My latest moral argument.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 124
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality. 

Questions, comments and criticisms welcome. 
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you a Utilitarian now?
Topic's author
#3
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
It doesn't matter. No label will change my actual position. My position is that I am disinterested in morality. 
#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
But surely you have chosen your current course because you consider it 'Right?
Thus making it a moral decision?

It's far from an individual for instance a politician, who makes it his life dream to make roads, and tax people unfairly to make more roads, because he just considers roads so awesome.
Though even that I'd argue is a moral decision, in 'ignoring the people and focusing on one's own interests.

I'd 'assume you would want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health, due to a concern for other people,
Is this not a moral wont, concern for others?
Topic's author
#5
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. They can only be applied in regards to a goal. I will do as I think will most reliably accomplishes my goals. It is impossible to disagree with oneself in any meaningful way. 
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
So you're a practical Nihilist then?
You don't believe in an objective "Right" and "wrong", but you still have wants and goals, and being human, pursue them?

Well, one disagrees with themself at times through introspection, or scruples, and then by such 'does or does 'not, an action.
Topic's author
#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
I am disinterested in nihilism. I just want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. I have a vested interest as a human and a member of the public. 

You can change your stance on some subject but then you must defacto agree with your new stance. You cannot disagree with yourself in the moment in any sensible way. 
#8
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Surely you still 'have 'feelings, reactions, instincts, reflexes of right and wrong?
Being not a metal machine, of no thought or conscious,

Surely you still have selfish moments, give ins, in which you follow your heart, your beliefs of morality?
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Lemming
Are you a Utilitarian now?

I think he is a Pescatarian.
Topic's author
#10
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
I still experience moral outrage. This is an emotion and my emotions are not trustworthy. 

I am capable of extraordinary selfishness and extraordinary selflessness. Neither is inherently correct and neither impulse leads to exclusively positive or negative outcomes. 
#11
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
@FLRW
Hm, Google, Pescatarian.
  1. a person who does not eat meat but does eat fish.
Oh, unexpected, but you're making a joke to imply there is a flaw in his argument?
Right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, so on?

It 'sounds more like a goal one is focused on, than a moral argument?
Topic's author
#12
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@FLRW
I think he is a Pescatarian.
I didn't know you were funny. 
#13
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@secularmerlin

I am.
#14
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@secularmerlin

Don't forget that Jim Parsons is my brother.
Topic's author
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
It 'sounds more like a goal one is focused on, than a moral argument?
I am disinterested in discussing what constitutes moral and immoral. I don't care if you think that harming humans and endangering the public are "morally correct". I am in fact not prepared to argue against someone making a claim to that effect. I'd rather just politely inform them that if this is the case then I really would rather not be moral. 

It is far easier than trying to convince someone that they should accept human wellbeing and protecting the public as the defacto a priori standard of what is and is not moral if they are for any reason disinclined to do so.


#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@secularmerlin

 "Bazinga!"
#17
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I've no more in my mind to add.
Topic's author
#18
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@FLRW
 "Bazinga!"
Now that's funny
#19
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality. 

Where does morality run contrary to human well-being or public health?

Topic's author
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
Morality is subjective. In as much as we can even determine what is better for humans and the public at large human wellbeing and the public health are not opinion based. 
#21
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Morality is subjective
That is quite the claim, especially given that it is well understood within the field of metaethics that moral realism is the default position (even anti-realists acknowledge this, see Dr. John Mackie).

I find it really strange how popular moral relativism is in online forums when it is so unpopular outside of them (both the general public and the academics have majority view of moral realism). I mean, just because it is the majority view doesn't make it true, I know that, but just the fact that relativism is popular in online forums like this and basically nowhere else is just strange to me.
Topic's author
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
People disagree about what moral standard to use. I am disinterested in such discussions. I merely want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. I do not care what any government or god or horoscope has to say about ethics. In any case where to the best of my understanding any moral stance doesn't support these two considerations I do not support morality. 

In fact even if there were some objective standard I am still disinterested in morality for morality sake. If it doesn't serve human wellbeing and the public good then morality may take a long walk off a short pier.
#23
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
People disagree about what moral standard to use.
Okay, and?

 I merely want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health.
So, assuming that promotion of human wellbeing and protection of public health was not objectively moral (I mean, they are, but let's roll with it), you are saying that you would explicitly choose to not be a good person? Why? Do you think others should also make that choice?

It is well understood by metaethicists that being good would be a rational choice, and thus you are saying that you would choose to not be rational for some reason. It seems quite strange to be steadfast in that view without some justification (but also seems like one wouldn't be able to justify it).
Topic's author
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You are welcome to use human wellbeing and the public health as your subjective standard but that is not what I am doing. 

I intend to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health DESPITE the moral implications not BECAUSE of them.
#25
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
as your subjective standard
I'm not a moral relativist as it isn't a sound view to hold to, so it isn't "my subjective standard".

I intend to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health DESPITE the moral implications not BECAUSE of them.
And that is why I asked the questions I did.
It seems, to me, like this would then be you admitting that you do not prioritize being rational but instead put something else before that. This is why I was curious on your justification for putting them first.
This becomes important when it comes to discussion and debate because if there isn't a consistent standard then it raises doubts on all your views.
Topic's author
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
isn't "my subjective standard".

Any standard is necessarily subjective. This is true regardless of the subject. That it is not your standard doesn't make it other than subjective. 
you do not prioritize being rational
Your moral intuition is an emotion. That twist you feel in your guts when even a stranger is treated unfairly or attacked by knavery or ambush. That is a caveman feeling that wants to smash "bad" people with rocks. It does not come from a rational place.

On the other hand recognizing one's vested interest in human wellbeing as a human and a member of the public is fairly reasonable. Unless we have a different definition of reasonable. 
#27
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Any standard is necessarily subjective
So you claim. You seem to be constantly presupposing moral relativism despite having no justification for it.

Your moral intuition is an emotion.
You do realize it is actually a prominent debate on whether moral realism is intuition or not, right?
Furthermore, you seem to be assuming I am an emotivist, but I cannot stress it enough that I don't subscribe to moral relativism.

You seem to be making unfounded assumption after unfounded assumption so far. I, at first, assumed you at least understood metaethics at least a decent amount and so was curious why you held the view you did (as it seems you were explicitly arguing that what is rational or not didn't matter), now it seems more like you don't understand the field too much and are making unfounded assumptions (which is, itself, not something a rational agent should do).

Have to say, very disappointing.
Topic's author
#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So you claim. You seem to be constantly presupposing moral relativism despite having no justification for it.
All standards, not just moral stabdards, are subjective. If it is a standard it is a subjective standard. Often once a standard is established objective statements can be made using the the standard but that does not make it the standard itself any less subjective. 
You do realize it is actually a prominent debate on whether moral realism is intuition
Call it whatever you want when you are outraged by someone's "immoral" behavior you are experiencing an emotional reaction. Emotions are not rational. 

If you see a specific problem with my logic then please explain the logical flaw or offer a necessary counterfactual. 

If you think we are having trouble with definitions you are welcome to offer or request some definition for some specific term.
#29
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
All standards, not just moral stabdards, are subjective.
Under moral naturalism "murder is wrong" is just as much a fact as "gravity exists", and so if you are trying to equate these as equally subjective and not being objective statements of reality then that would be quite the claim that you would need to support. To me, it just seems increasingly the case that you are trying to talk about a subject you don't know about. Hell, I will admit that ethics is one of the weaker areas for me in philosophy (trying to save money to buy two of the most influencing books in recent times and am going to be taking a dedicated class soon), but this is actually kinda sad.

If this wasn't a debate website then it would be more understandable, but to go to a website dedicated to debate and talk so confidently about a subject you know this little about? I have serious doubts on whether it is worth engaging in further discussion at this point as it seems like this is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Topic's author
#30
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The word wrong can only be used subjectively. Moving the king as though it were the queen is only "wrong" in the subjective context of playing chess. When you say this or that is wrong you have introduced subjectivity into the conversation.