idiotic.

Any idiot can anticipate my argument. Anticipating my argument doesn't mean defeating or undermining it, genius.

You are delusional. Why would posting my very strong argument make me look like an idiot? I've posted Parts I and II, and nobody has made a dent in either part after 14 pages in this thread. Gee, I have so much to worry about.

Nobody claimed anything about 'ground breaking'. You're just making false attributions now. Congratulations, you're losing a fictional debate with yourself.

Apparently the confusion is that you can't understand it.

LOL...So my theory states that moral acts can be either morally good or morally bad, depending on the circumstances, and you think that my argument stems from my thinking I'm morally good and you're not? Just more psycho-babble philosophizing.

Honesty doesn't imply truth, stupid. But truth doesn't matter to you. You've made that perfectly clear.

LMAO. Dude, you are out of your league.

If you had paid attention this is NOT my argument.

I don't believe all moral acts are across-the-board right or wrong. I believe that some are in a single context. A starting point, if you will. There are shared intuitive moral judgments. Here you elude to the same:


If you are correct here then it would stand to reason that these shared moral judgments would be across the board right or wrong or they could not be shared. That is what shared means....we either share a moral or we don't....there is no inbetween.

So I am starting at your premise, that I happen to share...which is "there are shared intuitive moral judgments." (with me so far?)

Now, what I am concerned with is ONLY the shared moral judgments we hold. I am not concerned with the "white noise" at this point as the "white noise/ unshared moral judgments come into play later, they have nothing to do with the argument that there are "shared moral judgments). SO.... If there are shared moral judgments of man...then surely we can agree what they are. If we can't agree, then there are no shared moral judgments. (are you with me so far?)

SO now we move on to what shared moral judgments there are. ( Now remember...we can't bring in the unshared moral judgments...because they are not the shared ones....we are ONLY looking for the shared ones) Perhaps we can begin with a literal definition of what a single word means....So...let's think a moment about what the word literal means. Here is a definition:

"in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word."

Now....let's try to come to a agreement about certain words that can be "shared" by mankind as far as making "shared moral judgments."

Lie
steal
murder
rape
etc.

Now according to you, we all share a common intuition on such morals. I know you want to skip to them in a context/circumstance but if we can't even agree on the basic definition of a word that has a moral connotation, then we are never going to come to a consensus of a complicated scenario! This is where you get confused....you are trying to work a problem from the outside in...instead of the inside out. You have to go to the root of the problem to solve it.

You have to look at the base morality literally...not figuratively.

Now after we have found something...anything...that we can have a shared moral judgment about...then we can begin to work from there.

This thread alone shows how much we are all divided on the subject. However, I think there is a way out...by literal definition of a word. Then and ONLY then can we branch out to other scenarios of how much moral or immoral consequences may come about by certain actions that we take.

Oh...it's not? That's funny, I recall reading the following.
I'll break it down for you, since it's appartent you don't even understand what you yourself say. You're saying that the reason why a lie cannot be a morally good act is because 'lie' and 'morally good act' are incompatible notions; hence, you call it an oxymoron. It follows from this that a lie is across-the-board wrong. I simply generalized this to all moral acts, as that is your position and why you think that a morally good lie is an oxymoron. It's really tiresome to discuss things with someone who can't understand my clearly stated argument nor his own words. You think at about a 4th grade level.

So which ones are and which ones aren't? How do you decide? Why would you think you get to decide which ones are and which ones aren't? If something informs you of which ones are and which ones aren't, then what's informing you? Tell us so we can check for this magical quality in all moral acts. You have no clue what you're claiming anymore.

This makes no sense. Gibberish.

Yes, but my use of 'moral judgments' is of particular cases of moral acts, not abstracted acts like you talk about. I don't say 'lying is wrong' is a shared moral judgment. I say, 'lying under these circumstances' is wrong. You fail to understand this, which is quite preposterous after I've explained it to you countless times now. Your reading comprehension is sad. This, then, leads you to say this:

Uhm, no! This is what I've spent a lot of time explaining to you. Seriously, are you mentally retarded? How could you think I believe that stealing, for example, is a shared moral judgment? It has no moral value outside a specific set of circumstances. Humans do not steal outside a set of circumstances. You are not even doing ethics. You have no concept of ethics. Ethics is about the study of certain human actions. Since no humans steal, lie, kill, etc. outside a context, then whatever it is you're talking about isn't ethics, because human actions are within some context.

Without considering the circumstances, you're not doing ethics. Leave ethics alone, guy. You are not mentally prepared for it.

It would save a lot of disk space on the PhilosophyNow server it we would limit our comments to simply calling each other...

Oxy-morons!

I believe this refers to idiocy that is fueled by high levels of oxygen?

Why clog up the threads with all this intellectualism stuff?

Straighten up you Oxy-morons!!

Save The Disk Space!!

Okay F, It is clear to me now that you are just baiting me to get a good counter argument for this topsy turvy idea of morality you put forward. I don't mind brainstorming for you to help you in your school work (which is what I think you are doing here.) But I hate that you are being dishonest about it. You are the epitome of a diva...in fact I am going to start calling you Aretha, because of your dramatic outbursts. Quite frankly you are an embarrassment to your gender. I am a woman and on my best day I couldn't out feminine you.

Like most republicans, you have no concept of the subtleties of ethical arguments. Morality isn't about black and white. If it were you wouldn't have to go case by case to determine whether something is right or wrong. You keep painting yourself into a corner with your arguments. And what is worse you won't even know you're doing it until you finish and finally look up and have no way out of your insanity. Take a hint from your hero/leader Bush. Remember when he thought he was doing the "right" thing for the county and then 2 months before his 8 year term ended, he showed up on TV, frantic, pasty faced sober, and informed us all that we had a financial meltdown? This is the same thing you are doing with ethics...this is why this world is in the mess it is in today. You are all about "How can I make myself feel good about my desire to waterboard...I know! I will convince people it is moral to water board!" Just like Bush and his greedy cronies, "How can we feel good about ourselves for being greedy? We know! We will convince people it is in their best interest that we are rich and that 'if they work hard for us' they will someday be rich too!" Don't you see...the spin doesn't work...because the underlying truth is always there. It always will be there.
Oh and so you know. This:



goes with this:




You can't separate them as there is a subtle difference in my argument and yours. But you are too dense to understand. I would have you read Kierkegaard but I know you still wouldn't be able to understand. It is clear to me that you have some sort of learning disability. Not your fault. I feel sorry for you actually.

Aretha:So which ones are and which ones aren't? How do you decide? Why would you think you get to decide which ones are and which ones aren't? If something informs you of which ones are and which ones aren't, then what's informing you?

AS: Finally you are asking the right questions. Those are the questions you should ask of your argument and yourself. But I don't think you would understand how to answer them. My argument doesn't make sense to you because you have no understanding of morality. To you moral means "how do I get what I want and still look like a good person."

You will not change. It is who you are.

How do you of all people accuse me of seeing things as either black or white? After all, my theory allows that one case of lying might be bad but a different case of lying might be good. Your theory isn't even that flexible: all cases of lying are morally bad, you say.

I have little patience for you. You are very confused. The worst of it is that I've explained very clearly what your confusion is, yet you are incapable of understanding it. So all we get from you are the same confused responses. No objection to you means a thing, because you can't understand it, let alone have a prayer of meeting it. You think I'm being histrionic or harsh, but I'm doing my best to characterize how clueless you actually are.

Spare me your sermon about how Republicans have no concept of the subtleties of ethical arguments. What could your words mean to me? You are a typical Liberal who think she's intellectually and morally superior, yet you reason for shit and you have horrible moral intuitions. Philosophically, I'm light years away from you, yet here you are without any education or natural talent for philosophy or basic reasoning, presuming to think you can even judge my arguments. Heck, you can't even understand them. You're psychologically incapable of fairly weighing opposing views. That pretty much is a requisite quality for being Liberal: wilfull myopia. Liberals qua Liberals are ethical scumbags and intellectual jokes. I prove it all the time. My argument is a slap in the face to Liberals because it goes against one of their most cherished assumptions, so when confronted with logic that undermines their assumption that waterboarding is immoral, they have little recourse but to carp, play stupid, sabotage my thread, or pretend like they're winning a debate they aren't qualified to even participate in. You are a prime example.

World history is a rap-sheet of the all evils Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists have wrought. You are failures at being human beings. You are disgusting to me, personally, and I've yet to meet a Liberal who isn't a complete idiot politically, philosophically, and morally. You're just deluded narcissistic evil morons

F:How do you of all people accuse me of seeing things as either black or white? After all, my theory allows that one case of lying might be bad but a different case of lying might be good. Your theory isn't even that flexible: all cases of lying are morally bad, you say.

AS:Sorry, but you can't judge this as you have a learning disability about morality. So you will not be able to see my theory is way more flexible than yours. You can't see that mine hold people responsible for their behavior while also allowing them to make moral judgments. You just don't get it. Not your fault. You are disabled. Like I said, I feel sorry for you.

F:World history is a rap-sheet of the all evils Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists have wrought. You are failures at being human beings. You are disgusting to me, personally, and I've yet to meet a Liberal who isn't a complete idiot politically, philosophically, and morally. You're just deluded narcissistic evil morons

AS:See, this is exactly where your theory of morality leads you. The above sentiment is immoral to it's core. It is what happens when you don't hold people responsible for their moral decisions. It dilutes moral responsibility into an ideology. It causes them to think that being good moral people means ridding the world of "evil". So in order to be "Good" they will create evil where none exists. This is cause for alarm because the truth is, the chances of vast amounts of people are not "evil" but are led by this same moral theory of yours which makes them create a world of enemies.

The reality is, people like Hitler are rare. But as per your statement above, you have deluded yourself into thinking all liberals are evil, comparable to Hitler. So tell me...if you really believe that bullshit...then is it moral for you to allow us to be evil? After all, you argued that it would be immoral to allow evil to flourish. So... If you thought the moral thing was to water board KMS because he was "evil" then do you also think it is the right thing to water board all liberals? After all, you think we are evil too. And it would be immoral to allow evil to go unpunished...right? You're theory unravels here. It becomes immoral here. And what's worse. You can't see it because of your handicap.

As no doubt I'm in that group somewhere I'm not sure there's much point in responding to point three even if you do publish it as I've rarely found a discussion between people who consider the other one to be an evil moron to be particularly fruitful.

Personally I've met people of all political persuasions and some of them were decent intelligent people and some of them were horrible stupid people irrespective of their political beliefs. If you think that merely by being a liberal/progressive/socialist/communist makes someone evil then it just makes you sound extreme, spiteful and unreasonable. I'll level the same accusation at anyone who thinks the same of someone just because they're a conservative or a capitalist.

All you guys are Oxymorons!!!

Is that regular oxymorons or evil oxymorons?

I agree, it's not fruitful.

I've never met a Liberal whose political and ethical view weren't disastrously vile and idiotic. You people simply have a warped worldview. You are malignant.

Liberals qua Liberals are evil idiots. I am more sure of that than I am of almost anything else. Sermons from people with the IQ of a bar of soap matter not a whit. They are unqualified to judge.

Let's simply assume that I'm this arrogant p**** who won't budge from his positions. But on the other side we have people like chaz wyman, Arising_uk, and artisticsolution, people equally unwilling to budge from their positions and who are not without their smug comments and insults. But, I ask you, who offers vastly better arguments? I do. I am hand over fist a better thinker than these people. Yet somehow, magically, they have all the right opinions? Wow. How does this happen? How do people who have proven to be poor thinkers arrive at all the right opinions, while the guy who exposes their slovenly minds has all the wrong opinions? The guy good at philosophy has all the wrong ethical views, yet people who have no training in philosophy and aren't even average thinkers have all the right views? What a magical world this must be if you're a Liberal.

None of you will ever question your own ethical or political opinions, because you didn't arrive at them through good reasoning. You feel very, very strongly about your beliefs, but you lack all justification. This is why nothing undermines anything a Liberal believes.

What's quite common for almost all of us is that we have instincts about most of the things we believe. We first have some instinct, and then we'll come up with the best argument we can (when we bother) for some of our beliefs. This is nothing shameful; it's just how human beings tend to function. But if you have intellectual integrity, reasoning ability, and the psychological make-up to honestly question your own beliefs, you will have the appropriate amount of confidence towards your beliefs as your reasons warrant. The problem is that anybody can have confidence in their beliefs, whether they're stupid or smart, have no reasons or good reasons. So the confidence people have in their beliefs tells us nothing about whether these are beliefs we should susbcribe to. A quite common phenomenon is that stupid people are the most adamant about their beliefs. And stupid people rarely ever change their minds, because what could possible make them change it? If reasons aren't what gives them their confidence, then reasons won't undermine it either. If they are poor thinkers, then how are they to know when a good argument is before them? People who are poor thinkers are immune from good arguments. You don't think I realize my words to chaz wyman and artisticsolution are fruitless? Believe me, I know better than most.

Children aren't fit to judge when Person A or Person B has presented the better argument for ethical view X. Chaz wyman and artisticsolution are intellectual children. Worse yet, they're Liberals, so they're very confident of all the following. They have lofty views. They are the caring. They are the compassionate. They are the peace-loving. They are the ones who notice subtleties. They have transcended religion. They have transcended morality. They are sophisticates. They are freedom lovers. All these things they fancy themselves, yet I see them for the little fascist morons they are. I have a strong argument for the moral permissibility of waterboarding KSM. It's an argument no one, Liberal or non-Liberal, whether plumber, housewife, or philosopher, has ever been able to undermine. My confidence in it is a product of the strength of this argument. Therein lies my unwillingness to budge: I have not been given reason to. My opponents too are unwilling to budge, yet they have flimsy reasons -- the mark of the stupid.

F shows what his theory boils down too:



...And I rest my case.

I'd dispute that I was a liberal anyway but, that aside, if you think liberals are malignant and evil then what are you doing about it? If arguing with them on internet forums is your idea of fighting evil then you're a poseur or a coward.



Even if you were the worlds most intelligent person we wouldn't have to assume that as you've demonstrated it repeatedly.



Even if what you said was true it would take a pretty general characterisation to lead to the conclusion that all liberals were evil and malignant. I thought you abhorred sloppy thinking?



Are you claiming that a liberal, as defined by you, is incapable of accepting any of your arguments?

What of a conservative who didn't like your argument for waterboarding KSM? Would they be an evil malignance as well? Is it really just liberals or do you just hate anyone who disagrees with you?

What if you are actually correct and we're all just dumb, after all you've described liberals as idiots. Do you hate people that aren't as intelligent as you are? Do you regard the unintelligent as evil and malignant?

How do you feel that society should deal with people who are evil and malignant anyway?

Maybe it is simply ... a question of admiring someone very much and trying to be like him.
Ludwig W. made a point of being impolite ....