Right or wrong....and why?

[Whispers]

I am sure that this has been gone over a million times before, so please humour this doddering fool....

A scenario for your reflection.....and I apologise for the graphic nature of this one, I just feel that it is required to highlight and open up the point for discussion.

Lets say that you are married and have three children aged between 1 and 7. One evening, a few hours after you retire to bed, a man dressed all in black forces your back door and enters your home in silence. Unbeknown to you, he mooches about in the kitchen and the living-room and then decides to take his search upwards. Whilst you and your partner lay sound asleep, he enters one of the bedrooms and manages to take the youngest child. He takes her in his arms, holds a firm hand over her mouth and leaves the house. Two weeks later, and after relentless searches, crying and a national TV appeal, she is found mangled, raped and burnt in a ditch.

Lets face it, there isnt anything more horrible to the mind than any kind of abuse to the little people. I am a father of one, with one on the way, and I can assure you that in my eyes, there is nothing more precious than children.

Okay than, going back to the tale....

If you absoloutely and totally do not believe in God, and the children are not yours, why then is this act a crime? Why is the hurting of another sentient being wrong, and especially a child? What is it in us, that causes such a feeling of horror, when we read these types of tale in the media? Let me get one thing straight here....not for one solitary moment am I suggesting that atheists are not moral. I wouldn’t dare. Its just that if there is no absoloute truth of right and wrong, then how can the man be condemned? If he, like all of us, was just exercising his right to choose, then surely that is his right? If evolution is purely aboout survival of the species and you accept that, what at root is wrong with that crime? I understand that you could say that hurting another is wrong because you are putting yourself over them, but so what? If there is NO ABSOLOUTE truth for right and wrong, everything is opinion and noone can be condemned completely.

Forgive the unsubtle approach here, I hope to clarify and expand on my argument as this thread goes forward.

[Whispers]

Further to the last post, I wish to slightly change the way that this post goes...

A slight change to the scenario......

The killer is one of the members of this forum, as are you. Once he has your kid, he contacts you and offers one chance to convince him that killing the child is wrong. He asks you to post it on this forum based on your current beliefs and views. One post as your only chance. If there is no absoloute right and wrong, what would you say to stop him?

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Whispers
If you absoloutely and totally do not believe in God, and the children are not yours, why then is this act a crime?

What does any belief in God have to do with it? God orders the slaughter of children in the Bible so a belief in that particular monster would hardly make it a crime.

Similarly it matters not whose children they are as they are not property, the crime is not committed against me but against them.

Anyhow anyone sick enough to do such a thing must surely be a fundy theist so any argument I make is pointless, it would be like talking to a brick wall.

Amen-Moses

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Whispers
[B]Its just that if there is no absoloute truth of right and wrong, then how can the man be condemned? If he, like all of us, was just exercising his right to choose, then surely that is his right?
[b]

On what basis? Seems to me you are too hung up on the abstract categories of right and wrong. What do they really mean? They really mean a set of things which a group of people - rightly or wonrgly - has declared right or wrong.

It is simply not good sense for me to condone such behaviour. Such an act presents the very real possibility that it could happen to me or mine. My reaction does not need to contemplate whether or not this person made a abstractly logically valid decision - my response can be based on simple fear.


If evolution is purely aboout survival of the species and you accept that, what at root is wrong with that crime?

It presents the very real possibility they may do so again, to me.

[Darth Dane]

What does any belief in God have to do with it?

Eternity in hell?

God orders the slaughter of children in the Bible so a belief in that particular monster would hardly make it a crime.


There are other "God"s than that version of the biblical one!



If there is no afterlife, then both the killer, the child and you will eventually not exist, and so at that point not give a rats ass as to wheter they had a "good" or "bad" life.







DD - Love & Laughter

[Magic Primate]

It's quite simple really. There are still moral/ethical standards, it's just that the arbiter of those standards is not God, but mankind.

Ultimately what we do is a hybrid of what we as individuals feel is right or wrong and what we know is regarded as the socially accepted standard of right or wrong. People (like other animals) are not ultimately MOTIVated by reasons but by eMOTIONs - the creation of abstract rational princples is for the purpose of having universal standards which can be used to derive the rightness of any number of actions.

We punish people who behave like that because we do not want to live in a world where such things occur.

You must have noticed that societies without moral absolutes can function just as well as those with eg. Buddhist societies.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
If there is no afterlife, then both the killer, the child and you will eventually not exist, and so at that point not give a rats ass as to wheter they had a "good" or "bad" life.


What does ones possible future ability to care have to do with whether something is good or bad in the present?

Amen-Moses

[Darth Dane]

When we die , we won't know we have lived, we won't know we have lived a "good" life or "bad" life.

Hitler is dead, and if there is no afterlife, He doesn't know what he did. If the entire planet was wiped out by a meteor, what would it matter? We will be dead. We won't know we missed out on planet earth.

The present experience becomes void when we die...So who would give a rats ass?






DD - Love & Laughter

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
The present experience becomes void when we die...So who would give a rats ass?


Presumably the rats would. ;)

But I'll ask again, so what?

Amen-Moses

[Darth Dane]

Presumably the rats would. Yup :P


But I'll ask again, so what?


Yes, exactly: so what?

Someone got killed: So what?





DD - Love & Laughter

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Yes, exactly: so what?

Someone got killed: So what?


NO, "So What" that one day noone will care, what bearing does that have on NOW.

I cut my finger off and am bleeding badly, now should I go to the hospital or assume that by this time next year it will be all healed and I won't care about it so do nothing NOW.

Sheesh, it's hard work around here. :banghead:

Amen-Moses

[Whispers]

Amen, you make me smile. You are right, we seem to be digressing somewhat! :p

Can anyone offer me their suggestions on how they would persuade a killer not to kill their child, using their current belief structure as an atheist? Thanks :p

[Darth Dane]

The Now, will cease to exist for you. Life is an illusion. What do you work for, all your experience will be gone no?


You won't know you cared right Now.






DD - Love & Laughter

[MattS]

When presented with such as quandry (sp?) such as the OP, I sometime conjure up other means to help me come to a conclusion. I often take things to an extreme and see what results.

For example, should I cut through the gas station today to avoid the line of traffic at the red light. Besides being against the law, I think to myself, what if EVERYBODY did it. That would certainly be a detriment to the gas station, so therefore I would only do it in an emergency. Similarly: should I stay home and not vote. That would be the most convenient thing to do, but if EVERYBODY did it our country's democracy would grind to a halt. Therefore I usually vote, even though I often think the candidates are crap.

If EVERYBODY made up their own rules of right and wrong, and killed or tortured whenever we felt like it, then what would become of our human race. It would not last too long.

To generalize this thinking I believe that actions deemed "right" would benefit (or be neutral to) the human race overall, and actions deemed "bad" would harm the human race, if practiced by EVERYBODY.

This philosphy no law on high, proclaimed for some Mount of Whatever, but it makes a lot of sense. Of course there are tons of gray areas, but when I can't make up my mind, given arguments from both sides of an argument, this is the thinking I fall back on.

I know there are problems to this. For example, what about homosexuality. I am not homosexual, and I don't have a big problem with it. If EVERYBODY did it, and nobody reproduced any more, then there would be big-time trouble. But I know that everybody won't do it, so it is sort of self-limiting.

But by the same token I believe homosexuality is to some extent deviant since if performed exclusively by everyone the human race would come to a grinding halt. So it must remain in the vast minority of sexual activity.

I could go on, but back to work I must go.

[Darth Dane]

MattS: This sounds like why Jesus, said "Love thy neighbor..." and "I am the Way, the Truth, and the
Life."

Life on earth for everyone, is through Loving your neighbor as you Love yourself, because we wouldn't kill ourselves would we?








DD - Love & Laughter

[PTT]

Assuming that the ultimate purpose of the individual is the continuation of his genetic line, we can use both history and game theory to show that mutual co-operation in the continuation of our genetic lines will lead to both of us achieving our aim, rather than the destructiveness which prevents such continuation.

The kidnapper could then argue that he has me at an advantage – he can come out of this having prevented the continuation of my line and preserving the continuation of his own, thereby leaving more resources to his line.

My own retaliatory strategy would therefore need to be an effective threat of non-continuation of his line, thereby removing the advantage he has over the parents of the children. There are two ways to permanently prevent the kidnapper from procreating – neutering, and removal from society (death/prison). Since neutering leaves the kidnapper with both no easily predictable purpose and an ability to deprive others of continuation, this is not a desirable course of action. This leaves death/prison. I would therefore need to convince the kidnapper that, unless the child was returned, there is an effective and imminent threat to him continuing his genetic line, leading to a loss by everyone.

From a personal point of view, I would also see the kidnapper’s actions as abhorrent not only because of the pain caused to the child – pain which I would not wish to suffer myself (do unto others etc) – but also the pain caused to the parents. These emotional overtones could be added to the argument, balancing them with the more coldly logical argument outlined above.

All of this, of course, assumes that the kidnapper accepts my initial assumption that continuation of the genetic line is the purpose of the individual, but you did say that I could use my own current beliefs and views ;)

Ta muchly

PTT

[xorbie]

Is it really hard to understand the concept of an objective moral theory derived from the very nature of societal interactions?

MattS basically presented the Kantian objective theory, and I think it is farely decent, but (a) has some serious flaws and (b) Kant's justification was not really so convincing.

However, there can still be several objective moral principles. They, and I will probably have to repeat this several more times, arise from the interactions of people. "Do not kill" is a rather easy one. I, as an individual, would not like to live in a society in which people are free to kill. Moreover, I am disturbed when I hear news of a baby being mutilated. It is clear that I feel that murder is wrong, not just murder of me, but of anyone.

Treating society as an objective entity in and of itself, we see that society is disturbed when someone kills another. Things are not functioning as they should. Thus, killing is also objectively wrong. The way to determine these things is to assume the vantage point of society, although this does require a level of abstraction which is wholly lacking in many people.

[Calzaer]

What does any belief in God have to do with it? God orders the slaughter of children in the Bible so a belief in that particular monster would hardly make it a crime.

:notworthy

[viscousmemories]

Hello Whispers,

A few things I'd like to point out:

Your OP is basically one long appeal to emotion. Your question is, "Without an absolute morality, why is kidnap and murder immoral?" The simple answer is the 'Golden Rule': "Do unto other's as you would have done to you". Every major religion promotes some variety of this instruction, and for good reason. It's a common sense, humanistic truism.

The reason the particular scenario you described is especially troubling to most people is because children are the most vulnerable of the viable groups in our society, so as social creatures we have an unusually strong inclination to protect them. Because emotion so often clouds objectivity and therefore reason, I rarely find it useful to frame questions of morality in such volatile scenarios.

Lastly, your additional comment, in my opinion, demonstrates the logical fallacy "Plurium interrogationum"; demanding a simple answer to a very complex question.

vm

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Whispers
Amen, you make me smile. You are right, we seem to be digressing somewhat! :p

Can anyone offer me their suggestions on how they would persuade a killer not to kill their child, using their current belief structure as an atheist? Thanks :p

I would introduce him to my persuasive friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. ;)

[tronvillain]

Whispers:
If you absoloutely and totally do not believe in God, and the children are not yours, why then is this act a crime? Why is the hurting of another sentient being wrong, and especially a child? What is it in us, that causes such a feeling of horror, when we read these types of tale in the media? Let me get one thing straight here....not for one solitary moment am I suggesting that atheists are not moral. I wouldn’t dare. Its just that if there is no absoloute truth of right and wrong, then how can the man be condemned? If he, like all of us, was just exercising his right to choose, then surely that is his right? If evolution is purely aboout survival of the species and you accept that, what at root is wrong with that crime? I understand that you could say that hurting another is wrong because you are putting yourself over them, but so what? If there is NO ABSOLOUTE truth for right and wrong, everything is opinion and noone can be condemned completely.
That act is a crime for the simple reason that it bothers most people more (far more in this case) than it bothers them to imprison or perhaps even kill someone. We feel empathy for the little girl and her family, so what the man has done hurts us, and since we dislike being hurt we wish to punish him. In addition, we fear something similar happening again, so we use his punishment as an example to others. There is no absolute right or wrong, but there is right and wrong from our individual perspectives, and that is all we require to justify condemning someone.

Darth Dane:
If there is no afterlife, then both the killer, the child and you will eventually not exist, and so at that point not give a rats ass as to wheter they had a "good" or "bad" life.

Someone got killed: So what?
All that is needed to answer that question is swift kick to the head. Yes, one day you will be dead and so will not care that you were once kicked in the head, but that does not change the fact that your head hurts now. You will not know that then, but it is not then, it is now and now your head bloody well hurts! That you will one day not exist is a completely irrelevant fact. :rolleyes:

[tronvillain]

Whispers:
The killer is one of the members of this forum, as are you. Once he has your kid, he contacts you and offers one chance to convince him that killing the child is wrong. He asks you to post it on this forum based on your current beliefs and views. One post as your only chance. If there is no absoloute right and wrong, what would you say to stop him?
There is no absolute right or wrong, so there is nothing I can do to stop him except make threats or offer bribes in the hope that his desires are such that they affect his decision. Well, I could attempt to appeal to his emotions in an effort to prompt a more normal moral decision, but that seems somewhat unlikely to produce results given the situation (if his emotions could be appealed to in such a manner we would not be in this situation).

[Godless Dave]

For me it works like this:

I am a human being.

The child in the story is a human being.

I would not want to be abducted, raped, and murdered.

Ergo, I condemn the abduction, rape, and murder of all human beings.

[tronvillain]

I think you are missing a few steps there, since as it is it does not appear to follow.

[NearNihil Experience]

"If there is NO ABSOLOUTE truth for right and wrong, everything is opinion and noone can be condemned completely."

If there is no right or wrong then neither is there opinion or condemnation. And there is your answer, opinion is worthless as an action and condemnation is a weak action and equates to fingerpointing.

"Why is the hurting of another sentient being wrong, and especially a child?" There is no right or wrong, it is just one of those horrible things that happens.

"What is it in us, that causes such a feeling of horror, when we read these types of tale in the media?"
Some people it doesn't...like the people who do such nasty things.

"Its just that if there is no absoloute truth of right and wrong, then how can the man be condemned?"
In the same manner as the villan who took and tortured your child...through action without guilt or thought...whether it be relieve him of his life or turning him over to authorities or whatever.

Everyone has to find his or her own moral center and banking on an absolute morality from everyone else is foolish. I'm not suggesting something so swift as an eye for an eye....but justification for actions are sometimes found in those actions...and one can only justify to himself. What the madman had to come to terms with is much different than what the father would have to come to terms with.

What would I say to stop the madman? HOw about...
"There's always someone out there worse than you, you might be next...and by doing what you are going to do, you might create that someone to come after you."
I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to stop the vengeful hand of a parent of a murdered child.

You can't appeal to his morals..you have to appeal to his fear...but chances are he's gonna do it anyway if he's that crazy.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---Your OP is basically one long appeal to emotion. Your question is, "Without an absolute morality, why is kidnap and murder immoral?" The simple answer is the 'Golden Rule': "Do unto other's as you would have done to you".

That is true and I support the same. But what I am asking, is why is it wrong? Is it because it conradicts the golden rule? Is the golden rule truth? Is that how you have decided it is wrong? If I am a sadist and like pain, is it okay to allow a child to feel pain because that does not contradict the golden rule?

QUOTE---Because emotion so often clouds objectivity and therefore reason, I rarely find it useful to frame questions of morality in such volatile scenarios.

But we are emotional creatures, are we not? Is a decision which takes into account the emotional impact of an individual wrong, because emotion was part of the decision making process?

QUOTE---Lastly, your additional comment, in my opinion, demonstrates the logical fallacy "Plurium interrogationum"; demanding a simple answer to a very complex question.

It could be suggested that I was demanding a simple answer, but that is not the case and is more likely due to a lack of clear explanation on my part. Please feel to elaborate at length and in detail if you wish. I really would like to explore your ideas on this.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by tronvillain
I think you are missing a few steps there, since as it is it does not appear to follow.

It doesn't follow logically. Morality isn't about logic for me. I choose to follow the "golden rule" (most of the time); I don't feel a need to justify it to myself with logic.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "ergo".

[Whispers]

With regards to convincing the killer, what I am really looking for is how you would put down in one post, why it is wrong that he kills your child? I think we have agreed that threatening him is an option, and threatening his kins future as well. But if you had to convince him that killing the child was wrong, how do you go about it and on what basis could you do it, if there is no absoloute right and wrong in your eyes. If its all down to opinion, is his as valuable as yours? If it comes down to the opinion of the majority, does that make every action right, as long as the majority agrees?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

There is only one way in the real world for anything to be good or bad; it fulfills desires, or thwarts desires.

There is only one way for a desire to be good or bad; that desire fulfills other desires, or thwarts other desires.

The person who kidnapped and murdered the child acted on bad desires.

"Morality" concerns a set of practices and institutions that aim at promoting the development of good desires, and inhibiting the development of bad desires. Evidence of good desires are praised in order to encourage their development; evidence of bad desires is condemned.

Kidnapping and murdering the child evidences bad desires; making the pwerson worthy of condemnation.


As for what you can say to stop him.

There is nothing that can be said. That's a fact of life, and pretending that there is some set of magic words that can stop a person from doing such a thing is, well, wrong.

There are two ways to stop him

Method (1) Influence his desires such that he does not want to commit such an act. Raise him in such a way that he has an aversion to doing such things, and he will not do it. This is the realm of morality.

Method (2): Deter him with dire consequences of what will happen to him if he gets caught.

There is no third option.

However, this does not prove that there is no right and wrong. Option (1) is the realm of morality. It is a realm in which society conditions its members to have desires that are compatible with the fulfillment of other desires. It is still rational for society to condition its members to have an aversion to killing and raping, and it does so by calling such things bad, and cultivating an aversion to them. This is what morality is all about.

Now, it would be a nice proof of the existence of God or intrinsic value if one can show even a single instance of a way of reliably stopping somebody with a desire to rape and kill by words alone, without threats, and without affecting desires. But, since no such event has ever happened in the real world, there is no use in pretending that we live in such a world. It does not do anybody any good to be lying to ourselves.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---There is only one way in the real world for anything to be good or bad; it fulfills desires, or thwarts desires.
There is only one way for a desire to be good or bad; that desire fulfills other desires, or thwarts other desires.
The person who kidnapped and murdered the child acted on bad desires.
"Morality" concerns a set of practices and institutions that aim at promoting the development of good desires, and inhibiting the development of bad desires. Evidence of good desires are praised in order to encourage their development; evidence of bad desires is condemned.

Its still not clear here, exactly what is right and wrong. If I desire to prevent rape, and you desire to do it, am I wrong if I stop you raping someone and thereby thwart your desire?

If I steal a pair of running shoes from Nike village, is it okay as long as it fulfulls my parents wish for me to be a runner?

What about if there is a brain damage victim in hospital. She has no friends, no family and no intellkect left. Is it okay to rape her and therby fulfill your own desire?


QUOTE---There is nothing that can be said. That's a fact of life, and pretending that there is some set of magic words that can stop a person from doing such a thing is, well, wrong.

I am only asking what could be said, if the killer asked you outright why it is wrong to kill her.

QUOTE---Method (1) Influence his desires such that he does not want to commit such an act. Raise him in such a way that he has an aversion to doing such things, and he will not do it. This is the realm of morality. This is what morality aims at: cultivating good desires.

I agree here that prevention would be better than cure. But he has your daughter and he wants to know exactly why you, an atheist, think its wrong that he kills her. What is wrong with it? Why is it wrong, as opposed to right. Is there a difference, or is it just opinion?

QUOTE---Method (2): Deter him with dire consequences of what will happen to him if he gets caught. This is the realm of criminal law.

That’s an option, but does not apply to explaining to him why burning your daughter is wrong.

QUOTE---Now, it would be a nice proof of the existence of God or intrinsic value if one can show even a single instance of a way of reliably stopping somebody with a desire to rape and kill by words alone, without threats, and without affecting desires. But, since no such event has ever happened in the real world, there is no use in pretending that we live in such a world. It does not do anybody any good to be lying to ourselves.

Stopping him is not really what I am looking for. I am trying to see how you would convince him that it is wrong!

[Godless Dave]

The act of rape involves inflicting harm on someone against their will. --> wrong

The act of preventing rape does not. --> right

[Whispers]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
The act of rape involves inflicting harm on someone against their will. --> wrong

The act of preventing rape does not. --> right

I understand that, but explain to me why it is wrong if you can. Thanks =)

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Whispers
I understand that, but explain to me why it is wrong if you can. Thanks =)

It's wrong because we are a social species, and most of us are happier if we live in a society where everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered equal. To condone violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's; that is, that the rapist gets to make himself happy at the expense of making the victim unhappy. This would result in a world divided into those who have more rights and those who have less. Since most of us don't want to be in the group that has less - the group that it's OK to victimize - it makes more sense to prefer a society where no one has the right to deprive someone else of their rights.

[Godless Dave]

Let me put it another way. Say PersonA wants to abduct, rape and murder a child. He wants me to condone it. If I do, he cannot expect me to have a problem when PersonB wants to rape and murder PersonA. Nor could I expect anyone else to condemn PersonB for raping and/or murdering me if I had failed to condemn PersonA.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---It's wrong because we are a social species, and most of us are happier if we live in a society where everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered equal. To condone violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's;

It gets complicated though, if it turns out that the only way the rapist can be happy is if he rapes. The only way he truly feels free is if he burns the victim afterwards. If the rapist does not do what he wants, than he gives up his own freedom and pursuit of happiness, so another may have theirs. If he does rape and burn, then it’s the other way round. In other words, its being suggested that its okay to do anything, providing it does not affect someone right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?


QUOTE---that is, that the rapist gets to make himself happy at the expense of making the victim unhappy.

Or alternatively, he does not kill and rape her and is left feeling very unhappy and has no freedom. If we reverse the statement "To condone violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's", we get "To condone non-violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's happiness which is obtained from violent acts;

QUOTE---This would result in a world divided into those who have more rights and those who have less. Since most of us don't want to be in the group that has less - the group that it's OK to victimize - it makes more sense to prefer a society where no one has the right to deprive someone else of their rights.

Okay then. Does the victim then have the right, legally speaking, to prevent the rapist enforcing his right to the pursuit of happiness, and liberty?

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Whispers
It gets complicated though, if it turns out that the only way the rapist can be happy is if he rapes. The only way he truly feels free is if he burns the victim afterwards. If the rapist does not do what he wants, than he gives up his own freedom and pursuit of happiness, so another may have theirs.

But his pursuit of happiness comes from depriving other people of their rights. So he's SOL, basically.

Originally posted by Whispers
In other words, its being suggested that its okay to do anything, providing it does not affect someone right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Bingo. Or as the Wiccans say, "An it harm none, do as thou willt." Beats the crap out of "Thou shallt not..." IMHO.

Originally posted by Whispers
Or alternatively, he does not kill and rape her and is left feeling very unhappy and has no freedom.

No, he still has freedom. He has the freedom to pursue happiness, but that's not a guarantee he'll get it. If the only way he can attain happiness is through the infliction of harm, then he's not going to get it. But he still has the freedom to try to change himself.


Originally posted by Whispers
If we reverse the statement "To condone violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's", we get "To condone non-violence is to say that one person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are more important than another's happiness which is obtained from violent acts;

That only sort of works, because enforcing non-violence does not in itself inflict harm.

Originally posted by Whispers
Okay then. Does the victim then have the right, legally speaking, to prevent the rapist enforcing his right to the pursuit of happiness, and liberty?

Yes. The rapist's liberty ends where the victim's liberty begins. You have liberty with regard to your own life, not anyone else's.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Whispers
Its still not clear here, exactly what is right and wrong. If I desire to prevent rape, and you desire to do it, am I wrong if I stop you raping someone and thereby thwart your desire?

You are talking about the act of rape. I am talking about the desire to rape. The desire to rape is bad because it is a desire that thwarts other desires. The act of rape is simply the physical manifestation of a bad desire -- it is something that a good person (a person with good desires, a person with desires compatible with the fulfillment of other desires) would not do.

Is not "preventing rape" also desire-thwarting?

Ultimately, no. There may be a few desire-thwartings going on, but all things considered it is more desire-fulfilling than desire-thwarting.


Originally posted by Whispers
If I steal a pair of running shoes from Nike village, is it okay as long as it fulfulls my parents wish for me to be a runner?

No, because 'moral good' is not 'fulfills the desires of your parents'.

'moral good' is 'that act which a person with good desires would perform', and 'good desires' are 'desires that tend to the fulfillment of other desires, regardless of who has them.'

An aversion to taking things that belong to other people is a good desire. A person with this good desire would not take the shoes. So, taking the shoes is wrong.



Originally posted by Whispers
What about if there is a brain damage victim in hospital. She has no friends, no family and no intellkect left. Is it okay to rape her and therby fulfill your own desire?

No, because the desire for rape itself is bad. A desire to rape is something that society has every reason to say, 'This is a desire that we do not want people to have -- it is bad -- it is desire-thwarting'. Anybody who does not have such an aversion is a danger to others.

Besides, raping the brain-damaged person is still desire-thwarting. If she is not dead, she still has desires (she just lacks the capacity to act on them). And the rest of the world also has desires; some of them are good; and most of them should have an aversion to nonconsensual sex, which implies an aversion to allowing this person to attack this patient.


Originally posted by Whispers
I am only asking what could be said, if the killer asked you outright why it is wrong to kill her.

As long as you allow that what can be said will not convince the evil person not to commit the act -- to say that it is wrong is to say that it is the type of action that we have a reason to prohibit. We have a reason to oppose this type of action. (Ultimately, we have reason to promote an aversion to this type of action, but it is implied by this that we have a reason to oppose that to which it would be good to have an aversion to.)


Originally posted by Whispers
What is wrong with it? Why is it wrong, as opposed to right. Is there a difference, or is it just opinion?

The first two questions answered above.

The relationship between desires and other desires regardless of who has them is a factual relationship -- not a matter of opinion. It is like the relationship between the Earth and the Sun (the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun). It is a fact.

A few million years ago; and a few million years from now; it may be different. But, here and now, it is a fact.

Originally posted by Whispers
Stopping him is not really what I am looking for. I am trying to see how you would convince him that it is wrong!

What do you mean by "convince him".

Is is entailed by "convince him" that he would not do it? There is no way to convince an evil person not to commit an evil act. The way to prevent him from being an evil person to start with is by promoting the development of good desires through conditioning. This is what the institution of morality is for. If this fails, no amount of reason can take its place. The evil person will simply say, "Yes, I agree, a good person would not do these things, but I am going to do it anyway."

Is it entailed by "convince him" that he can be forced to utter the words 'I agree'? In this case, again, there is nothing that can pass this test. A person can stand before you and say "The world is 6,000 years old," and no matter what you offer him in terms of evidence, if he wants to believe it badly enough, nothing you can say can convince him. This does not imply that the age of the earth is merely a matter of opinion. It only testifies to the fact that some people can be stubborn.

If you mean by 'convince him' that, if we assume that he has intellectual integrity and is capable of following a sound argument, if he would see that the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are all true, then I have done that above.

Using an inappropriate standard of 'convince him' -- a standard that absolutely nothing can pass -- is no evidence against this.

[tronvillain]

Godless Dave:
It doesn't follow logically. Morality isn't about logic for me. I choose to follow the "golden rule" (most of the time); I don't feel a need to justify it to myself with logic.
Actually, I think it probably does follow logically, you have just ommitted the middle of the argument. It is not an argument everyone would accept since the premises are subjective, but I think it probably does follow in its complete form.

[Whispers]

In response to Alonzo Fyfe

QUOTE---You are talking about the act of rape. I am talking about the desire to rape. The desire to rape is bad because it is a desire that thwarts other desires. The act of rape is simply the physical manifestation of a bad desire -- it is something that a good person (a person with good desires, a person with desires compatible with the fulfillment of other desires) would not do.

I am intrigued by this, I must confess and am always open to learning. Just so I am clear, please can you state exactly how I can tell if an action or desire is bad. This is not so I can pick holes in it. I believe that God has provided us with many ways to learn and be a part of his truth. If you have a way wich helps you to define right and wrong, I am interested to know more about it.

QUOTE---No, because 'moral good' is not 'fulfills the desires of your parents'. 'moral good' is 'that act which a person with good desires would perform', and 'good desires' are 'desires that tend to the fulfillment of other desires, regardless of who has them.' An aversion to taking things that belong to other people is a good desire. A person with this good desire would not take the shoes. So, taking the shoes is wrong.

Whilst I understand what you are saying here, I am still confused about the exact definitions for right and wrong.

QUOTE---No, because the desire for rape itself is bad. A desire to rape is something that society has every reason to say, 'This is a desire that we do not want people to have -- it is bad -- it is desire-thwarting'. Anybody who does not have such an aversion is a danger to others.

It is bad? I seem to be saying the same things here, and probably will come clearer when you give me further information.

QUOTE---Besides, raping the brain-damaged person is still desire-thwarting. If she is not dead, she still has desires (she just lacks the capacity to act on them).

And if she is literally a vegetable?

QUOTE----As long as you allow that what can be said will not convince the evil person not to commit the act -- to say that it is wrong is to say that it is the type of action that we have a reason to prohibit. We have a reason to oppose this type of action. (Ultimately, we have reason to promote an aversion to this type of action, but it is implied by this that we have a reason to oppose that to which it would be good to have an aversion to.)

Convince or not, I am looking for the argument that you would make, which CLEARLY tells the killer that what he is about to do is wrong and why?

QUOTE---What do you mean by "convince him".
If you mean by 'convince him' that, if we assume that he has intellectual integrity and is capable of following a sound argument, if he would see that the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are all true, then I have done that above.

Respectfully, I am not sure that you have.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Whispers
But if you had to convince him that killing the child was wrong, how do you go about it and on what basis could you do it, if there is no absoloute right and wrong in your eyes.

How would an absolute right and wrong help?

So you say to the killer "don't do it 'cos its Wrong" and the killer laughs at you.

Obviously its apparently not wrong to the killer. How does absolute morality help? What would YOU say to the killer?

[Whispers]

In response to Godless Dave.

QUOTE---But his pursuit of happiness comes from depriving other people of their rights. So he's SOL, basically.

But then if he does not follow his urges and instincts, he is depriving himself. If it’s a choice of purely him or them that experiences happiness, who do you think he will choose?

QUOTE---Bingo. Or as the Wiccans say, "An it harm none, do as thou willt." Beats the crap out of "Thou shallt not..." IMHO.

So, if the majority voted that we should begin immediately exterminating all canadians in death camps, that would be okay, purely because more say do it, than don’t?

QUOTE---No, he still has freedom. He has the freedom to pursue happiness, but that's not a guarantee he'll get it.

He cannot pursue happiness then if the only way to get it is inflicting harm on others? If thats the case he is being denied the right to happiness because harming another to get happiness is wrong....but why?

QUOTE---If the only way he can attain happiness is through the infliction of harm, then he's not going to get it. But he still has the freedom to try to change himself.

Why should he? There is no absoloute right and wrong and therfore he is a product of nature, evolution and his environment. He is perfect as he is, isnt he? If he is not, does the ugly question of evil raise its head?

[Whispers]

Originally posted by contracycle
How would an absolute right and wrong help?

So you say to the killer "don't do it 'cos its Wrong" and the killer laughs at you.

Obviously its apparently not wrong to the killer. How does absolute morality help? What would YOU say to the killer?

What I am asking for is what line of reasoning you would use, to show the killer that killing the little girl is wrong. whether you convince him or not, is not my query. I merely want to know what you would say, based on your beliefs?

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Whispers
In response to Godless Dave.

QUOTE---But his pursuit of happiness comes from depriving other people of their rights. So he's SOL, basically.

But then if he does not follow his urges and instincts, he is depriving himself. If it’s a choice of purely him or them that experiences happiness, who do you think he will choose?

Himself. There are always going to be people who perform anti-social behavior. But once they start infringing on the rights of others, they lose their rights.

Originally posted by Whispers
QUOTE---Bingo. Or as the Wiccans say, "An it harm none, do as thou willt." Beats the crap out of "Thou shallt not..." IMHO.

So, if the majority voted that we should begin immediately exterminating all canadians in death camps, that would be okay, purely because more say do it, than don’t?

Where did I say anything about majority rule? What part about "An it harm none" don't you get? ("An" is an archaic word for "if". Wiccans like flowery language).

Originally posted by Whispers
QUOTE---No, he still has freedom. He has the freedom to pursue happiness, but that's not a guarantee he'll get it.

He cannot pursue happiness then if the only way to get it is inflicting harm on others? If thats the case he is being denied the right to happiness because harming another to get happiness is wrong....but why?

It's wrong because harming others is my definition of "wrong".


Originally posted by Whispers
QUOTE---If the only way he can attain happiness is through the infliction of harm, then he's not going to get it. But he still has the freedom to try to change himself.

Why should he?

Because he will face consequences from society if he does not. And maybe part of him cares about other people and does not want to do them harm.


Originally posted by Whispers
There is no absoloute right and wrong and therfore he is a product of nature, evolution and his environment. He is perfect as he is, isnt he? If he is not, does the ugly question of evil raise its head?

Perfect? No. "Perfection" is a subjective term when talking about anything in nature.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Whispers
What I am asking for is what line of reasoning you would use, to show the killer that killing the little girl is wrong. whether you convince him or not, is not my query. I merely want to know what you would say, based on your beliefs?

The only line of reasoning I can think of is "Why is your happiness more important than the little girl's? What makes you more special than she?"

But I don't know if reason applies here. Either you care about other people or you don't. If you don't care about other people, no line of reasoning will change that.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Whispers
. . . can you state exactly how I can tell if an action or desire is bad. This is not so I can pick holes in it. I believe that God has provided us with many ways to learn and be a part of his truth. If you have a way wich helps you to define right and wrong, I am interested to know more about it.

To say that it is wrong is to say that it is some form of bad.

Good and bad exists in only one form -- in relationships between objects of evaluation and desires. To say that something is 'good' is to say that it fulfills desires. To say that it is 'bad' is to say that it thwarts desires.

Each value term (harm, illness, benefit, useful, health, inury) concerns different relationships between objects of evaluation and desires. To measure moral badness, we need to look for what moral terms ultimately evaluate, the desires that are relevant, and the form of the relevant types of relationships.

A 'right' act is that act which a person with good desires would perform. A 'wrong' act is that act which a person with good desires would not perform.

A good desire is a desire which fulfills other desires regardless of who has them.

An aversion to noncensual sex, and an aversion to killing the innocent, are good desires. These desires, if universalized among a population, would cause a lot less thwarting of desires and allow for a lot more fulfillment of desire.

A person with good desires would not rape and murder the child.

This guy is an evil person. He is lacking the desires that a good person would have.


To illustrate the difference between evaluating actions directly, and evaluating actions according to desires, consider the following case.

In a town, there is a particularly rude an obnoxious individual. Let us call him "Scrooge". Nobody likes him, and everybody would be a bit happier if he were to disappear. Killing him would fulfill desires. EXCEPT, it would thwart the aversion to killing innocent people -- an aversion that it is good for everybody to have. An aversion to killing innocent people gets in the way of killing Scrooge. But, it gets in the way of killing a lot of people. So, we all rationally promote this aversion to killing innocent people, and that a good person would tolarate the minor offenses of somebody like Scrooge.

Morality is concerned with identifying good desires and bad desires, with promoting the development of good desires (through praise and other forms of positive reinforcement), and inhibiting the development of bad desires (through condemnation and other forms of negative reinforcement).

The institution of morality failed with respect to this person -- he became evil in spite of the institution. But this does not invalidate the institution. It goes give people a reason to ask, "Can we make it better? Is there more that we can do to promote the development of good desires and inhibit the development of bad desires? Maybe if we posted the 10 Ammendments in our public schools, this would help."

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Whispers
What I am asking for is what line of reasoning you would use, to show the killer that killing the little girl is wrong.

Well, I haver already explained to you that such is a hopeless and pointless endeavour. Nor is it meaningful in any sense, becuase "right" and "wrong" are expressions of a social contract which the killer is clearly not obeying.

So this is a non-question. But becuase I expect that the purpose of this non-question is to assert that god does provide such a morality, I want you to tell me how your allegedly god-inspired morality helps. At all.

[fatherphil]

in the absence of an "absolute truth" right and wrong would be assigned by the individuals involved and further dictated by the majority of individuals within a society. as God has chosen to make the adoption of His laws optional for the user, majority dictates plays the same role in the here and now.

[Whispers]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
To say that it is wrong is to say that it is some form of bad.

Good and bad exists in only one form -- in relationships between objects of evaluation and desires. To say that something is 'good' is to say that it fulfills desires. To say that it is 'bad' is to say that it thwarts desires.

Each value term (harm, illness, benefit, useful, health, inury) concerns different relationships between objects of evaluation and desires. To measure moral badness, we need to look for what moral terms ultimately evaluate, the desires that are relevant, and the form of the relevant types of relationships.

A 'right' act is that act which a person with good desires would perform. A 'wrong' act is that act which a person with good desires would not perform.

A good desire is a desire which fulfills other desires regardless of who has them.

An aversion to noncensual sex, and an aversion to killing the innocent, are good desires. These desires, if universalized among a population, would cause a lot less thwarting of desires and allow for a lot more fulfillment of desire.

A person with good desires would not rape and murder the child.

This guy is an evil person. He is lacking the desires that a good person would have.


To illustrate the difference between evaluating actions directly, and evaluating actions according to desires, consider the following case.

In a town, there is a particularly rude an obnoxious individual. Let us call him "Scrooge". Nobody likes him, and everybody would be a bit happier if he were to disappear. Killing him would fulfill desires. EXCEPT, it would thwart the aversion to killing innocent people -- an aversion that it is good for everybody to have. An aversion to killing innocent people gets in the way of killing Scrooge. But, it gets in the way of killing a lot of people. So, we all rationally promote this aversion to killing innocent people, and that a good person would tolarate the minor offenses of somebody like Scrooge.

Morality is concerned with identifying good desires and bad desires, with promoting the development of good desires (through praise and other forms of positive reinforcement), and inhibiting the development of bad desires (through condemnation and other forms of negative reinforcement).

The institution of morality failed with respect to this person -- he became evil in spite of the institution. But this does not invalidate the institution. It goes give people a reason to ask, "Can we make it better? Is there more that we can do to promote the development of good desires and inhibit the development of bad desires? Maybe if we posted the 10 Ammendments in our public schools, this would help."

Thank you. I will reflect on this.