Test Your Morality

I don't know what to say. What difference does Bob's feeling have to do with Alex's morality?

What difference would changing the scenario make?

1) If Alex believes Bob is going to be hurt by this is it immoral?

2) If Alex believes Bob is not hurt by this is it immoral?

You may suspect Bob is scared, but so what? Will you haul Alex in on your suspicion?

According to you it makes a difference.

I asked two questions:

Clear non-sequitor.

We are talking about morality not legality.

Please respond to the above.

By claiming it is intent you are technically right but not getting to the core of the issue.

What is it about the intent that affects the morality of an action? The answer is obvious.

In scenario one Alex intends to do something they believe will harm Bob. This is immoral according to you. Intent to harm = immoral. Your words not mine.

In scenario two Alex intends to do something they believe will not harm Bob. This is not immoral according to you. No intent to harm = not immoral. Your words not mine.

The underlined portion of the two above segments is the only difference between the two scenarios and therefore the only possible reason for you giving a different judgement to each scenario.

First, Bob can be harmed without him knowing he has been harmed.

Intent can be malicious.

I see nothing in any of my posts that would explain why you seem to think I would disagree with this statement.

And it is generally considered immoral to act upon such intentions...

...though most agree that just wanting to hurt someone is not immoral if said desire is not acted upon.

I don't believe that most people think that way. I know Christians don't.

The Bible does say that it is immoral to want things that are not yours for example...

...but I doubt most people would actually agree with that (yes I am aware that most people are Christians in our part of the world).

Exactly.

But the human moralist will usually choose to differentiate, solely on the grounds of the human ability to differentiate.

Wherein lies the authority of the moral agent?

I would suggest that murder maybe illegal, but is not necessarily wrong.

No. I actually meant semantic ploy, but I didn't want you to feel insulted.

Neither. Its a false dichotomy. Semitic ploys are that way.

The law is always objective.

Maximization of profit. Minimization of intolerance. Sex. Racism.

No. I just  think I haven't made you understand what I mean by moral authority.

Same as the dictionary.

True. But you have not yet opposed my argument.

I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the of power.

You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power.

No. If I have to define reality for you our communication ships have already passed each other by.

Letting the police shoot you when you're too weak to kill yourself. Police assisted suicide in your lexicon.

I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.

You.

Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.

It is not a Non sequitur. And the comment is true.

One that exists outside the mind of man.

Yes. You are contradicting yourself. Most people do not readily see their internal contradictions.

No, but if I agreed with you I would be.

That has not been my experience.

Yes. Impotence is impotence, even when the reasons for the impotence differ.

Moral behavior not based on personal tastes or subjective opinions.

Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic. 

I usually admire the veracity of your argument, but I think (in so much as I am, I think)  that you have somewhat over egged the custard here.

I agree with Zed on his thoughts about your custard egging. While I disagree with his conclusions on the existence of objective morality, at least he is consistent with the implications of his conclusions.

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, will try to get to it by tomorrow.

If God existed etc.

Doesn't "if" negate everything.

Isn't "if" an abstract proposition.

Is "if" logical or rational?

And  therefore, did you construct a logical argument?

I would disagree,

As you apply it, If is a functional concept and therefore an abstract idea.

If God existed, then theists or anyone might of proven it's existence.

No one has either proven or disproven Gods existence.

Therefore as far as we are able to know, God might or might not exist.

Modus Tollens is only applicable if used within it's prescribed parameters.

I wouldn't have demanded a definition if I weren't earnest. Define reality.

How does one "let" the police shoot them? Can targets revise protocol?

You said you're weren't arguing from a legal context, so: (1) what relevance does the judgement of a D.A. bear,

and (2) doesn't placing the referendum on a D.A.'s agreement undermine the premise of your contention--that is the counterargument against the one you allege I'm making?

It is a non sequitur, and I'm not scrutinizing the veracity of your statement. I'm informing you that I did not make it.

That's epistemologically insignificant. 

I have no problem seeing contradiction; I do not readily see unsubstantiated claims of contradiction. 

How is that?

Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic. 

Then "communism" is irrelevant.

How have you formulated such a framework? 

And therein is the false dichotomy. The former and latter are not the only choices. They were going against their values, but felt that because there was no one there who shared their values, the prohibition was not felt. Like a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her.

Objective means, not sourced in, or influenced by, the mind of any man.

No. You asked for different standards. I gave them.

Perhaps you don't want to understand.

Perhaps you are not able to understand.

But I will not keep repeating simply because you keep asking.

No.

I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the use of power.

Moral authority justifies the use of power, the use of power does not justify morality.

You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power.

How earnest you are doesn't matter. Reality is what we must assume is common to the both of us for there to be communication and understanding. If I have to define reality for you that is enough evidence for me that a definition is not needed.

By not dropping the gun when told to do so.

D.A.'s are moral agents who also know the law.

No.

You implied it.

It is the description of the quality "objective". You asked for it.

Internal contradictions are not readily see in oneself.

Agreeing with you would make me wrong.

You're being equivocal with the meaning of logic. It isn't important to my argument.

Logic. Morality is objective.

Once again, nothing in your statements inform one's going against one's own values...

but instead inform my deduction that they behaved in a manner influenced by their environment like "a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her."

So yes, that is the dichotomy presented, which is not false in and of itself.

Either they did it of their own will and volition, or they were coerced.

I'm not asking you to define "objective." I'm asking you to explain how the law meets your description of "objective."

And now I request that you give examples. Are there any examples to cite?

My "want" is irrelevant.

Perhaps.

You wouldn't have to repeat if you explained.

When I ask questions, I seek explanation--otherwise, there would be no need for me to ask.

So then, would "consideration of material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" be an apt description? 

I'm asking you to define reality in order to establish communication and understanding.

So then how is seeking that communication and understanding "evidence" of their not being needed?

If not dropping the gun in your example is "defiance" then not dropping one's gun is far from "letting" something happen.

You specifically cited a district attorney presumably for reasons concerning their capacity as an agent of the law. 

You said you weren't discussing this from a legal context,...

what relevance does your citation of a district attorney have in this discussion, let alone in a rebuttal against my argument? 

As soon as you set the rubric to notions of "agreement,"...

I did not imply it. That was your impression, which is not the same as an implication. 

I'm telling you that description is epistemologically insignificant. Because subjects of knowledge require the use of one's mind. 

An alleged generality which does not apply to my capacity as a debater.

How is that? Elaborate.

There's nothing equivocal about my description. Confirm it for yourself, if necessary. 

And I await your explanation as to how morality whether it be legal, religious, philosophical, etc. meets the description you offered of "objective."

Repetition will not make you right.

Morality is between people. If another person "is not there" as in blind, or too young or old, or from an alien society, some people do not feel the moral  prohibitions they would if they were in their societies.

Influenced by environment or not, they went against their personal values by going topless.

It is false as it tries to explain a real occurrence.

Those were not the only 2 options.

You need the options limited so as to float your "deduction" as correct.

No sir. They also could have felt no prohibition against violating their value because they felt away from their culture.

Moral law is not sourced in, or affected by, the mind of any man. If you ask again, the answer will be the same.

Plenty. But none are necessary.

Not to your understanding it's not.

I suspect you would not be able to admit this if it were true.

I don't have to repeat.

You either accept the explanation given or don't, but repeating the question hoping for a different explanation will not work with me.

Apt description of what?

Defining reality will not do that. Our realities must be the same for there to be  communication and understanding.

If you are seeking a definition of reality, you are not sane enough to comprehend the definition.

Many a criminal has found out to their regret that this is untrue. And I was not giving an example of defence, but an example of suicide by police. You asked.

Their capacity as agents of the law who are also moral agents. It gives them a unique perspective.

I'm not.

Professionals trained to distinguish between morality and law, and whose job requires them to be moral,

disagree with you.

I did not. You just thought I did.

But it's definitely not murder.

I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.

what relevance does your citation of a district attorney have in this discussion, let alone in a rebuttal against my argument? 

Professionals trained to distinguish between morality and law, and whose job requires them to be moral, disagree with you.

You did imply it. Perhaps you did not intend to. But I can only go by what you do.

Objective subjects of knowledge exist before they are in ones mind.

Objective morality is not sourced in the minds of men, bit can exist on the minds of men.

Who is judging that capacity?

You are wrong. If I agree with you I become wrong too.

Its obvious.

You are using "logical" in it's broadest sense. That is not what is generally meant by logic when talking about logical arguments. You're defining  "logical" so broadly, no argument can be illogical.

I've already told you.