What Determines the Morality of an Action?

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane

As Newton said, each action creates an equal and opposite reaction. As the Wiccan say, each action is reflected x 10 in response to the actor. There are many such wisdoms that pertain to right and wrong. However, left in the hands of all creation, minus all the judgements -its all good, conclusively speaking.

Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

Nature is right in that it has offered the means by which we are able to suffer, not suffer or/and experience a billion other conditions aside from suffering.

The reason I use Newton and the Wiccan's statements is to show the variations of views involved when it comes to judging and studying actions in general.

What makes nature right? My own decision on the matter. How you veiw nature is your business. However, like I said, you wouldn't have an opinion on the matter without relying on Nature. In my opinion, she deserves some credit in this regard.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

Your "prejudice" concerning nature is duely noted and just as duely discarded. Not because it is abrasive but because it doesn't jive, in any way whatsoever, with my own conclusions on the subject.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

 

[MacTech]

what makes an action "right"?

Simple answer is.. of course.. if Say it is right.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

I didn't say your prejudice is wrong. I said it doesn't jibe with my own.

A Philips screwdriver is no more wrong than a Robertson screwdriver, 'til you happen upon a screw that requires a flathead screwdriver. Then both the philips and the robertson are wrong.

Someone could say its wrong to have so many different types of screws and screwdrivers. But its right for the makers of this variety because they are able to sell their different screws and their different screwdrivers that match, much to the mechanics shigrin. Then, there are mechanics and carpenters who prefer one over another. That's when one persons preference is right for that person and so on.

One's gender-specific sexual orientation is a similar kettle of fish.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering."

(Dissident Dan)

One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding.

Thanks to nature, one could say or do anything "one" feels like saying or doing.

But, as nature would have it, what one does or says will inevitably bring about a consequence that is equal to, or greater than, one's initial and/or repeated action.

That's just the way it is. There's no escaping it. So watch your step. The last one's a doozy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

In what way is nature irrelevant if it can be used to justify everything? My prejudice is to find nature relevant in both relativistic and quantum settings. It could be viewed as a major component of the unification theory. It supercedes quantum gravity in that respect. But I'm off topci.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me. [/B]

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

 

[MushinMunen]

I think that the reason that this question may be difficult is because every individual and every state, nation, and continent on which they live has a different definition of what is "right", when there really is no definition for "right" or "correct" or "moral". That will never be accepted as true but it is a fact. Only in this world could a question like that emerge. If you didn't think "right & wrong" (which is difficult to imagine for some because that's the way the world works) there would never be any second guessing and there would never be any accidents. There would also be no testing It is my opinion that "right & wrong" is uneccessary and everything would be much better without it. An entire race of philosophers...sounds lovely doesn't it? Hehe.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

Now, that's where I completely disagree with you. There are objectively unethical actions. The mere existence of experience mandates this.

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist. According to that reasoning, nothing can exist, because there is always someone to disagree with you on any issue. According that reasoning, there can be no origin of man, because people disagree on that. etc. ad inifinitum

 

[FZ+]

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist.

This needs a correction - they must not exist, AND be apparent. History suggests that moral principles are essentially inherited from ones society, and as each member of the society can declare their own to be natural absolute, it does not make sense that there is a single, distinguishible concept of good out there. And if there has been found no way to choose between true morals and false morals, then the idea of absolute morality is useless. Things can exist, and theories can be classified as good or not because we have axiomatically assumed methods for discriminating between them. In morality, we lack that.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Doesn't any respectable moral theory provide axioms?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Now, that's where I completely disagree with you. There are objectively unethical actions. The mere existence of experience mandates this.

So, are you suggesting that the existence of experience is unethical?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, the idea of ethicality applies to the actions of a conscious creature. I would say that if a conscious creature created our world, then that creature's action of creating the world was unethical.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, the idea of ethicality applies to the actions of a conscious creature. I would say that if a conscious creature created our world, then that creature's action of creating the world was unethical.

Why would you would say that, Dissident Dan, or is your name a clue the answer here?

(Just in case you use the word in an essay; its "ethicacy" not "ethicality".)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I appreciate any help, but actually, both webster.com and dictionary.com list "ethicality" as a word, but not "ethicacy".

You can take my name as an indication not of dissidence for dissidence's sake, but a complete willingness to discard anything conventional or sacred if a reason arises.
------------------------------------------------

FZ+,

I have proposed a basis for morality. How that actually plays out can get complicated. The basic axiom is "suffering is bad", and "peasure is good". (Which does not contradict the fact that sometimes suffering can cause pleasure, and vice-versa.) Apply that how you will.

 

[FZ+]

Sounds somewhat utilitarian. The whole difficulty then is to classify pleasure and suffering - how much pleasure is acceptable for how much suffering? How can we test a theory of such classification? This, I think, is where the subjective fuzziness comes in.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree. I suppose that you could make the rule of "cause no displeasure to others that is obviously beyond what they would otherwise experience." <- just something I came up with on the spur of the moment

 

[p-brane]

Ethical Universe (copyright 2004/2005)

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I appreciate any help, but actually, both webster.com and dictionary.com list "ethicality" as a word, but not "ethicacy".

You can take my name as an indication not of dissidence for dissidence's sake, but a complete willingness to discard anything conventional or sacred if a reason arises.

[/i]

Conversely, I appreciate your dissidence concerning the matter revolving around of the words "ethicacy" and "ethicality" as they do appear to be unrelated.

I am inquiring primarily with regards to your relative disidence against the idea of one "living creature" deciding the ethics that govern the universe.

If that sort of order were to be a proven a truth that determined one's life, would you maintain a dissonance relative to its will?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by FZ+
Sounds somewhat utilitarian. The whole difficulty then is to classify pleasure and suffering - how much pleasure is acceptable for how much suffering? How can we test a theory of such classification? This, I think, is where the subjective fuzziness comes in.

Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that. Many many people know nothing but suffering. It has become a way of life that is passed on to suicide bombers and militants alike.

If they didn't suffer in some way every day they'd think something was wrong.

Similarily, there are those who would think things were amiss if they didn't get to have a warm bath or eat a chocolate bar every day.

For those who are conditioned to suffering, the bath and the bar would signify suffering.

The terror of a tank in the neighborhood would be welcome since it suggests they're getting their daily dose of suffering.

Go figure.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that. Many many people know nothing but suffering.
Go figure.

Well, if you believe in "to each their own", what if someone getting his "own" interferes with another someone getting his "own"?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, if you believe in "to each their own", what if someone getting his "own" interferes with another someone getting his "own"?

Read it again: "to each their own".

 

[selfAdjoint]

SO you intend each to be plural? In that case I assert "their own" is not well defined.

 

[p-brane]

The word "each"

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
SO you intend each to be plural?

No.

The word "each"

1. Every one of the two or more individuals composing a
number of objects, considered separately from the rest. It
is used either with or without a following noun; as, each
of you or each one of you. ``Each of the wambats.''
--Fielding.

Note: To each corresponds other. ``Let each esteem other
better than himself.'' Each other, used elliptically
for each the other. It is our duty to assist each
other; that is, it is our duty, each to assist the
other, each being in the nominative and other in the
objective case.


Let each His adamantine coat gird well. --Milton.

In each cheek appears a pretty dimple. --Shak.

Then draw we nearer day by day, Each to his
brethren, all to God. --Keble.

The oak and the elm have each a distinct
character. --Gilpin.

2. Every; -- sometimes used interchangeably with every.
--Shak.

I know each lane and every alley green. --Milton.

In short each man's happiness depends upon himself.
--Sterne.

The word "each" appears to be exclusively singular.

The axiom "to each their own" doesn't support the idea of the infringment, interuption or impediment of other people and their mode of living. The whole premise of the phrase suggests that one keep to one's own in what one would care to indulge.

Mind you, suicide bombers don't have a clue with regard to this axiom.

Concerning "their own". The use of "their" is purely possessive. As in "owning one's own thoughts".

Eg: "They each owned their own thoughts" (William Renshaw)

 

[selfAdjoint]

OK, then each is only responsible for "their own" which you gloss as being internal to the individuals. So what happens when they interact, or do they?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
OK, then each is only responsible for "their own" which you gloss as being internal to the individuals. So what happens when they interact, or do they?

Judging by the universally inherent propensity to maintain efficiency, which is found in all systems in the universe, the interactions between people, the qualities and results of each of these interactions are determined by the percent of efficiency generated by the interaction.

The systemic efficiency of an interaction between people is determined by the over-all effect and influence it has on the human social system and the universe in general.

For instance; if the efficiency of an interaction between individual people is of a high percentage in its support of the human societal system then it has the potential to continue for some time. If not, then the opposite would be true (in keeping with the over-all systemic efficiency of the universe).

My proposition here lends itself to the topic of this thread, "what makes an action "right"?

[edit: typos]

 

[Dissident Dan]

p-brane, I fail to see how what you said addressed what selfAdjoint said at all.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
p-brane, I fail to see how what you said addressed what selfAdjoint said at all.

Failure is an illusion created by SR.

Where's rody084?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Can we stop playing word games?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Can we stop playing word games?

I'll let SelfAdjoint have a go at responding to my comment.

If you "fail to see" what I'm pointing out to SelfAdjoint about "interaction" then please specify exactly what it is that you are not grasping in the proposition and I will attempt to clairify those point(s)for you, Dissident Dan.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

In response to the first post:

Dictionary.com says that right is:

Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.

Thus if you do something with the intent of conforming with whatever is generally accepted as right, your action(s) is right. If you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, your actions are insincere. Therefore, making them right only in observable consequence and not for good reason. In other words, I believe an action is only truly right when it is done with the intent to conform with what is right.

If people did the right thing for the wrong reason, "right" would have no meaning. The ulterior motive itself, would devalue justice, law and morality. For, if people only did the right thing for insincere reasons, there would be no good will. Without good will, society disintegrates.