Why are some Relationships moral?

[Immanuel]

Let R= Relationship.


Where R.a , R.b, R.c..... denote specific instances of a relationship. For example. They act as operators for the variable X, Y, where X, and Y denotes people, sets of people. X, Y are usually imiplcitly understood by the relation operator. For example, to say X R.a Y is to say "Y has a specific relation to X, and this relation is R.a". To say " john is the son of Jack" is to have Y, X stands for john, and jack respectively, and the relation, say R.p, denotes " son of". The relation operator( say R.p) is so far noncommuntative. Let us denote R.a*, R.b*, R.c*... to be relations that are communtative. For example. Let X, Y denote co-workers. Let R.k denote "treat with respect", then to say X R.k* Y is to say "co-worker treat one another with respect".


I find that people favor certain relations over another.
For example, it is not general accepted that the relation " a slave of" is morally wrong, but it is not morally wrong in 1600 a.d.


I find that certain relation is non-commutative. That is "X R.a Y" is not Y R.a X". For example, " slave obey master", but not " master obey slave".That is, "sons obey the father", but not "father obey the sons". "Teachers teach to the students", but not "student teachs the teachers".



I find that certain relations are morally wrong for some X, and Y. For example, " consent Adult have sex with consent adult" is ok, but " consent adult with consent young boys" is not ok.


********************************************************

Let X stands for Son, and Y stands " mother" . Let R.j stands for " slave of" , then " Y R.j X" is wrong, or " mother is a slave of her son" is wrong. On the other hand, Let X, Y be consenting adults unrelated to one another, then "Y R.j X" is not wrong. What happens if "the mother wants to be the slave of her son, and the son wants to be the master of his mother", and " They are both consenting adults", then it seems to me that "Y R.j X" is not so clear.

[Simen]

The way to answer your question is to observe that human relationships are not like mathematical relations, such as >, <, <= and >=. By reducing them to mathematical operators over mathematical variables, you're missing the point and the answer to your question.

[Immanuel]

I think these relationships are real, because they have social meaning. We find that "frying an egg in a frying pan" is different from "frying a baby in a frying pan". Why? Because that is the convention. The real job of philosophy is to be as descriptive as possible regarding these matters.

[Immanuel]

Just found that:

the relation " master of" implies " Obey to".

certain relations seems to imply other relations.

[Simen]

<Edit> I wonder why it is that people think they'll get exciting philosophy out of pretending not to know what they know, and then stating what they know as if it were some exciting discovery. Doesn't become more profound that way, you know.

[Immanuel]

<Edit> I wonder why it is that people think they'll get exciting philosophy out of pretending not to know what they know, and then stating what they know as if it were some exciting discovery. Doesn't become more profound that way, you know.


If you have something meaningful to say about the issue, than say it. Don t attack the me. Do it again, and i will complete ignore you in IIDB.

[s-o-i-d-p]

I think these relationships are real, because they have social meaning. We find that "frying an egg in a frying pan" is different from "frying a baby in a frying pan". Why? Because that is the convention. The real job of philosophy is to be as descriptive as possible regarding these matters.

I'd say this convention exists because of moral considerations. A baby is a sentient being that can feel pain, and also is highly vulnerable since he/she cannot look after his or herself. An egg is an inanimate object and thus not subject to ethical consideration. If a person rips up a piece of paper, is that immoral?

[Simen]

<Edit> I wonder why it is that people think they'll get exciting philosophy out of pretending not to know what they know, and then stating what they know as if it were some exciting discovery. Doesn't become more profound that way, you know.


If you have something meaningful to say about the issue, than say it. Don t attack the me. Do it again, and i will complete ignore you in IIDB.

I've said something about the issue. The issue is that you are taking stuff that I'm certain you know, and that I think everyone knows (hence, not knowing it would be very ignorant, or stupid), and you present it as if you just discovered it. That's not an attack on you, it's an attack on your approach, which appears to me to be pretending to be stupid.

I've also said something else about the issue: by reducing human relationships to mathematical relationships, you have ignored everything relevant about human relationships. They aren't mathematical, they are emotional, often irrational, and they are way more than X R Y. That's also why people attach moral meaning to them.

[Jo]

If only it were that easy to catalog and interpret human relationships and social psychology into mathematical variables. I'll give a moral dilemma around relationships:

Abagail loves Fredrick. Fredrick loves Abagail. However, Fredrick and Abagail live on separate islands.

Abagail decides to seek help from Captain Blight. "I am in love with Fredrick and we wish to be together. Please could you take me across?" Captain Blight responds "Sure Lassy, but only if you spend a night making love to me."

Abagail finds this deplorable and goes to seek counsel from her best friend Bob. Bob tells Abagail "this has nothing to do with me, I don't want to know. Go away."

So Abagail feeling like she has no other option, decides to sleep with Captain Blight who them promptly transports her to her beloved Fredrick.

Abagail then tells Fredrick that she slept with Captain Blight to get to him. Fredrick walks away from her, telling her he never wants to see her again.

Abagail is crying and a stranger walking past inquires as to what the problem is. Abagail tells the stranger that Fredrick has left her. So the stranger hunts Fredrick down and beats the shit out of him. Abagail stands to the side laughing.


In the above scenario, what relationships amongst Fredrick, Abagail, Bob, Captain Blight and the stranger are moral, and which are not?

[Immanuel]

I think these relationships are real, because they have social meaning. We find that "frying an egg in a frying pan" is different from "frying a baby in a frying pan". Why? Because that is the convention. The real job of philosophy is to be as descriptive as possible regarding these matters.

I'd say this convention exists because of moral considerations. A baby is a sentient being that can feel pain, and also is highly vulnerable since he/she cannot look after his or herself. An egg is an inanimate object and thus not subject to ethical consideration. If a person rips up a piece of paper, is that immoral?

I am sure that moral consideration is a particular relation. If the baby is a egg, we have no problem. I think the reason is: we see the "baby" as being more important than the "egg".

[Immanuel]

If you have something meaningful to say about the issue, than say it. Don t attack the me. Do it again, and i will complete ignore you in IIDB.

I've said something about the issue. The issue is that you are taking stuff that I'm certain you know, and that I think everyone knows (hence, not knowing it would be very ignorant, or stupid), and you present it as if you just discovered it. That's not an attack on you, it's an attack on your approach, which appears to me to be pretending to be stupid.

I don t care you what you think of me, or what you think about other people.
For my approach, i trying to build something up from minimum assumptions, and see where it takes me. I like this approach, and if you don t like it, then you should get out of this thread. Simply.


I've also said something else about the issue: by reducing human relationships to mathematical relationships, you have ignored everything relevant about human relationships. They aren't mathematical, they are emotional, often irrational, and they are way more than X R Y. That's also why people attach moral meaning to them.


I am uncertain about the role of emotion on moral issues. For Kant, morality is more or less like obeying certain set of rules in certain situations. For kant, there is some perfectly universalizable moral law(http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/kant.htm) where there is zero emotions.

[Simen]

I've said something about the issue. The issue is that you are taking stuff that I'm certain you know, and that I think everyone knows (hence, not knowing it would be very ignorant, or stupid), and you present it as if you just discovered it. That's not an attack on you, it's an attack on your approach, which appears to me to be pretending to be stupid.

I don t care you what you think of me, or what you think about other people.
For my approach, i trying to build something up from minimum assumptions, and see where it takes me. I like this approach, and if you don t like it, then you should get out of this thread. Simply.


You're going to get nowhere in philosophy, and especially on a discussion forum, by telling anyone who disagrees with your approach or opinions to get out of your thread. If you can't handle disagreement, you probably don't have any good ideas.


I've also said something else about the issue: by reducing human relationships to mathematical relationships, you have ignored everything relevant about human relationships. They aren't mathematical, they are emotional, often irrational, and they are way more than X R Y. That's also why people attach moral meaning to them.


I am uncertain about the role of emotion on moral issues. For Kant, morality is more or less like obeying certain set of rules in certain situations. For kant, there is some perfectly universalizable moral law(http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/kant.htm) where there is zero emotions.

Kant is wrong, and never managed to prove any laws because there are no such laws to be proven.

[general_koffi]

Please keep this conversation civil.

[Immanuel]

You're going to get nowhere in philosophy, and especially on a discussion forum, by telling anyone who disagrees with your approach or opinions to get out of your thread. .

Like i said before, i like to start my philosophy with minimun assumptions, and see where it takes me. I am not going to change. If you want to throw around normative claims on what is good, and what is bad, then start you own thread. In anycase, you should get out of this thread, because you are rude. I don t like to talk to people with bad manners.

If you can't handle disagreement, you probably don't have any good ideas

Like i give a damn what you think. You disagree with me, and then you insult me. That is enough evidence that you can t handle disagreement. Give me a single reason i should give an ass what you think? Better yet, don t.


Kant is wrong, and never managed to prove any laws because there are no such laws to be proven

No.

[Simen]

Spell my name right, please.


Kant is wrong, and never managed to prove any laws because there are no such laws to be proven

No.

Oh yeah? Well, in that case, I'd like a demonstration of such a law. As Hume famously observed, they tend to make unjustified jumps from one domain to another.

[Sabine Grant]

Final warning :
1) stay on the topic described in the OP. If wishing to discuss whether Kant is right or wrong, start a thread in Philosophy

2) disagreements must be communicated in a civil and courteous manner.

Thank you for your attention.

MF&P Moderator Team.