Again, I can simply choose to only accept a value 1-x (x <= 6) for the die. It's really not as big of a deal as you're putting it.
Deer are overpopulated (per square mile) Humans are vastly overpopulated (per square mile) You can find quite a few examples of animals that are overpopulated in nature. Killing all animals of course would result in a world without animal life, which works fine really. I was trying to fix animal overpopulation, animal overpopulation fixed.
I guess you're arguing that your feelings determine your morality? Then we have nothing to argue about since I agree. Morality is doing what you feel is the right thing to do. So morality is different for every individual. Which takes us nowhere.
Again, I can simply choose to only accept a value 1-x (x <= 6) for the die. It's really not as big of a deal as you're putting it. This method works (but keep in mind what I said about two dice). That said, two points: (1) There is no "again" here. (2) Don't tell people they're making a big deal out of something. Unless they're plain frantic, it's annoying and rude. Deer are overpopulated (per square mile) Humans are vastly overpopulated (per square mile) You can find quite a few examples of animals that are overpopulated in nature. Killing all animals of course would result in a world without animal life, which works fine really. I was trying to fix animal overpopulation, animal overpopulation fixed. Then present me adequate evidence as an ecologist that killing deer is necessary to save nature (or is the most efficient solution), and we can discuss this problem. There is obviously not much more you and I can say about this without being ecologists. Personally I would question the effectiveness of killing deer as opposed to castration, which is also a lot more pacifistic. I guess you're arguing that your feelings determine your morality? Then we have nothing to argue about since I agree. Morality is doing what you feel is the right thing to do. So morality is different for every individual. Which takes us nowhere. You misunderstood my point somewhere. I said I feel necrophilia is wrong (or at least, disgusting, repelling, unsanitary, something that I don't want to be done), but there are some contexts in which I find it morally acceptable. | |
Okay, so you're saying that there are exceptions where what would be considered immoral are in fact not immoral? Rather, you're saying that circumstance is also a factor in morality.
Previous Definition: Morality: Doing what is right Current Definition: Morality: Doing what is right for a particular situation. Now I have to weigh moral decisions against other moral decisions. "The lesser of two evils" I suppose. Without a way to quantify this, it's left to interpretation. Now let's go back to your trolley example. Solutions: 1. Save the many 2. Save the few (or one) 3. If possible, give decision to someone else A person can choose any of these decisions. What is a life worth? Are more lives worth more than one? Is there a way to add up life value? EDIT: But is it moral to give a finite value to a life? One way of defining a "life value" is to define it using reproductive ability. Women that can give birth are of more value than those who cannot. Males who do not produce sperm are of lesser worth than those who do. If we desire a more efficient system, females are worth more than males, because you only need 1 male to impregnate 1000 females. But is this the "right" definition of a life's value? Perhaps, but no doubt someone will say that males are worth more because evolution has given males more capacity to do work. You never offered a solution yourself. You asked me for a solution, and my solution is to let what happen happen, or perhaps, let some external force decide. Sorry, but I seem to have lost your argument in the mess. My argument should be fairly obvious by now, morality doesn't exist in a general form. | |
Okay, so you're saying that there are exceptions where what would be considered immoral are in fact not immoral? Rather, you're saying that circumstance is also a factor in morality. No, I'm giving you an example of a moral judgement that does not have to do with my feelings. EDIT: But is it moral to give a finite value to a life? You can't ask this question because you don't believe systematic morality exists. I, however, do. That said, I don't know the answer to this question, I only believe that a satisfactory answer exists. Sorry, but I seem to have lost your argument in the mess. My argument should be fairly obvious by now, morality doesn't exist in a general form. So, to expand on what I said above, I'm arguing a solution exists, not that I know it. You're arguing no solution exists at all. | |
But it does have something to do with your feelings. You feel that this other person is not being immoral because it satisfies certain conditions.
So you believe that an answer exists, it hasn't been found yet. My argument is that there is no "perfect" moral answer because morality is individual dependent. You're saying that we don't know it yet, but there is some sort of "perfect" answer. Which is where my problem occurs with morality yet again. There can be two conflicting individual definitions of morality, and because of this, no universal morality. Liken it functions. You can have a million functions plotted at once, and some will intersect with one another, but there is no one function that can represent the entire function because if there is one range that differs from another range, the new function would fail the veritcal line test. | |
But it does have something to do with your feelings. You feel that this other person is not being immoral because it satisfies certain conditions. I thought you meant my feelings on other matters (e.g. repulsion, general dislike of the act, etc). Saying that what I call moral, is what I think/believe/feel is moral, is saying nothing at all. Obviously I think some action is moral if I claim it is. Obviously my own moral judgement is based on my thoughts and feelings about moral matters. However, what does this have to do with anything? My own opinion about morality does not necessarily define what morality is. I may be wrong about what's good and bad. My argument is that there is no "perfect" moral answer because morality is individual dependent. You're saying that we don't know it yet, but there is some sort of "perfect" answer. I know what your opinion is, I don't know what your argument for it is. Why do you think there is no perfect moral answer? Or more importantly - why do you think we can't at least vaguely measure goodness? Since this is a writing class exercise, you should answer in essay form. So far this has been a very awkward back-and-forth. I'd like to know, from the grounds up, what your claim is and what your evidence is. I will try and do the same in my next response (but for now I'm leaving for a while). Liken it functions. You can have a million functions plotted at once, and some will intersect with one another, but there is no one function that can represent the entire function because if there is one range that differs from another range, the new function would fail the veritcal line test. You're not saying anything here. Who says all those functions represent the true system of morality? I can plot a million graphs for what I believe is "y=e^x" but only one of them would be correct. And even if one can't perfectly plot the function, why can't we say that function f is a closer estimate than function g? | |
Now I see where you're going. You believe that individual morality doesn't matter because "general morality" would settle the question once and for all. I believe that because individual morality matters, which is why general morality doesn't exist.
The reason I don't think general morality exists is because I believe that individual morality exists and is correct. I believe that Hitler was right in killing the Jews and that Gandhi was right for assisting in India's independence peacefully. What you feel is right, is right (for you). It can be right for someone else, but it doesn't have to be. In a nutshell, it's all relative. | |
I'm leaving right now, but to answer quickly - this is again not a justification, but a description of your claim. Why does individual morality exist? Why doesn't general morality exist? It's easy to say everything is relative, but not so easy to explain why it is so.
| |
Toadfish wrote:
It depends on whether I knew the baby or the kittens. If I didn't know either of them, I would refuse to change the course of events, and let whichever is in track A (which the tram was initially headed towards) be ran over. What's the point of this question? I'm having a problem comprehending your logic here. Why would you even think for a second to save kittens over a baby? Humans have one life, cats have nine. It's a no-brainer. | |
I like to think that until there is enough evidence to support something, it's best not to assume it exists. I know that individual morality exists and that it can differ. There is no reason to assume that there is a perfect set of rights and wrongs because that would imply some special, all knowing arbiter. No such thing can exist.
| |
Lugia319 wrote:
I like to think that until there is enough evidence to support something, it's best not to assume it exists. I know that individual morality exists and that it can differ. There is no reason to assume that there is a perfect set of rights and wrongs because that would imply some special, all knowing arbiter. No such thing can exist. This is where you start to confuse me. You're arguing that individual morality exists, e.g. whatever a person feels is right, is the right thing for him to do. But you're also saying morality doesn't exist. Therefore how can individual morality exists? Individual morality is a universal law: it claims "good" means "for every person to act the way he thinks he should act". I would also like to point out that I have evidence for general morality: (a) the biological existence of an area in the human brain that governs conscience (also in chimpanzees, as you pointed out), (b) the fact most of us agree on what's right and wrong, at least broadly, and (c) the fact people can be convinced that what they're doing is wrong. In particular, especially the latter implies that we have some way of measuring theories of morality, and thus there can be a "worse" and "better" theory. | |
I'm saying that there's individual morality. You are right so long as you consciously believe you are doing what's right.
You have evidence that individual morality exists, since there is an area in the human brain that determines conscience. Unless all humans are the same, there will be variations. Therefore, each person will have individual morality, which may be similar, but would be highly unlikely to ever be the same. If a person can be convinced that they're doing something wrong that they originally thought was right, then that only means that their individual morality changed. It does not mean that they weren't right to begin with, it means that someone or something else convinced them otherwise. | |
You have evidence that individual morality exists, since there is an area in the human brain that determines conscience. Unless all humans are the same, there will be variations. There are very clear similarities. Like I said, most of us broadly agree about what's right and wrong. If variations exist they are as distinct as the variations in our eyesight - that is, not big enough that we would perceive most things differently. Which at the very least means there is a certain tight range of "moralities" which are biologically acceptable, and all moralities outside of it aren't, unless our brain somehow greatly mutates. I never argued they are exactly the same - what I've been saying this entire time is that we can at the very least point out the correct direction. If a person can be convinced that they're doing something wrong that they originally thought was right, then that only means that their individual morality changed. It does not mean that they weren't right to begin with, it means that someone or something else convinced them otherwise. You haven't explained at all why the person could still be convinced he is wrong. If the person is "right" in the first place, and is well-aware he is right (for example, I'm sure there are many people in the world who once shared your views on morality but were convinced otherwise), then how can he be convinced he's wrong? Seems like a logical contradiction to me. | |
Because a person can be enlightened to a new way of thinking. Then they modify their logic inside to adapt to this new information. Sometimes it does nothing. Sometimes it causes a significant change. If I knew almost everything about cooking and you show me something that I already know, of course I am going to think my way is better, I already know about whatever you showed me. But if you show me something new, I have to adapt my existing information to work with the new information.
| |
Because a person can be enlightened to a new way of thinking. How can they be enlightened if they know that way of thinking is false? But if you show me something new, I have to adapt my existing information to work with the new information. But you know that information is false. | |
A person's morality is dependent only on what information they have readily available. It does not consider information they do not have. If I don't know what killing is, killing is neither wrong nor right to me because I have no information to make a decision.
| |
But once you've formed an opinion, you have all information. By your theory, any new information that does not support your opinion is false.
For example, any additional information I can give you about why killing your mother is wrong, would be false by your theory, since your mind is already made on the matter. | |
You'd need to give information that I have no considered yet. Opinions do not imply knowing all information. If I told you about a tv show only by the name, you'd form an opinion on it without ever watching it. By watching the tv show, your information on the subject increases, and you modify your opinion.
| |
No, look.
The fact you believe killing your mother is okay, according to moral individualism, means you are completely correct, and that you killing your mother is completely okay. Thus your opinion is a fact. You cannot contradict facts with new information, that's logically impossible. | |
Oh, I thought you meant "if I have 6 choices, I can use my die to determine between choice 1-6". If that's the case, one die cannot be used to determine between any number of choices that does not divide 6 (e.g. 4 and 5).
If this were true, it does not explain the fact that we are able to convince many people to act against their feelings, and do what they believe is right. For example, I feel having sex with a corpse is wrong, but from a moral standpoint, I believe it is morally acceptable if consent was given while the body was alive.
This is dependent on what theory of morality you believe is true. Personally I would say you gain nothing by killing animals, since humans are what cause overpopulation - our excessive resource consumption is what makes things problematic, not a dog in every fourth household or so. Killing animals achieves nothing. Thus you are being immoral.
It depends on whether I knew the baby or the kittens. If I didn't know either of them, I would refuse to change the course of events, and let whichever is in track A (which the tram was initially headed towards) be ran over. What's the point of this question?