No Harm Done: The Question of Morality
Pages
| Author | Topic: No Harm Done: The Question of Morality |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 15:45
Profile
Can you give me a rational argument as to why completely harmless behavior is wrong, then? Religious explanations by their very nature are irrational. Logic and emotion are what apply to the here and now, not the random whims of a god that may not even exist. Unless, of course, you can cite an example of something observably in this world that is clearly, unambiguously caused by a god. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 15:53
Profile
quote:Raising a slippery slope issue is not inherently fallacious. Slippery slopes exist. You've got to show that the slope is in fact not slippery in the case discussed. Then you can cry fallacy. In the example of swearing, I'd agree with you in a case with two people. But what if many people want not to hear certain words? Why should the many have to change just to indulge the whims of one? Apart from the argument, swearing is a fascinating social phenomenon. In French Quebec, the taboo words are the names of the objects involved in holy communion. 'Chalice!' will make grande-mère faint. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 16:02
Profile
Homepage
Heh. Wait a day and everyone beats you to the post. This is a quickie, sorry if I'm less than lucid. quote:Presents? When I did Profession (something almost but not completely unlike the RCC's Confirmation) all I got was some lousy theology books. :P Paragraph 6: You're still saying (or at least implying) that swearing is permissible because everyone does it. Probably better to say something along the line that it's the idea behind the word that matters, and since constant repetition has caused the word to lose its insulting/racial/whatever meaning, it is permissible to utter it. Not something I completely agree with, but it expounds on what you have. Pedophilia and Consent: Another thing I think you're missing is the possiblility of doing harm to oneself. I don't know what the age of consent in the States is, but in Canada it's 14. There's been a number of cases where girls over 14 move in with their 'boyfriends' against their parents' will. It's impossible for any legal action to take place, as both parties often consent, even in the cases where abuse is involved. More generally, there are thousands of abusive relationships out there, with both parties consenting. Is it still moral? Even ignoring the subjective nature of harm, I find your morality of 'do anything except harmful things' little different than the RCC's morality of 'do anything but this list of naugty things'. It tells you what not to do, but nothing else. Works Cited: I'm not familiar with footnote MLA, but as far as I know, this is the format for "Online: Electronic Text on the Web - MLA" <Author>. <Title of Article>. Trans. <Translator>. <Title of Site/Database>. <Editor>. <Date Article Created>. <Institution owning Site>. <Date Accessed> <http://sitename.com/article.html>. Use hanging indents (all lines but the first indented). Replace everything inside the angle brackets, keeping the puctuation (the exception being the hyperlink, which appears exactly as shown. The text I'm pulling this example from (Canadian MLA, as of 1999) wants underlining instead of italics. Don't underline the period. I think it is permissible to use italics or quotations, though. You can omit bits that don't apply (like Trans. <Translator>). Don't believe me, though, check exactly how the mag wants it to be. -------------------- Hobbes is for the weak! Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 16:31
Profile
quote:But the idea behind faith is that if a God did exist, then his whims would probably be the best reasons in the world to do something. Few things are completely harmless, and so I think the broader point is to define how one determines whether something is sufficiently harmful to another. On a side note, I'm eager to see whether your teacher agrees with anyone on the board. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 17:23
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Dintiradan: quote:So, your set of morals tells you what to do then, right, Dintiradan? (...I will become Evil Overlord. I will wear a helmet at all times. I will follow the Evil Overlord rules and guidelines. I will defeat those pesky heroes...) :P Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 18:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:You're skipping a step in religion. If you follow the religion, then its requirements are logical. God says so and God knows best. Religion itself is not rational, which is why you aren't religious anymore, but irrationality doesn't make a moral code inherently wrong or internally inconsistent. My argument for harmless behavior being wrong is SoT's. Suppose you are giving a speech and you sprinkle it with profanity. Suppose the audience of thousands (you're a popular speaker) does not like to hear profanity. You can convey the same information and emotions without resorting to profanity. Rationally, making thousands of people happier by not letting the speaker use profanity is better than making one person happier by allowing him to exercise his filthy vocabulary. It's optimization of happiness. —Alorael, who can make the same argument for even more neutral situations. If you have the choice between making someone unhappy or not and there is no real cost to you either way, don't make them unhappy. That's called being polite and it greases the rough bits of society. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 18:34
Profile
KANT x BENTHAM Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 18:36
Profile
Homepage
ADOS: Forming morals based on logic is an excellent topic for a paper, and I hope you get published. I can not disagree with you due to your flawless reasoning, but can I ask why you disagree with me? Am I not just as logical as you? Alorael: I don't think profanity harms people. I specifically said people choose to be offended by it. The same goes for nails on a chalk board. Why do people act like that hurts their ears? Even if it does hurt your ears, that makes it damaging, and should thus not be compared to cursing, which does not damage. Then you say I think random acts of violence are acceptable. Did you read what I wrote? I hope you were exaggerating there. As for manners, I believe respect is due to those that earn it, that's manners, right? SoT+Alorael: You're right on the point that since most people don't like hearing profanity, one should avoid it. I cannot argue against that. But I think ADOS is speaking more hypothetically. I, personally, think it should never have gotten this way. Now it's like some kind of self-fulfilling prophesy, bad words are bad because we say they are, and doing so makes people want to say them with negative connotations. It should never have gotten this way in the first place. It got this way because people chose to be offended by these words. It's almost hypocritical, the way they empower the words by putting them on a pedestal. Stupid humans. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 18:37: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 19:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:First, give us a rational argument as to why harmful behaviour is wrong, without simply defining "wrong" as "harmful". quote:You're so tantalisingly close to grasping an important point, but you don't quite make the logical leap -- certain words are designated as vulgar precisely because doing so makes them a useful shorthand to denote the tone of a statement. When we use them, either we're saying something about ourselves ("I'm tough, I swear a lot"; or "I'm extremely frustrated and wish to express this fact") or about our audience ("I am using this word as a sign of hostility toward you"). This is all pretty basic speech act theory. [ Sunday, October 15, 2006 19:19: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 20:11
Profile
Homepage
Profanity isn't harmful. Neither are nails on chalkboards. They're matters of politeness. Yes, I was exaggerating about random harm, but you seem to take a very bleak, might makes right view. It's a small leap from there to a state of nature. —Alorael, who already mentioned that logic can't output values without an a priori value input. Defining "harmful" as "wrong" is acceptable to most people. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 20:26
Profile
To be honest here, I just wanted to submit a post today. No other topic looks vaguely like an argument, so here I am. Alorael - to extend your allegory of the profane, yet popular speechmaker. The choice to use profane words was (I assume) spur of the moment, otherwise he would have been guaranteed a captivated audience, like George Carlin and his magnificent 7. If the audience was caught unawares, there is always the door. No one is forced to be offended, especially in a public meeting hall. The flip side, harkening back to Vinnie's main point, is that the audience could be made up of psychiatry patients, all of whom had undergone hypnosis and had trigger words (and actions) left in their subconsciousness. In that case, it may cause harm to use any word, not necessarily one that has been arbitrarily assigned a negative connotation by some person or organization in the distant past. Would it be best to just stop speaking? Beauty, and morality, lies in the eyes of the beholder. I may see actions as amoral that another finds immoral, and the actor finds to be moral. That is the banality of civilization. Even in the search for conformity, it is our differences that allow our society to grow and prosper. :P -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 21:18
Profile
quote:This is relativism, and why it works. The flip side of that is whether you can accept the typical trial case for the boundaries of cultural relativism: female circumcision or something similarly horrible. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, October 15 2006 22:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's the best part: you don't have to accept it, as long as one of your cultural values is that it's A-OK to force your values on another culture. Sure, objectively your values may not be any better than theirs, but cultural relativism means you don't have to care about that. :P -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 00:17
Profile
Nice how that works. Objectivism versus relativism is something like a false dichotomy. Sure, literally they're exclusive. But all the impressive features I can see in relativism can be stolen by objectivism, if it is tempered with humility about one's own perception of truth, and sophisticated in considering moral questions in social context. And I see nothing inconsistent about being objectivist about a few core principles, and broad-mindedly relativist about everything else. In this way I think it can be perfectly consistent to say that my culture's appreciation of the validity of other cultural attitudes is one of the things that makes my culture better than others. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 00:28
Profile
Homepage
On one hand, objectively ruling one culture better smacks of "tolerance for everything except that which I disagree with". On the other hand, female circumcision is arguably and objectively Bad. It is dangerous (health and infection-wise), painful, and does not benefit the ones subjected to it in any way. Which leaves us with ADoS' argument. As for why harmful behavior is wrong: Morals are impossible to objectively base in something if we don't accept things as absolute. I think of it as something like a language or a currency. There is no absolute meaning to it, but if it is accepted as-is, it somehow allows society to function. A bigger problem is the definition of "harmful" here. Firstly, it is individual - peanuts are not commonly held to be a lethal substance, and yet they can kill some people instantly. Secondly, psychological harm is fuzzily defined. How do we know there aren't people who really do feel harmed by certain words? And these words aren't always obvious. For example, my sister can't hear the word "beheading". She says it brings up her lunch. Is she being "harmed" by that word? If we allow images (which are representations after all, like language), then I am so badly arachnophobic I have to close the browser when I see a picture of a spider. Is it harming me? -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 01:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:I briefly considered replying to this post with a big picture of a spider, but then realised that in all probability the community would think me a tremendous heel for doing so. I think that answers the salient question, which is whether it's always okay to do things that offend people but cause no other harm. (Incidentally, it was a really impressive spider. And I think we can also agree that you have nobody but yourself to blame if you click that link.) -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 03:25
Profile
Homepage
And I won't. Thank you very much indeed for making it a link. :) So community pressure and reputation are another factor to consider in the whole mess of ethics. Edit: Are, not is. "and" implies a plural, dammit. [ Monday, October 16, 2006 05:07: Message edited by: Robert Daniel Oliver ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 05:25
Profile
Umm... I don't know if any of you noticed, but I didn't argue that things that cause harm are wrong. Rather, I argued that things that do no harm have no practical reason to be considered wrong. I made a single statement to the effect of harm = wrong in the first unitalicized paragraph in my first draft, but the statement was removed in the revised draft. It's not the whims of one, SoT. It's the whims of many against the whims of many, with a surprising amount of overlap. I tried to find a study as to the specific statistics, but failed. Perhaps someone could find one? Tullegolar, surprisingly, makes a good point, and Thuryl extends it to a logical conclusion. Aran makes a good point as well, which is part of what leads me to my conclusions about swearing. You could be offended by anything at all. I could say "I'm offended by names" Would that mean that, to be polite, we should all refer to each other as "Hey, you"? I don't think it does. Note about the pedophilia: Read what I wrote. Think about it. Read it again. Understand what I'm saying. Then comment. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. If the relationship is abusive, legally or not, then it is not covered by my argument. Even putting aside the fuzzy definition of "abuse", I specifically stated that I refer strictly to attraction to children and nothing further than that. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 07:32
Profile
I was just trying to raise a principle that you seemed not to be recognizing. Maybe we can agree that if everyone around you is swearing, it's cool, and the few offended people shouldn't have come in if they didn't want to hear that kind of thing. If the proportions present go the other way, though, it's wrong to swear. Not terribly wrong, but still immoral. And if the proportions are roughly equal, both groups of people ought to exert themselves to tolerate each other. When I was in college I was also in the army reserve. While at school I wouldn't split an infinitive in my thoughts, but after a day in the field on a training exercise, my language started to deteriorate. After two days it went right to —. Though I never went quite as far as the guys who used four letter words as punctuation. Some of those guys could command attention by suddenly not swearing. The principle is that in something as insignificant as vocabulary you should respect the prevailing local standards, whatever they are. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 07:44
Profile
Homepage
The majority can ignore the lunatic fringe offended by names. There's a solid majority in many places offended by profanity, though, so as SoT it's a good idea to avoid it unless you know who's around you. If nearly everyone swore, or more precisely if nearly everyone thought it's okay to swear in a public setting, you could get away with it everywhere. ADoS, you're still missing a key point of relativism. Almost nobody does things that are harmful without believing in a benefit. Female circumcision is considered right, good, necessary, and so on by the practitioners. It's the same as religion: what right do you have as a non-member to judge the members? You are, after all, no more objective than they are since you're just as partisan to your "rational" view. —Alorael, who would really like to know how Aran and his arachnophobia ended up playing games by Spiderweb Software. More importantly, Aran, do you identify strongly with Crisper? Are the GIFTS truly terrifying? Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 16:10
Profile
Homepage
I realize that this is probably going to drown in the flood of other sub-threads, but I need to take back part of what I said earlier... There is a major difference between causing harm and causing offense. Though I do maintain that you don't choose to be offended, only the principles that influence what offends you. -------------------- Eht Saltne Ississan spalltd cufftt un my ktybuird ind scrtwtd sumtehang op. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 20:10
Profile
I believe he's gonna submit it today. Aren't you all glad that online forums are not the ones grading your papers? -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 20:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:You know, I'd rather have you guys edit than most of my professors: here, I'd actually get relevant, effective, and even challenging feedback instead of just hearing what the professor's view is again. and again. and again. -------------------- The Silent Assassin told me to come up with the tag section for him tonight. So here it is. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Monday, October 16 2006 21:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:Seconded. And TAs are just as bad, only less interested. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Tuesday, October 17 2006 07:20
Profile
quote:I take issue with stating that religious explanations must be irrational AND with stating "random whims of a God..." With reference to the first point, logic is simply correct reasoningn nothing more or less. A person is logical when he/she reasons correctly. Being “illogical” amounts to engaging in incorrect reasoning. The bible documents many cases where Jesus or other early Christian writers used thought and logic to argue their cases in a rational discourse. For instance, he used logic to argue with Satan in Matthew 4:1-11, to provide reason why he should resist Satan's temptations (this is also evidence of a God that does not act on capricious whims but is likewise engaged in a rational interaction with the human world). Similarly, Jesus debated the Pharisees and other spiritual leaders (being at that time the educated elite as well)concerning taxes (pay to Caesar what is his due - Matthew 22:15-22), healing on the sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), concerning marriage - Matthew 22:23-33) and the list goes on. These debates reveal a logical, structured mind interested in rational defense of various positions. Throughout the book of Acts Paul/Saul is variously described as "reasoned", "explaining and demonstrating", “explaining and demonstrating”. It is important to biblical writers to emphasize logic and reasoning, the use of sound doctrine is continuously reinforced and therefore shows that reasoning, logic and the use of the human mind are important elements to a Christian beliefe systems. One is allowed/nay encouraged to question Christianity using rational arguments. Post Jesus' death early Christian intellects continued to consider issues of logic and the laws of metaphysics when expounding doctrine. An example of this would be the development of religious theory to support the doctrine of the Trinity (God three in one). It is accepted that if God created the world, then he also created ationality and that this must play a role in development of sound theologic doctrines.logic and metaphysical categories. Whether or not one accepts a religion as "real" is separate from whether or not a religion can defend its doctrines a reasoned, logical manner and whether or not those doctrines can stand up to scientific testing. Consider relions as a scientific theory if you will. Consider doctrine as a series of if-then statements. Chrisitianity is rational and practical in its defense of cause and effect and in support of its doctrine. -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
