moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Well as usual there is no telling whether Belinda is a moral realist or a relativist. once you start twisting the concepts to make them fit a model you would like, thing quickly go that way.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Oooooooookay then. Politicians who say "that wasn't a lie I was being economical with the truth" aren't liars now. Or maybe they are, what makes it a lie is now really impossible to tell.

Lying is the bad sort of deliberate telling of untruths, and some indeterminate set of other types of telling of deliberate untruth may or may not exist. What makes it bad is unknowable.

And we no longer need the concept of the greater good that excuses some bad act, because if there is a greater good then there was no bad act in the first place. This is just silly.
Some lies are difficult perhaps even impossible to suss out, yes. I could give examples but you don't like stories, so...

There are lies (inaccurate information unjustly conveyed) and (let's call them) misleadings (inaccurate information justly conveyed). No doubt we can create any number of sub-categories within those two, but that's not necessary (and, mebbe, even counterproductive). And: no, we (can) know, just not easily, not always.

Now, me I like examples and stories. Can you give me one illustratin' the greater good? Best I can tell there is no greater good. There's just (good, right) and unjust (evil, wrong).
That's not the answer to the question in the quote. I doesn't even look like it began as an attempt?
You were asked how the wrongness of a lie can be derived from property rights if no property is affected?

In the past it I did raise the question of what is the actual real principle that lies beneath the property-of-self one... the one that determines whether a taking of things is just or unjust. That's a subject for soe other thread I would have thought.
The answer is there. What belongs to a man, what constitutes a violation of him or of what's his, is there.

It's the same as it always was and it's all part & parcel. You can't talk about a wrong without definin' the wronged and why he's been wronged.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 am
But you have claimed all moral things derive from property rights so you still have to show how THAT works, especially in cases where the lie does not affect property.
A man's life (existence and being), liberty (capacity to choose and act), and property (his rightful possessions) are his and his alone.

If you, without just cause, deprive him, in part or whole, of his life, liberty, or property you've taken that which is not yours and are immoral.

So: what is just cause? When is deprivin' him of life, liberty, or property (killing him, takin' an item or resource from him, injurin' or immobilizin' or confining him, conveyin' inaccurate information to him, etc.), just? When done in defense of one's life, liberty, property or in defense of another's life, liberty, or property.

To do these things without just cause is to do them for a reason other than the defense of one's or another's life, liberty, or property.

Rape and slavery have no just versions. It's never just to force sex on someone or to use him as property (in a very real way the two -- rape and slavery -- are nearly synonymous).
Henry, that does not explain how lies that don't affect propoerty are rendered bad as a result of property right.
It doesn't even come close. It isn't adjacent.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

A man's existence and being, capacity to choose and act, and rightful possessions, are his and his alone.

If you, without just cause, deprive him, in part or whole, of his existence and being, his capacity to choose and act, or his rightful possessions, you've taken that which is not yours.

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.

Get it now?

I can tell you some stories if you don't (actually, I'll just cut & paste stories from up-thread...we're in retread mode so, right now, I ain't workin' too hard on this back & forth).

Or I can dumb it down for you.

Or mebbe you could tell me some stories on how wrong it is to convey inaccurate information when that conveyin' doesn't unjustly deprive someone of his existence and being, his capacity to choose and act, or his and rightful possessions,
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:41 pm 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.
Erm ok, weird list, but whatever. Other acts of telling deliberate untruths aren't lies because we're using this fun definition huh?

Have you ever heard of Wittgenstein's rule following paradox?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Do you need me to tell you a story (cuz, I can tell, you still ain't got it)?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

There's no need Henry. You threw your whole argument away to try and make the lies thing work.
You added a layer of interpretation and made it the essence of what makes anything right or wrong.
There's no rule for how to interpret the rule.


You bankrupted your own theory, it's irreperable. There's no one line story to fix it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, you still don't get it.

I'm not givin' up on you, though.

'till our next back & forth... 👍
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Sorry Henry, you gave up on the intrinsic moral quality of your one specific axiom and instead you went for stories about contexts to be the way that right and wrong are determined. But you don't have a way to make any specific interpretation the True interpretation.

As soon as you said that " the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder" you fucked yourself.

There is nothing more.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

As soon as you said that " the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder" you fucked yourself.
Tell me again you don't understand what I've reposted without tellin' me you don't understand what I posted. At this point you don't even seem literate.

I never said the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder

What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:33 pmI wouldn't, for example, say the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder. Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. We apply murderer/murdering/murder to a killing we've assessed and found unjust.
What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 amJoe kills Stan. In the moment, and quite apart from us, Joe killed with or without just cause. The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there. We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
I could quote myself more, but I've indulged you quite enough.

You assess my thinkin' as vacant and you can't even quote me accurately... 👎
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:01 pm
As soon as you said that " the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder" you fucked yourself.
Tell me again you don't understand what I've reposted without tellin' me you don't understand what I posted. At this point you don't even seem literate.

I never said the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder

What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:33 pmI wouldn't, for example, say the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder. Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. We apply murderer/murdering/murder to a killing we've assessed and found unjust.
What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 amJoe kills Stan. In the moment, and quite apart from us, Joe killed with or without just cause. The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there. We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
I could quote myself more, but I've indulged you quite enough.

You assess my thinkin' as vacant and you can't even quote me accurately... 👎
My Bad for that misquote.

But as soon as you wrote "I wouldn't, for example, say the morality of a murder depends on the context of the murder. Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. We apply murderer/murdering/murder to a killing we've assessed and found unjust." You made it a question of interpretation and you fucked your own argument.

I appologize for the laziness of my cut and paste job.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

You're illiterate.

What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 amJoe kills Stan. In the moment, and quite apart from us, Joe killed with or without just cause. The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there. We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there.

We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:20 pm You're illiterate.

What I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 amJoe kills Stan. In the moment, and quite apart from us, Joe killed with or without just cause. The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there. We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
The justness or unjustness of the killing is established then and there.

We, however, can't know whether Joe acted justly/unjustly without evaluatin' after the fact.
That's nonsensical though. Lying is wrong only because of a context that needs to be established after the fact when it becomes wrong at the time of the event because of the context.

And it makes no difference. The context is a matter of interpretation. You are just trying to eat the cake and still have the cake. Intrinsic this and intepretative that and whichever anyone mentions it's really the other one.

All so that you could say that harmless lies aren't even lies at all, which is a really strange choice of hill to die on.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Lying is wrong only because of a context that needs to be established after the fact when it becomes wrong at the time of the event because of the context.
No. 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.

But, enough: you don't understand...it is what it is.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:37 pm
Lying is wrong only because of a context that needs to be established after the fact when it becomes wrong at the time of the event because of the context.
No. 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.

But, enough: you don't understand...it is what it is.
And that's because of the thing you did where harmless lies aren't lies, even though the correct word for them is lie.
Post Reply