My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Do the right thing.

Okay. You're a dishonest dodger, like all the other moral objectivists I've ever come across. Don't have the goods? No worries. Just slag 'em off. The trumpeters' solution.

[henry quirk]

Okay. You're a dishonest dodger

In my opinion (which is all any of us have, right?) you are an amoralist. You reject moral fact as a possbility, say we each only have opinions. Would you prefer I call you moral opinionist?

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. You're a dishonest dodger

In my opinion (which is all any of us have, right?) you are an amoralist. You reject moral fact as a possbility, say we each only have opinions. Would you prefer I call you moral opinionist?

No, I'm asking for evidence for the existence of even one moral fact. And you can't produce it, because there's no such thing. Like the rest of us, all you have is a moral belief, judgement or opinion, which - like other deluded egotists - you kid yourself is a moral fact. The world's full of the likes of yous.

[henry quirk]

No, I'm asking for evidence for the existence of even one moral fact

Oh, okay...I thought you were still givin' me what-for for callin' you an amoralist (which you are).

Anyway: I have, in my view, given you that evidence multiple times and you pooh-pooh'd it multiple times.

Can't see much point in doin' that all over again.

Besides, as I say to VA....

amoralists can't be the measure

...so I got no reason to cater to you.

(by the way: thanks for the chuckle...do the right thing...high-larious!)

[henry quirk]

I have a different explanation for what morality is made out of than you do,

Yeah, you say it's all opinion.

But you are a bastard who won't allow me to have the thoughts that are in my own head, and insist that I must be amoral if I am not you.

Me, callin' you amoralist, might hurt your feelings, but I ain't seein' how callin' you amoralist deprives you of life, liberty, or property. So, you go ahead and think what you like and I'll keep doin' the same.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have a different explanation for what morality is made out of than you do,

Yeah, you say it's all opinion.

But you are a bastard who won't allow me to have the thoughts that are in my own head, and insist that I must be amoral if I am not you.

Me, callin' you amoralist, might hurt your feelings, but I ain't seein' how callin' you amoralist deprives you of life, liberty, or property. So, you go ahead and think what you like and I'll keep doin' the same.

well you never could explain why lying is wrong, so I guess you are doing just as well as you need to.

[henry quirk]

well you never could explain why lying is wrong,

Actually, I did, with your help (don't you remember?).

[FlashDangerpants]

well you never could explain why lying is wrong,

Actually, I did, with your help (don't you remember?).

No mate, you just went back to the thing you said was a mistake and claimed that lying is only wrong if it's stealing. Which is obviously inferior shit.

[henry quirk]

Lyin is wrong even if no one outside the liar and the one lied to are aware of it. Lyin' is wrong even if the one lied to never becomes aware he was lied to. But if he does become aware of it and wants to plead his case, someone has to evaluate his claim. Before we penalize Sam for lyin' we, those who weren't there, have to evaluate the claim against Sam.

The problem, it seems to me, is the lack of nuanced placeholders. For example, kill as in Joe kills Stan. Joe had good cause to kill Stan or he had no good cause to kill Stan. The best we can say is Joe justly killed Stan, or, Joe unjustly killed Stan. Both are awkward. Me, I often substitute murder for unjust killing, but, more than once, this has supposedly confused the person I'm talkin' to or arguing with (becuz murder is a legal term). Havin' to explain I've appropriated it kinda defeats the purpose.

Lie/lying/liar is even more problematic. Kill kinda, sorta, lends itself to bein' unfinished. We hear Joe killed Stan and we wanna know why; we wanna know if Joe had good cause or not. We hear Joe lied and we auto-assume he acted unjustly or immorally (even if Joe lied to self-defend, lie colors the account). We can try to get around that by sayin' Joe told an untruth or Joe conveyed inaccurate information but these constructs (the later in particular) are awkward and give the impression one is dancin' around instead of gettin' to the root of the matter.

'lying is not permissible' period!

At first blush, anyone would say you're right. Consider, though...

If I tell the guy who breaks into my home and who holds a gun to my head no, there's no one else in the house when I know my kid is hunkered down under his bed on the other side of our home, most certainly, I've lied, but have I been immoral?

If I tell the guy who breaks into my home and who holds a gun to my head yes, there's someone else in the house, my kid is hunkered down under his bed on the other side of our home, most certainly, I've been truthful, but have I been moral?

Me, I'd like to have nuanced placeholders to apply instead of sayin' moral lie or just lie, or, immoral truth or unjust truth.

You didn't get then and you don't get it now, so -- no --no credit for you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Like I said before, and as you were then and are still too shit to deal with... You don't need an excuse to justify telling the truth. and you do need an excuse to justify telling a lie. Patting yourself onthe back for "nuance" when all you did is concoct some excuses for lies is not effective.

Everybody knows that Ceteris Paribus, lies are bad and truths are good, unless there is extra information.

Your theory doesn't account for that and you very pathetically, had to redefine lying as theft to have any way of disapproving of the action at all.

A lie is inaccurate information conveyed to unjustly deprive, in part or whole, someone of his existence and being, his capacity to choose and act, or his rightful possessions.

Now don't compound things with new untruths that "aren't lies because nobody had their property removed."

[henry quirk]

you do need an excuse to justify telling a lie.

Yeah, I just now, right up-thread, said just that.

Mebbe you missed it in your zeal to give me what-for.

I self-corrected, but if you wanna ignore that and focus on the initial error from earlier in that thread: be my guest. You'll be here alone doin' it, though, cuz I won't defend the error, only the self-correcton.

[FlashDangerpants]

you do need an excuse to justify telling a lie.

Yeah, I just now, right up-thread, said just that.

Except I also said

You don't need an excuse to justify telling the truth

Which does matter.

The guy who poses as the only one who knows rape is bad is also the only one who doesn't understand that quoting out of context is dishonest?

[henry quirk]

you do need an excuse to justify telling a lie.

Yeah, I just now, right up-thread, said just that.

Except I also said

You don't need an excuse to justify telling the truth

Which does matter.

The guy who poses as the only one who knows rape is bad is also the only one who doesn't understand that quoting out of context is dishonest?

Of course you don't need an excuse to tell the truth...I never said you did...it required no comment.

Look here...

*You don't need an excuse to justify telling the truth. and **you do need an excuse to justify telling a lie.

*Of course you don't need an excuse to tell the truth...I never said you did. **Yeah, I just now, right up-thread, said just that.

You're flailing.

As for rape: I can tell you why it's wrong; can you tell me why it's wrong?

[FlashDangerpants]

But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
That's how you explain that lying is bad, even though you understand that lies need excuses in a way that truth doesn't?

[henry quirk]

But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?

Well, that, or sumthin' close to it, was my original assertion, yeah.

Ultimately, I suppose that depends on how far you wanna take the notion of property and theft.

At its most basic a lie is meant to get someone to think and do sumthin' that person wouldn't think and/or do otherwise. The theft, if we can call it that, is to that person's liberty. Even if no tangible property (car, money, house, etc) was lost, the person lied to has been misused, taken advantage of, misdirected to think and act or choose in a way, as I say, he might not otherwise.

It's the reason, as you say, everyone knows, things bein' equal, lies are bad and truths are good.

Of course, all bets are off if lies are told to self-defend or defend another.

Tellin' a rapist I have AIDS! when you don't is a lie, but it's justified.

Speakin' of rape: outside of convention & custom, why is rape wrong?