|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 20, 2012 09:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
So we've established that no one thinks all people are equal. Everyone thinks those close to them are more important than strangers. What's evil about that?
Nothing. We are a step father - realizing that IN THAT everyone is equal: in his SUBJECTIVITY.
Quote:
A blind person, a slave, and a normal person could have different normal levels of happiness, but that doesn't mean they're equally happy at their normal level. Take, for example, a depressed person - their "normal" level is unhappy. That's an absolute measure of happiness.
There is no such thing as an absolute measure of happiness, because happiness is something extremely relativistic and SUBJECTIVE. How would you be able to measure happiness against each other. I mean, of course, a sick or ill person who knows about the sickness and suffers from it, is unhappy, but not all the time. The "normal state of happiness" is for every person the normal state of happiness. There is no pint of view that would allow a comparison. If you say that the slave is "unhappier" than than the free person, you are seeing it from YOUR pov. YOU imagine that YOU would be unhappier as a slave, but the slave has times in which he is unhappy, content or happy, just as every other guy.
But what would that have to do with morals?
Quote:
What I'm arguing in favor of is virtue being the major component of happiness, and it being independent of life circumstances.
But you have nothing in support of that point. Your "independent from life virtue" is as reasonable as god.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:29, 20 Jul 2012.
|
mvassilev: But we know that the Earth's mass is far away from 1 KG. That is not subjective because it is a fact.
What can not be proven, is if pigs really are disgusting creatures. If people really should be forced to "give away" half of their income to the state. If it is wrong for churces to refuse to marry homosexual couples (and many christians would say that that's something immoral while a lot of other people woul disagree). These are all very subjective issues.
When I base my political views on what's best for the wellbeing of the society - which I define as a society with low crime, low unemployment, high education etc - I like to think that I get those views based on facts and statistics, not morals. But likely, many of my views are subconciously based on certain norms and morals that has been shaped by the culture and society that I grew up and live in. I doubt very much that all people are born with a big "set of pre-determinated morals."
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Value is agent-relative. What does it mean when we talk about the value of a human being? His value to whom? To him? To his loved ones? To strangers? All of those values are different. Imagine a person with a low-paying job, few social connections, and low self-esteem. He values himself less, people who know him value him less, and the market (loosely speaking, strangers) doesn't value him highly. Compare that to a well-loved guy with high self-esteem and with a high-paying job. Clearly the second man is valued more.
The normal state of happiness for every person is not the same. A depressed person's normal state of happiness is lower than mine, and that's not because I think, "I'd be less happy if I were depressed." His words and actions - his normal behavior - reflect a different (and lower) level of happiness than mine. And depressed people really are unhappy - if you ask them, they'll say they're unhappy, not "normal". Similarly for slaves, they're used to being treated the way they are, but they're not happy about it (even though they can be happy in general) and would be happier if they were free.
The happiness that comes from virtue is dependent on human nature. Human nature is constant and unchanging, therefore virtue is constant and unchanging as well.
Xerox:
Morality is just as real as the mass of the Earth, and moral statements are statements about reality. For an explanation, read my response to Elodin. It can be proven whether pigs are unclean or if people should give half their income to the state.
Valuing low crime, low unemployment, etc. and advocating policy that attempts to reach those goals assumes that those things are good - and not just good for you in that you like them, but good in a broader sense. That belief presupposes some form of morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:11 PM |
|
|
But if I want to reach that moral goal of living in a "healthy" society then there are many ways to reach that goal. Some ways might be considere immoral. For instance, I could decide that we are going to kill all criminals. Would that be a moral thing to do since it could lead to a safer society?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:37 PM |
|
|
You don't do that because while a "healthy society" is something you value (because you think it's moral), it isn't the only moral consideration. You could say that criminals are part of society too, and the harm to them that comes from killing them is greater than the benefit the rest of society would receive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:40 PM |
|
|
Mvass, you sound like Elodin: Quote:
The happiness that comes from virtue is dependent on human nature. Human nature is constant and unchanging, therefore virtue is constant and unchanging as well.
*Shudder*
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass, you sound like Elodin:
Great minds think alike. 
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2012 11:56 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah, well, on the other hand dumb scr... oh, wait. Wrong thread. Sorry.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 12:13 AM |
|
|
@Mvass
Quote:
As I understand it - and I think my understanding is shared by many others - morality is a question about what one should do or what kind of person one should be.
I think that is how everyone views morality. But what is the objective standard by which behavior is measured to be moral or immoral? It can't be personal whims, societal whims, or genetics. I addressed those in my "article."
Quote:
Unlike many atheists, I believe morality is objective (strictly speaking, "absolute" means something different). I agree with you that morality must either be objective or not exist at all - subjective morality is nonsense. But I can justify objective morality without referring to God. It would be uncontroversial for me to say that happiness is good - that's agreed upon virtually universally.
Defend your proposition that happiness is good. Why is happiness good? What is the standard by which you declare happiness to be good?
Unhappiness can be good. Unhappiness can drive a person to take action to change things that should be changed, whether those things be of a personal nature or societal.
Quote:
Then, given human nature, there are certain virtues which objectively promote happiness for someone possessing that nature (so, most people, but not mentally unhealthy people such as the depressed or sociopaths, who should be treated).
I agree that virtue promotes happiness.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 03:15 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Happiness is good because it is the most pleasant of feelings and is universalizable - it's the greatest source of pleasure, and can be felt by all mentally healthy people. Unhappiness is only good inasmuch as the person feeling it knows that something is wrong, and should act to fix it so they can be happy. It isn't good in itself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 11:29 AM |
|
|
I cam't believe that you still cling to that nonsense.
Universalizable? Are you kidding?
Who defines what is "mentally healthy".
Let's take a simple example. Let's get back to ancient Rome. Circus games. People fighting against each other to the death - for the pleasure of the spectators and betters and whatnot. In games like Civ and others this is accepted as a tool to "raise people's happiness", because the people want to have fun.
Now, as a libertarian you will doubtlessly tell me that such a spectacle, since it served the increase of happiness not only was morale, it also would be morale, if introduced today instead of the boring box fights. Rollerball anyone? Or won't you?
But more importantly the question: How "mentally healthy" is that? Relishing to watch people fight to the death, increasing happiness. And WHO DECIDES?
Now, don't you think that, say, the society of the Huns or Vikings had a VASTLY different opinion on what would increase happiness in a mentally healthy way? And wouldn't you say they were just the same humans with the same human nature than the people today?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 11:43 AM |
|
|
Kant wrote.. But all can dont same, because of religion. An example of the Middle Ages, witches were burned, Jews in Nazi Germany and Soviet dissidents were placed in mental hospitals. My book gives the answer: "But it is not able to say anything about the virtues or the high values​​."
____________
Fight MWMs - stand teach
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 01:45 PM |
|
|
This discusion reminds me of the poor people of like Nepal who were like one of the happiest peoples on Earth. Their general idea of happiness is probably not as associated with wealth as in the western cultures.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 03:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Their general idea of happiness is probably not as associated with wealth as in the western cultures.
<imo, in general> the West lost its way a long time ago and should have got away from "I'm it and how can I be happy" (insert anything I can buy, repeat till I die) while in the East they've generally clung to community first. I hope the U.S. makes no more global converts to the God of Chains. i.e. ALL-marts, burger-joints etc.
How well the old ways are enduring in the East these days, I've no clue. Faith (any flavor) morals, values, family, community etc. all eventually fritter-way under the "ME-first" & eternal "I want" NEED! known as...greed.
Btw, when I posted once in Favor of God, all I heard was "define Good"; seems like that's been overlooked here. 
Like it or not people need standards to go-for and almost always they "initially" must come from the outside, the inside view is generally a little too slanted for one reason or another.
I think the world is in a bad way when it can turn Christ into something not desired and then hold that NItchky dude up as some sort of thinking role-model. Yuk, more I have all the answers and me-first but in an even nastier all-knowing tone. Person of God or Super-Person, I think a person's focus boils-down to one or the other...by default.
Since this reads like it should be a religious-answer thread; Christ gave two commandments; to love God with all that you are and your neighbor as yourself. Then he followed-up with laying his life down for all others. For me, there is not nor will ever be a finer example of community-focus over the serving of self & mammon (money, wealth etc.). Remember, the joiners of the early church gave all individual possessions to support the whole. e.g. In most cases to be more effective; Paul worked as a tentmaker to eliminate the argument about support(money)from his discussions.
Just curious; if not Christ then what person/thing do you hold-up as a personal-growth target?
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 06:14 PM |
|
Edited by fauch at 19:00, 21 Jul 2012.
|
Quote:
Their general idea of happiness is probably not as associated with wealth as in the western cultures.
well, if they are buddhists, it's not just about wealth. the idea is more to not make your happiness depends on outside factors.
Quote:
Now, don't you think that, say, the society of the Huns or Vikings had a VASTLY different opinion on what would increase happiness in a mentally healthy way? And wouldn't you say they were just the same humans with the same human nature than the people today?
that makes me think... there are no muslims here? well we often hear about muslims (well, that's the case for other religions as well, but for some reason we hear about islam more) who are adamant that their book, the coran, which appeared 1400 years ago I think, states the absolute truth (and I think it says so in the book as well)
even if we considered that their book was true 1400 years ago, wouldn't moral concepts for example have evolved since this time?
how does it not even come to their mind?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 07:27 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Who defines what is "mentally healthy".
Those who are involved in the sciences of psychology, psychiatry, etc. Cultures have had different ideas about what's healthy, but in our modern society, we have science, so we can actually find out.
I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing gladiatorial combat for willing participants or death row inmates. Is it mentally healthy? Situational. It's fine for those who can stomach it, but not everyone can. It's not something young children should be watching.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 09:37 PM |
|
|
|
America is seeking biblical model. An example of a sad someone is dead. It is a mental health problem. Better to find a web site.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2012 09:58 PM |
|
|
Death penalty is an example for an irrational and immoral behaviour. In all cases where a perp gets the death penalty without a cobfession, in all cases where it's not absolutely certain that the perp is actually the perp OR the deed was no accident or unplanned thing, the death penalty risks killing someone who is not guilty in the sense of justifying death penalty.
Consider that kind of behaviour in other situations.
It's like, "It's better to kill 1 innocent than let 9 perps do time instead of killing them."
Anyway. Mvass's points have dissolved into thin air, I'd say.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2012 12:35 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:52, 22 Jul 2012.
|
Quote:
even if we considered that their book was true 1400 years ago, wouldn't moral concepts for example have evolved since this time?
how does it not even come to their mind?
I'm pretty sure that a majority of all muslims in the world do not follow every single word that's written in the Quran.
Religion evolves too. It adapts to modern society, values and science. The muslims in Europe are already vastly different from those who live in like rural Afghanistan. And the difference will contiune to expand as Islam in Europe integrates more into european culture, ideals and values.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2012 12:46 AM |
|
|
|
of course, I was more thinking of the few muslims posing problems, trying to force their religion on everyone else.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
