Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
That's not what moral standard is. This is really simple stuff. Let's try another way;

If your moral standard is X, then anything that violates X is wrong.

X is your starting point, you cannot therefore assess the morality of X. So claiming "X is good" is a tautology.

There will always be some disagreement on X, therefore all morality is necessarily subjective.

Explain which part of this you take issue with.
#32
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
That's not what moral standard is.

If your moral standard is X
I take issue with this part of this, how can you give an example of me having a moral standard of x when according to you I don’t even know what a moral standard is? You first need to address what a moral standard is before you can give examples surrounding it, and you’ve failed to do so after I already asked.
#33
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I take issue with this part of this, how can you give an example of me having a moral standard of x when according to you I don’t even know what a moral standard is?
I presented an if/then statement. That's not an assumption of your moral standard, is a hypothetical example to illustrate what moral standard is and how it works.

You can still follow a moral standard even if you don't know what it is, just as one can easily commit a logical fallacy without knowing it.

You first need to address what a moral standard is before you can give examples surrounding it, and you’ve failed to do so
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears does not mean the world around you doesn't exist.

I've explained what moral standard is twice now, and it's really simple. Pretending I didn't doesn't validate your nonsense.
#34
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,316
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
If your moral standard is X, then anything that violates X is wrong.
Thank you for making this so explicitly clear. Well done.

Each human has differrent and changing set of X, and each express X to their children and others in various ways.

#35
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
You can still follow a moral standard even if you don't know what it is, just as one can easily commit a logical fallacy without knowing it.
Be that as it may, you can’t reasonably expect one to understand the validity of your if/then statement if they don’t understand the terminology you’re using to make it, which according to you I don’t.
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Do you have an actual issue with my explanation for what morality is and how it works? You've ignored every substantive point I've made here.
#37
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Do you have an actual issue with my explanation for what morality is and how it works? 
I told you already, it’s the mere fact that you used the word “moral” in your “explanation” which isn’t “substantive” in the slightest sense.
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So your whole issue here is sematics. Got it.

"Moral" in "moral standard" is not a descriptive, it's not saying the standard was evaluated as being moral. The phrase moral standard means 'standard for morality'.

Just because a word is used twice doesn't mean the reasoning is circular. You need to pay attention to what people are actually arguing.
#39
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
"Moral" in "moral standard" is not a descriptive, it's not saying the standard was evaluated as being moral. The phrase moral standard means 'standard for morality'.

Just because a word is used twice doesn't mean the reasoning is circular. You need to pay attention to what people are actually arguing.
And how do you go about explaining what a standard for morality is?

The mere fact that I asked you this before proves it’s circularity. You need to pay attention to what people are actually asking.
#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
And how do you go about explaining what a standard for morality is?
I've explained it about 3 times already. What part of it are you not understanding?

The mere fact that I asked you this before proves it’s circularity. 
No, it proves you either aren't paying attention or have serious reading comprehension issues.
#41
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I've explained it about 3 times already.
And everything I’ve said to this point has been responsive to your so called “explanation” yet here we are.

No, it proves you either aren't paying attention or have serious reading comprehension issues.
Right back at ya dude 😉 
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
And everything I’ve said to this point has been responsive to your so called “explanation” yet here we are.
And your responses have been nothing more than critiques of something I'm not arguing. Repeating those critiques only demonstrates that you aren't paying attention.

You continually claim I'm engaging in circular reasoning while ignoring that I have already addressed why that's not the case.

So, once again, do you have any real objection to anything I've argued aside from semantics?
#43
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
You continually claim I'm engaging in circular reasoning while ignoring that I have already addressed why that's not the case.

Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.
If this is your so called “explanation” this is literally the equivalent of saying I’m not using circular reasoning because I’m not using circular reasoning which is circular in itself.
#44
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So clearly, you don't have any actual objections to my arguments and instead are just playing stupid, probably to get a rise out of me.

I've explained numerous times why it's not circular, and "because it's not circular" was never the explanation. If you're not trolling then you're entirely too stupid to talk too. Either way, good day.
#45
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I've explained numerous times why it's not circular, and "because it's not circular" was never the explanation.
Well it might as well be because saying this 

Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.
is literally no different, but you can name call all you want pretending to be smarter than you actually are, it doesn’t move the needle any further but that shouldn’t surprise me because that’s your specialty✌🏾 

27 days later

#46
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
@Double_R
Sometimes people are difficult, and others are genuinely trying to understand. it's also important to acknowledge the possibility that some people cannot comprehend what you can, or that perhaps you are the one that does not comprehend what all others do which is why it's important for everyone to have many different opinions and perspectives. Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
#47
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
Should we respect the acts of a serial killer regardless of whether we personally accept it?
#48
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
Should we respect the acts of a serial killer regardless of whether we personally accept it?
What I believe you mean to ask is, "with that perspective, how would you treat a serial killer." To that question I would say, assuming they are not actively committing murders and illegal acts, I would accept that view as their opinion and nothing more, the same as I do with everyone else. I would not suggest being a serial killer or argue why it is morally wrong. Instead, I would ask what made them who they are today, why do they believe it is a good idea, how have they formed such a conclusion, and what impact will it have on their future. Everything anyone ever says is merely what they believe, and you could never expect more than that from anyone. Your job is to understand what you can from others' new perspectives you learn along the way, not to change others' perspectives. I wouldn't let it bother either of you so much, but rather be fascinated by the variety of perspectives to understand.
#49
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
What I believe you mean to ask is, "with that perspective, how would you treat a serial killer."
No, I meant exactly what I said, because last I checked the word you used was respect when you were talking about our treatment of other peoples viewpoints.
#50
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik

Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
Should we respect the acts of a serial killer regardless of whether we personally accept it?
What I believe you mean to ask is, "with that perspective, how would you treat a serial killer." To that question I would say, assuming they are not actively committing murders and illegal acts, I would accept that view as their opinion and nothing more, the same as I do with everyone else. I would not suggest being a serial killer or argue why it is morally wrong. Instead, I would ask what made them who they are today, why do they believe it is a good idea, how have they formed such a conclusion, and what impact will it have on their future. Everything anyone ever says is merely what they believe, and you could never expect more than that from anyone. Your job is to understand what you can from others' new perspectives you learn along the way, not to change others' perspectives. I wouldn't let it bother either of you so much, but rather be fascinated by the variety of perspectives to understand.
No, I meant exactly what I said, because last I checked the word you used was respect when you were talking about our treatment of other peoples' viewpoints.
You seem to be misunderstanding me, let me be clear:
Respect is a word that has many meanings and applications. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, respect can be a noun or a verb. As a noun, it can mean:
- A relation or reference to a particular thing or situation
- An act of giving particular attention or consideration
- High or special regard, esteem, or the quality or state of being esteemed
- Expressions of high or special regard or deference

As a verb, it can mean:
- To consider worthy of high regard or esteem
- To refrain from interfering with
- To have reference to or concern

Some examples of respect in different contexts are:
- Respect for oneself: This means to value and appreciate oneself, to accept oneself regardless of what others think, and to take care of one's health and well-being.
- Respect for others: This means to value and honor another person, even if we do not agree with them or share everything they do. It also means to treat them with kindness, courtesy, and tolerance, and to listen and learn from them.
- Respect for social norms: This means to follow the rules and expectations that govern society, such as being polite, honest, responsible, and cooperative.
- Respect for nature: This means to care for the environment and the living beings that inhabit it, such as plants, animals, and humans. It also means to avoid wasting resources, polluting, or harming nature.
- Respect for values: This means to uphold the principles and beliefs that guide our actions and decisions, such as honesty, justice, compassion, etc. It also means to respect the values of others, even if they are different from ours.
- Respect for laws: This means to obey the rules and regulations that are established by the authorities, such as the government, the police, the courts, etc. It also means to respect the rights and duties of citizens.
- Respect for culture: This means to appreciate and celebrate the diversity of customs, traditions, languages, religions, arts, etc. that exist in the world. It also means to respect the culture of others, even if they are unfamiliar or strange to us.
- Respect for family: This means to love and support our relatives, such as parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. It also means to respect their opinions, choices, and lifestyles.

Cited by the following:

When I said:
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
I meant what I said, the act of coming to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act. I did not claim you should respect serial killers and I do not comprehend how you logically came up with that as a response to me claiming that sharing opinions is a respectable act. That is just absurd. Nonetheless, I was intrigued on how I would express this idea towards a serial killers mentality, not their actions. If a person believes that there is no intrinsic value in humans that is not a crime, and if they are willing to share their perspective and reasoning then I am eager to listen. I respect their perspective as a conscious individual. This does not mean I support serial killers. Though, I would be fascinated by understanding the mindset of an individual that has committed crimes as such, and curious on how they have gotten to such a mentality. Regardless, I never said we should respect individuals actions, I said we should respect people for coming to a platform and sharing their perspectives. You should read through the entire comment if you're going to be making technical accusations.
#51
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I respect their perspective as a conscious individual. This does not mean I support serial killers.
No, you just respect their perspective, which is problematic in and of itself.
#52
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I respect their perspective as a conscious individual. This does not mean I support serial killers.
No, you just respect their perspective, which is problematic in and of itself.
Do you not believe it is despicable to allow such an significant problem to be ignored, allowing it to continue? Whereas I value understanding the perspective of a serial killer in order to comprehend their mentality in hopes of progressing research in psychology to create a better society for everyone. It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. We must think of the long-term implications of our actions before making claims, or even worse, acting on them.
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. 
Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.
#54
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. 
Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.
Please reference my exact quote where I said such a thing. As of yet, I have only spoken of the respect I have towards users that want to share their understanding with others and to learn from them, and how the mentality of a serial killer should be understood rather than rejected in order to solve the issue. You seem to be making general statements about me that have nothing to do with my actual words.
#55
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Please reference my exact quote where I said such a thing.
I shouldn’t have to, it’s called putting two and two together and me paraphrasing.
#56
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. 
Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.
I disagree because my evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps if you could provide me evidence I could learn.

I’ll try to explain how understanding the mentality of criminals and their psychology can help prevent and rehabilitate them and provide some references to research on criminal psychology:
One of the main goals of criminal psychology is to understand the causes and motivations of criminal behavior, as well as the risk factors that increase the likelihood of offending or reoffending. By identifying these factors, criminal psychologists can design and implement intervention programs that target the specific needs and challenges of different types of offenders, such as violent, sexual, or juvenile offenders. These programs can aim to reduce the negative influences that contribute to criminal behavior, such as antisocial attitudes, peer pressure, substance abuse, or mental illness, and enhance the positive influences that promote prosocial behavior, such as empathy, self-control, self-esteem, or social support.

Another goal of criminal psychology is to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of these intervention programs, using various methods and tools, such as psychological tests, interviews, surveys, or statistical analysis. By measuring the outcomes and impacts of these programs, criminal psychologists can determine whether they achieve their intended goals of preventing crime, reducing recidivism, or rehabilitating offenders. They can also identify the strengths and weaknesses of these programs and suggest ways to improve them based on empirical evidence and best practices.

A third goal of criminal psychology is to apply and communicate the knowledge and findings from these intervention programs to various stakeholders and audiences, such as policymakers, practitioners, researchers, or the public. By sharing their insights and recommendations, criminal psychologists can inform and influence the development and implementation of policies and practices that aim to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders at different levels, such as individual, community, or societal. They can also raise awareness and educate the public about the causes and consequences of criminal behavior, and the benefits of prevention and rehabilitation for both offenders and society.

The above is cited by the following:

I’ll now provide you with some references to research that has proven that understanding criminal offender mentality can help prevent and rehabilitate them successfully:
One reference is The Benefits of Rehabilitative Incarceration by G. B. Dahl and M. Mogstad (2020). This article uses the random assignment of judges as an instrument to estimate the causal effects of incarceration on offenders, their families, and their criminal networks. It finds that imprisonment discourages further criminal behavior, increases employment and earnings, improves family stability, and reduces the criminal activity of co-offenders. It also suggests that these benefits are driven by the rehabilitative aspects of the Norwegian prison system, which provides education, training, and health services to inmates. You can access it here: https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration

Another reference is What is Criminal Rehabilitation? by L. Forsberg and T. Douglas (2020). This article presents a taxonomy of different conceptions of criminal rehabilitation, based on the aims and means of the putatively rehabilitative measure. It also explores some of the implications and disadvantages of each conception, and some areas for future work. It shows that criminal rehabilitation is a complex and multifaceted concept that can be understood in various ways, depending on the normative and empirical assumptions involved. You can access it here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11572-020-09547-4

A third reference is Clinical and Forensic Interventions for Offenders Rehabilitation by F. Sani et al. (2021). This is a collection of articles that explore various aspects of clinical and forensic interventions for offenders' rehabilitation, such as risk assessment, treatment programs, ethical issues, and outcome evaluation. It covers different types of offenders, such as sexual offenders, violent offenders, juvenile offenders, and mentally ill offenders. It also discusses the challenges and opportunities for implementing effective interventions in different contexts and settings. You can access it here: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/31336/clinical-and-forensic-interventions-for-offenders-rehabilitation

A fourth reference is Rehabilitate or punish? by E. Glazer (2003). This article reviews some of the research on the causes of crime and the psychological effects of incarceration. It also highlights some of the psychological interventions that aim to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, drug treatment, education, and vocational training. It argues that these interventions can be more effective and humane than punitive prison policies, and calls for more research and funding to support them. You can access it here: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab

The above is cited by the following:

Ultimately, I'm trying to learn from your perspective and others which is why I have come to the platform so please explain yourself if you have evidence or anything to suggest to me why you are correct as I have prepared myself to learn on this platform from others' perspectives that are different than mine. However, please don't think that I will just carelessly accept everything anyone says without providing any evidence to suggest, especially when I have evidence to suggest the contrary.
#57
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
So in other words everyone’s views should be treated as “respectable”?
#58
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
So in other words everyone’s views should be treated as “respectable”?
Not quite, only if they have come to this forum to present their perspective and to learn from the perspectives of others. This demonstrates not only their willingness to learn and their active pursuit of a better understanding of the world, but their acknowledgement that what they know is insufficient, which is the first step towards progression. I respect a person with this mentality no matter their views.
#59
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Not quite
Then what did you mean by “treated as such”? Treated as what exactly?
#60
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Not quite
Then what did you mean by “treated as such”? Treated as what exactly?
When I said, "treated as such" in my comment: "Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them." I was saying individuals who come to a platform to publicly share their opinions and hear the opinions of others should be treated as individuals who have come to a public platform to share their opinions and hear the opinions of others, respectfully.