Equity, morality

[bahman]

It can't be wrong if there is ONLY feeling in the case at hand. What would it be getting wrong? If we're talking about something that's only feelings, then it's simply a matter or whether someone has a feeling or not. There's nothing for the feeling to correctly/incorrectly match; nothing for the feeling to get right (by correctly matching something else) or wrong (by incorrectly matching something else).

A serial killer feels good at the moment of killing! What would you do with this case?

So, first, they're not getting anything incorrect about morality. But they live in a society, obviously, where the rest of us can decide to separate a serial killer from others so that they can't kill others, which is what I'd do.

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

[Skepdick]

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

Seeming as you have no other source of values, it'd be difficult to come up with anything else.

Without feelings you'd be paralysed from making any choices - because you'd be indifferent to any option.

[bahman]

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

Seeming as you have no other source of values, it'd be difficult to come up with anything else.

Without feelings you'd be paralysed from making any choices - because you'd be indifferent to any option.

No love, no hate, peace. So peace is one practical solution. You need certain things to live in a state of peace too, money, food, etc. on a balanced scale. A little love and hate won't kill you though. The question of the serial killer becomes relevant because there are situations that you lose control due to extreme anger or joy so you commit an act which prohibited by society but you cannot help it anymore. Why we should punish people if people cannot help it anymore.

[Skepdick]

No love, no hate, peace. So peace is one practical solution. You need certain things to live in a state of peace too, money, food, etc. on a balanced scale. A little love and hate won't kill you though.

No love - no hate. No interest in anything. Indifferent to thirst or hunger, or poverty. Indifferent to living even.

You won't last long.

The question of the serial killer becomes relevant because there are situations that you lose control due to extreme anger or joy so you commit an act which prohibited by society but you cannot help it anymore. Why we should punish people if people cannot help it anymore.

Serial killer implies repeat behaviour. It wasn't just that one time.

Also, isolating dangerous people isn't to punish them. It's to protecting other people from them.

If there was a better way to protect others than by isolating dangerous people, then we'd do that instead. We care about the result, not the implementation. If you don't want to incarcerate people - maroon them on another continent.

[bahman]

No love, no hate, peace. So peace is one practical solution. You need certain things to live in a state of peace too, money, food, etc. on a balanced scale. A little love and hate won't kill you though.

No love - no hate. No interest in anything. Indifferent to thirst or hunger, or poverty. Indifferent to living even.

You won't last long.

Let me tell you something, my friend, life looks miserable when we get used to everything. It is only a matter of time. You can however have peace when you cannot love or hate.

The question of the serial killer becomes relevant because there are situations that you lose control due to extreme anger or joy so you commit an act which prohibited by society but you cannot help it anymore. Why we should punish people if people cannot help it anymore.

Serial killer implies repeat behaviour. It wasn't just that one time.

But we punish people for even one kill, even if they could not help it.

Also, isolating dangerous people isn't to punish them. It's to protecting other people from them.

They are dangerous for the life of others because they are different.

If there was a better way to protect others than by isolating dangerous people, then we'd do that instead.

That sounds interesting.

We care about the result, not the implementation.

The implementation also is important. If the act of killing is bad then we should not kill either.

If you don't want to incarcerate people - maroon them on another continent.

That is not a bad solution.

[Terrapin Station]

A serial killer feels good at the moment of killing! What would you do with this case?

So, first, they're not getting anything incorrect about morality. But they live in a society, obviously, where the rest of us can decide to separate a serial killer from others so that they can't kill others, which is what I'd do.

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Morality is simply dispositions/intuitions that people have about interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette. Not everyone has the same disposition.

[bahman]

So, first, they're not getting anything incorrect about morality. But they live in a society, obviously, where the rest of us can decide to separate a serial killer from others so that they can't kill others, which is what I'd do.

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Morality is simply dispositions/intuitions that people have about interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette. Not everyone has the same disposition.

I understand what you are trying to say but that is not an answer to my question. Again, people should be kept guilty for their feeling because that is the key to morality and there is nothing they can do about it. People should not be kept guilty for their actions too if it is based on their feeling too. Remember, the feeling is the guide for morality. How about when killing feels good to people?

[Terrapin Station]

So you agree that feeling is not a good criterion for morality?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Morality is simply dispositions/intuitions that people have about interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette. Not everyone has the same disposition.

I understand what you are trying to say but that is not an answer to my question. Again, people should be kept guilty for their feeling because that is the key to morality and there is nothing they can do about it. People should not be kept guilty for their actions too if it is based on their feeling too. Remember, the feeling is the guide for morality. How about when killing feels good to people?

First, what do you mean by "kept guilty"--are you talking about the emotion of guilt? Are you talking about legal prosecution?

And then:

"People should be kept guilty for their feeling . . ."
"People should not be kept guilty for their actions . . ."???


And re 'How about when killing feels good to people"--sure. What about it? It's not clear what you're asking.

[bahman]

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Morality is simply dispositions/intuitions that people have about interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette. Not everyone has the same disposition.

I understand what you are trying to say but that is not an answer to my question. Again, people should be kept guilty for their feeling because that is the key to morality and there is nothing they can do about it. People should not be kept guilty for their actions too if it is based on their feeling too. Remember, the feeling is the guide for morality. How about when killing feels good to people?

First, what do you mean by "kept guilty"--are you talking about the emotion of guilt? Are you talking about legal prosecution?

And then:

"People should be kept guilty for their feeling . . ."
"People should not be kept guilty for their actions . . ."???


And re 'How about when killing feels good to people"--sure. What about it? It's not clear what you're asking.

By keeping guilty I am talking about prosecution.

Let me please simplify the argument.

P1) Moral act should be based on feeling
P2) The person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since her/his act is moral

I know that her/his action is not accepted by society but that is another issue. We first have to justify that society has such a right when all that matters in a moral act is how do you feel.

[Terrapin Station]

I understand what you are trying to say but that is not an answer to my question. Again, people should be kept guilty for their feeling because that is the key to morality and there is nothing they can do about it. People should not be kept guilty for their actions too if it is based on their feeling too. Remember, the feeling is the guide for morality. How about when killing feels good to people?

First, what do you mean by "kept guilty"--are you talking about the emotion of guilt? Are you talking about legal prosecution?

And then:

"People should be kept guilty for their feeling . . ."
"People should not be kept guilty for their actions . . ."???


And re 'How about when killing feels good to people"--sure. What about it? It's not clear what you're asking.

By keeping guilty I am talking about prosecution.

Let me please simplify the argument.

P1) Moral act should be based on feeling
P2) The person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since her/his act is moral

I know that her/his action is not accepted by society but that is another issue. We first have to justify that society has such a right when all that matters in a moral act is how do you feel.

Re P1, it's not that it should be based on feelings; it's that it factually IS based on feelings, whether we like that or not.

Re P2, yes, they're acting in accord with their moral stances.

They may not be acting in accord with others' moral stances.

Others aren't required to follow the first persons' moral stances. If they have the power to do so, and they prefer this situation, they can put the first person in jail or whatever. That's how it works.

[bahman]

First, what do you mean by "kept guilty"--are you talking about the emotion of guilt? Are you talking about legal prosecution?

And then:

"People should be kept guilty for their feeling . . ."
"People should not be kept guilty for their actions . . ."???


And re 'How about when killing feels good to people"--sure. What about it? It's not clear what you're asking.

By keeping guilty I am talking about prosecution.

Let me please simplify the argument.

P1) Moral act should be based on feeling
P2) The person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since her/his act is moral

I know that her/his action is not accepted by society but that is another issue. We first have to justify that society has such a right when all that matters in a moral act is how do you feel.

Re P1, it's not that it should be based on feelings; it's that it factually IS based on feelings, whether we like that or not.

Re P2, yes, they're acting in accord with their moral stances.

They may not be acting in accord with others' moral stances.

Others aren't required to follow the first persons' moral stances. If they have the power to do so, and they prefer this situation, they can put the first person in jail or whatever. That's how it works.

Ok, let me change the argument.

P1) Moral act is based on feeling
P2) A person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since his/her act is moral

Does (C) follow from premises? I know what society does but the question is where the society gets this right from to punish people who act according to their morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, we are different in what fate offers us but similar in mind. What we get, body, family, etc. is due to fate. Fate is the main reason for inequality in humanity which can be avoided once we realize that we are similar.

All humans has generic features [physical, mental, mind] but they manifest and differ in degrees.

There is inherent inequality in humanity via evolution and inequality [non-evil] may be a necessity to ensure the survival of humanity.

As such, inequality in humanity cannot be avoided.
Surely you are not expecting all humans to be equal in all human variables, e.g. physically and mentally?

Sure we are inequal in fate. I am saying that fate cannot be a factor for morality. What is important is that we are in equal in essence and similar in nature.

Equal-in-essence [a common feature] is not compatible with equity.

Well, that depends on what good and evil mean which is the subject of another thread.

As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

The effective starting point is to understand "what is evil" precisely.
I have done extensive research on that subject to support my views.

Evil and good are properties of feelings and thoughts. Good feeling like pleasure and bad feeling like pain. Thoughts can be divide into evil (question for example) and good (such as answers).

You are too hasty,
Good and evil in relation to feelings and thought is merely one of the MANY meanings of good and evil.
Note the MANY meanings of what is 'good'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good

Note I stated,
As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

In relation to morality-proper what is good is not about feelings but rather what is net-positive to the overall well-being* of the individual and to humanity.
E.g. if there are lesser or no killing of humans, then that would be 'good' morally which is objective and not related to feelings.

*What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

[Terrapin Station]

By keeping guilty I am talking about prosecution.

Let me please simplify the argument.

P1) Moral act should be based on feeling
P2) The person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since her/his act is moral

I know that her/his action is not accepted by society but that is another issue. We first have to justify that society has such a right when all that matters in a moral act is how do you feel.

Re P1, it's not that it should be based on feelings; it's that it factually IS based on feelings, whether we like that or not.

Re P2, yes, they're acting in accord with their moral stances.

They may not be acting in accord with others' moral stances.

Others aren't required to follow the first persons' moral stances. If they have the power to do so, and they prefer this situation, they can put the first person in jail or whatever. That's how it works.

Ok, let me change the argument.

P1) Moral act is based on feeling
P2) A person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since his/her act is moral

Does (C) follow from premises? I know what society does but the question is where the society gets this right from to punish people who act according to their morality.

Rights are like morality in that they're something constructed by individual persons. And that's also what you're leaving out of your argument: morality is always to someone, to some individual. A particular behavior will be morally permissible to one person (that is, in their view) and morally impermissible to another person (that is, in their view). It's obviously not that someone feels that x behavior is moral, thus x is moral to everyone. There is no "moral to everyone" or "moral in general." Morality is always to someone.

Your C assumes either that there is a "moral in general" that's somehow magically the case just in case anyone feels that any arbitrary x is moral (which is incorrect, as there's no "moral in general"), or it assumes that the consequences of any behavior should always be in accord with the actor's moral views, and no one else's, which would only be the moral view of the particular people who feel that way (who feel that the consequences of any behavior should always be in accord with the actor's moral views). Meanwhile, most people don't feel that way.

[bahman]

All humans has generic features [physical, mental, mind] but they manifest and differ in degrees.

There is inherent inequality in humanity via evolution and inequality [non-evil] may be a necessity to ensure the survival of humanity.

As such, inequality in humanity cannot be avoided.
Surely you are not expecting all humans to be equal in all human variables, e.g. physically and mentally?

Sure we are inequal in fate. I am saying that fate cannot be a factor for morality. What is important is that we are in equal in essence and similar in nature.

Equal-in-essence [a common feature] is not compatible with equity.

No, it is trivial.

As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

The effective starting point is to understand "what is evil" precisely.
I have done extensive research on that subject to support my views.

Evil and good are properties of feelings and thoughts. Good feeling like pleasure and bad feeling like pain. Thoughts can be divide into evil (question for example) and good (such as answers).

You are too hasty,
Good and evil in relation to feelings and thought is merely one of the MANY meanings of good and evil.
Note the MANY meanings of what is 'good'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good

Note I stated,
As I had qualified, it is critical we have to be very precise with what we meant by the words 'evil' and 'good' for the philosophy of morality and ethics.

In relation to morality-proper what is good is not about feelings but rather what is net-positive to the overall well-being* of the individual and to humanity.
E.g. if there are lesser or no killing of humans, then that would be 'good' morally which is objective and not related to feelings.

*What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

You can derive your definition from my definition by adding that human is a social being.

[bahman]

Re P1, it's not that it should be based on feelings; it's that it factually IS based on feelings, whether we like that or not.

Re P2, yes, they're acting in accord with their moral stances.

They may not be acting in accord with others' moral stances.

Others aren't required to follow the first persons' moral stances. If they have the power to do so, and they prefer this situation, they can put the first person in jail or whatever. That's how it works.

Ok, let me change the argument.

P1) Moral act is based on feeling
P2) A person who kills feels good so s/he acts according to morality
C) Therefore, s/he should not be kept guilty since his/her act is moral

Does (C) follow from premises? I know what society does but the question is where the society gets this right from to punish people who act according to their morality.

Rights are like morality in that they're something constructed by individual persons. And that's also what you're leaving out of your argument: morality is always to someone, to some individual. A particular behavior will be morally permissible to one person (that is, in their view) and morally impermissible to another person (that is, in their view). It's obviously not that someone feels that x behavior is moral, thus x is moral to everyone. There is no "moral to everyone" or "moral in general." Morality is always to someone.

Your C assumes either that there is a "moral in general" that's somehow magically the case just in case anyone feels that any arbitrary x is moral (which is incorrect, as there's no "moral in general"), or it assumes that the consequences of any behavior should always be in accord with the actor's moral views, and no one else's, which would only be the moral view of the particular people who feel that way (who feel that the consequences of any behavior should always be in accord with the actor's moral views). Meanwhile, most people don't feel that way.

I understand what you are trying to say. I am talking that the act of a serial killer is moral for him/her so s/he should not be kept guilty for his/her action. Considering them guilty is my problem since their action is right from their point of view. The majority follow another morality and has the power and can keep them in a safe place.