I thought so too. These things are extraordinarily complex. Thank you.
1 Like
“Universal” isnt necessary. More non problem.
Answer the question. what is the goal of morality? Whatever you answer, what you “ought” to do will be informed by “is”. Try it. It will work.
I consider myself a good person; by good, I mean that I prefer pleasure, love people, and prefer good thoughts. I, however, think we can establish a moral system that accommodates evil people as well. For example, if you prefer pain (a masochist), then you must get involved in a relationship with another person who is evil and likes to deliver pain to others ( a sadist).
I don’t understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating?
What do you mean by false good here? I believe that things are either good or evil.
Yes, I agree that part of life is evil. Good and evil are different alignments.
Yes, if a person prefers pain, then there is no problem, s/he can deliver pain to themselves or get involved in a relationship with someone who likes delivering pain to their partner.
Yes, a proper moral theory should address evil people as well.
I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mind elaborating?
Evil isn’t opposite to good, it’s contrary to good. The opposite of good is bad.
Evil is an outright abomination.
To include evil in morality, is completely against the premise.
To have such a laid-back phase, requires that you have submit moral-theory, down a level, where it must serve wrong-doers(abominations).
It’s ok if someone is bad, that can be included, but if you’re purposely an abomination of action, you must be rational, such as, ‘getting with a sadist’, that you put.
I repeat, evil is not opposite to good. What you’ve said is correct if you truly meant ‘bad’, otherwise it’s incorrect.
You ought not facilitate evil, it’s the process of being good that’s damaged- morality is not for the abomination of good-less life.
You’re saying ‘we should facilitate moral-theory, to allow people who are purposely immoral.’
The problem started when you called “relational right” a relation. I then defined the relationship and the relational right to make sure that we are on the same page and there is no misunderstanding. Do you agree that the relationship is different from the relational right? If yes, then we can proceed further.
You have all sorts of legal rights to your car. And deriving your car is not a moral right, given the definition of morality: Morality is a system of thought about what is right and wrong, based on evaluating how actions affect other people’s lives or one’s own.
Ok, let’s first discuss an unpleasant relationship. If one partner wants the relationship and the other does not, then there is the time when the person who wants the relationship to mature up, respects the personal rights of his/her partner and gives up the relationship. And non-consensual relationship is not allowed since it violates the personal rights of one party.
No, I am not deriving ought from ought. Here is my argument for how you could derive kindness from relational rights:
P1) The relational right requires sustaining the relationship that generates the relational right
P2) If a couple must sustain a relationship, they must engage in the mutual care of the relationship that the relationship creates
P3) If a couple must engage in the mutual care of the relationship, they require mutual positive action
C1) Therefore, relational rights entail mutual positive action
P4) Kindness is the minimal positive action
C2) Therefore, relational rights entail mutual kindness (from C1 and P4)
Coercion and exploitation are not morally allowed since they violate personal rights.
Jedi and Sith are good examples of good and bad.
I wouldn’t say Sith was evil.
Evil would be interrupting the movie for nothing but thrills of getting in the way of good data and saying ‘here you got me’ or something.
Dear MoK, imagine the great interrupter alongside you in your thinking.
What’s the difference?
One fits neatly, the other barges in on.
Is that a real answer? You want to distinguish between the contrary of good (evil) and the opposite of good (bad) but you seem unwilling to tell us what you mean by such a distinction.
As I said, one fits neatly and the other barges in on. Truthfully though, that was explaining something which already made sense.
The opposite of something is not contrary to that something, you’re whole mixing up is puzzling the matter. I provided the missing piece. It doesn’t fit neatly with it’s counterpart, it stakes a claim in the vicinity of the concept.
Universality is necessary; otherwise, we never come to an agreement on what is the right thing to do in a moral situation.
What do you mean?
The goal of morality is to understand what is right or wrong in a moral situation.
I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mind elaborating?
I never called a “relational right” a relation.
You described your proposed rights, then said “that is the meaning of a relationship”
I responded “No, the meaning of a relationship is that the two (or more) parties relate.”
You then said “I am talking about relational right here and not relationship.”
Those are copy/pastes. So I don’t need you to define relational rights, I need you to respond to the fact that you made an incorrect characterization of what a relationship was in your first statement noted here. You have literally asserted that the thing you propose is inherent in the meaning of the word “relationship”, and I am pointing out that that’s a false claim… something you have never addressed. That’s when my problem started.
Did you not see that I acknowledge that legal rights are distinct from moral rights? Surely you’re not suggesting that your “relational rights” are legal rights? Given that would be absurd, I charitably assumed you must mean the alternative, moral rights.
Allowed? Non consensual relationship occur. When you say it “is not allowed since it violates the personal rights of one party”, how is that different than saying “non-consensual relationships are wrong”? In which case, you are just proposing a moral position, not deriving anything.
This is literally a complicated way of saying “if you want a nice relationship, you have to be nice”. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to consider this.
They are not “morally allowed” according to your “relational rights” which are premised on consensual/mutually beneficial relationships. You are just begging the question.
It definitely is. In fact “contrary” is literally a synonym for “opposite.”
I would ask you to point me to the philosopher who explicates your distinction between what is “opposite” and what is “contrary,” but I’m fairly sure you would have no answer.
Note too that “opposite” is generally considered to be stronger than “contrary,” and so according to colloquial use your claim is backwards. The opposite of good would presumably be ‘evil’, not ‘bad’; and the contrary of good would presumably be ‘bad’, not ‘evil’ (if those two categories are all we are working with).
If synonyms meant exactly what each other meant, there would be no need. In philosophy, we tend to deal with exacts.
And I asked you what you meant in an exact sense. You evaded an answer, preferring instead vague metaphors about “fitting neatly” vs. “barging in.” If you want to do philosophy, and you think that philosophy deals with “exacts”, then you will need more precision than that.
That is a description of morality, not the goal of morality. What is the goal of morality?
If the goal of morality is to prevent human suffering for example, then you look at what causes human suffering (Thats the “Is”) to determine what is immoral (causing human suffering) and then you get the “ought” (stopping a murderer or rapist or whatever the cause of suffering is etc).
Whatever goal you state as the goal, human suffering, human flourishing, balancing the scales of justice…whatever it is as soon as you have it then you get an ought from an is all day long.
Expecting universality is as non-nonsensical for morality as it is for anything else. When the goal changes, so do the is\oughts.
There’s an absolute neutral state, where there are no morals. That’s not the state we’re in…
Actually there are individuals with this kind of state. The maladaptive Central nervous system could make someone not think of morals. If the CNS is malfunctioning the individual wouldn’t have the feelings of pleasure or pain. Or they wouldn’t have an empathy.
Then, morality is his/her barrier. He/she would be innocent.
It takes further judgement.
You are regularly judged if morals are enforced.
Yes. Speaking only in terms of ethics, those individuals would not be culpable.
1 Like