What Determines the Morality of an Action?

[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.

 

[Denim Tent]

I just watched schindler's list.

If you haven't seen it, well...oscar wasn't saving jews (at the start) for the right reasons. He was saving them because he wanted cheap labor. He said it himself, he just wanted to get rich

He was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean his actions were wrong.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

There is a difference between standing up for what is right to conform with morality and standing up for what's right, for the wrong reasons.

I believe "right" for whatever subjective worth it has, has a true value. If you do not do the "right" thing for the "right" reasons, it ceases to be right. Also, if you had people merely doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason, there would be negative consequences for society in the long run. For one, no one would pull their weight in the name of good will, they would only do it for the sake of personal convenience. That sort of fabric does not hold up as well as the fabric of good will.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

SelfAdjoint was asking his question about people interacting in reference to the "to each their own" comment. You did not address that. In addition, we are talking about ought, and you merely gave a potential explanation of is.

 

[p-brane]

SelfAdjoint was asking his question about people interacting in reference to the "to each their own" comment. You did not address that. In addition, we are talking about ought, and you merely gave a potential explanation of is.

For starters, I don't remember talking about "ought". What are you referring to here, please?

I'll return at a later time concerning interaction.

 

[Dissident Dan]

You gave a prescription for how people should ("ought to") act: "To each their own" (non-interference).

 

[p-brane]

You gave a prescription for how people should ("ought to") act: "To each their own" (non-interference).

Here's what I said:

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.

No should have woulda could have or oughtas about it!
These are simple observations with regard to subjectivity.

When it comes to interaction I am interested. I hypothesize that all interactions... although appearing as entanglements and crosshybrids of thought and action... they are actually parallel in nature.

I put forth that interactions remain parallel because the points of view remain separate by varying experience and understanding and because any amount of interaction is interpreted by that point of view held by one or the other participant in the interaction.

Therefore, "to each his/her own" tastes, experiences and thoughts etc... is not only a statement born out of an observation of subjectivity but also states what I am saying about the parallel nature of relationship and interaction.

Just a thought.

 

[Imparcticle]

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

How factual is that? Who welcomes suffering?

 

[p-brane]

How factual is that? Who welcomes suffering?

One person's suffering is another's pleasure or sense of accomplishment. It depends on up-bringing and conditioning.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What do you mean by stating, "To each his own"? Do you mean to say that you support using that as a guideline for action (or inaction)?

 

[p-brane]

What do you mean by stating, "To each his own"? Do you mean to say that you support using that as a guideline for action (or inaction)?

When I used the words "to each (their)own" I used them to fully illustrate the use of the words I used before that phrase: which were: "Its relative"... more accurately this is what I said:

Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that.

If I had put quotations around the "To each their own" that may have been clearer. So, my intention, in using the phrase, was to illustrate the condition of SUBJECTIVITY. It was not a sermon about ethical axioms.

 

[p-brane]

"What makes an action 'right'"?

When its not left.