Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 11:46 pm
We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
Just for the record...
I didn't post this...
you did.
Yes, you did post that. I quoted it directly. You even repeated it verbatim in the very post to which I'm responding. Just search for "We agree that" and you'll easily find it. Anybody else can do the same unless you later edit those posts.
From above:
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 5:50 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 5:32 am
Well, hell, the dictionary definition works for me:
Moral: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"
Good, we have an agreed definition. Now, here's my claim: that
functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what "right" behaviour means is, roughly, "behaviour that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
Yes, I may have included parts of it in my own posts reacting to it, but you were the one who posted it initially.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm
And I responded to it as follows...
Again, this is precisely the sort of assessment I'd expect you and those like AJ here to pursue up in the "general description philosophical clouds".
But what I imagine instead is taking those definitions and deductions out into the world of human interactions that come into conflict over things like abortion and guns and human sexuality. Okay, we agree that morality is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others". Okay, but now we are outside of an abortion clinic where flesh and blood human beings on both sides of the issue are in a fierce confrontation over what is unfolding inside the clinic itself.
One side insisting that right behavior in sync with good character entails that the abortion clinic must be shut down. Meanwhile the other side insists that if the state is permitted to force women to give birth great harm and suffering can result with significant negative consequences for the only gender around that is actually able to get pregnant.
Whose "functional definition"? And out in the real world, how will legislating that definition impact the lives of either the unborn or the pregnant women?
My frame of mind here is "fractured and fragmented" in a No God world. As encompassed in the OP here:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
And, given that I am drawn and quartered...able to accept the arguments from those on both side...the best of all possible world seems to be embedded in "moderation, negotiation and compromise" -- in Roe v. Wade -- where each side gets something but neither side gets it all.
Whereas the moral objectivists on both sides of the issue -- God and No God -- insist that all or nothing must prevail. They get it all, the other side gets nothing.
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amAnd I snipped all the huffing and puffing and focussed on what's important, like getting clear on whether we're even talking about the same thing in the first place, because, if we're not, then maybe
that's why we disagree. Is that a possibility you've considered?
Aside from the comment pertaining to AJ, what here do you construe as me "huffing and puffing"?
No, in my view, the main problem between us is that you have noted [more than once] that you are not really interested in exploring our respective moral philosophies as they are applicable "out in the world" of actual conflicting human interactions. Those "contexts" I clamor for. In other words, okay, one has thought morality/ethics through and through philosophically. They have come up with the definitions that they deem are most important in order to deduce certain things about human morality.
That is where I come in here. Prompting them to take those definitions and deductions into an exchange like the one that henry and I are having here...discussing and debating things like abortion, gun control and transgender politics. Given our respective moral philosophies.
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amHere's the exchange as I see it:
Harry: Functionally, what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others.
iambiguous: We agree on that functional definition.
Harry: Well, that's strange, because you assert that certain behaviour (the torture+slaughter of an innocent child) which clearly
doesn't meet that definition
can be morally justified. Your functional definition seems then to be something more like: "Relative to a given person, behaviour which that person can justify on terms of that person's choosing." Does that seem accurate?
Again, I explained my reaction to these extreme behaviors above:
This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"
And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.
And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?
For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.
After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.
Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.
What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.
How would you reason with them?
If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things
are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"
Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.
Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amAre you even fooling yourself here? Anyhow, for the sake of clearing this up, let's stipulate that (1) the torturer+slaughterer is not a psychopath nor sociopath - he's just some otherwise unremarkable, sane guy who deliberately chooses to commit that act simply because he
wants to harm for fun regardless of the consequences - and that (2) he later
does get caught. Do you now accept that his choice+behaviour are - given our functional definition - objectively wrong?
Okay, but he could be either one of them. Or he could be neither but still chooses to abuse children and is never caught.
Then what?
But given your scenario above there is still no way in my view for philosophers/ethicists to establish deontologically that child abuse is inherently/necessarily immoral. Not in a No God world. Though, sure, if you want to use the "does it disgust you?" argument it can be deemed immoral for those that certain behaviors do disgust. But in regard to the issues henry and I are discussing what disgusts some people relishes others. I merely root that existentially/subjectively in dasein rather than essentially/objectively in deontology.
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amBy the way, we are discussing a real-world issue here. This sort of stuff
does happen. Sane people, though, aren't at all "fractured and fragmented" about whether or not it's objectively wrong.
Yes, and so do flagrant instances of racism, sexism, heterosexism, thievery, fraud, assault, murder. Even mass murder going all the way up to Hitler. But, from my frame of mind, in a No God world many people are able to rationalize choosing these behaviors. And for any number of personal reasons that make sense to them.
Again, it's not for nothing that over and again the religious folks among us come back to just how crucial God is here. Even philosophers like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a "transcending" entity that will
ultimately judge we mere mortals.
You on the other hand...?
Do you believe in a God/the God? Have you found a spiritual path you can anchor your morality to objectively? Or does you own philosophy really revolve around how you "just know that certain behaviors are immoral because you personally find them repugnant.