tjfields

dream_weaver, From post #273, “In post #270 you provided a nicely structured restatement the earlier posts. As to how it relates to morality, they (though not exhaustively) would be the type of concretes subsumed under the concept of morality.” I understand that you are stating that the statement made in post #270 relates to morality. I also understand that you may believe it and/or feel that it is right. But I still do not understand how it relates to morality. Can you explain how it relates to morality in some way other than continually stating that it relates to morality? Additionally, how does your concept of morality relate to the original post? Again, I will relate this to the original post as I did in post #263 and #267 and #270: one cannot make the statement: if I choose to live, then killing the man who washed up on the beach is the incorrect action to take to achieve my choice of staying alive, because this is not true based on the facts of reality that pertain to living. I choose to live, I kill the man who washed up on the beach, I still live, and therefore, the killing of the man who washed up on the beach was not the incorrect action to achieve my choice of staying alive. How does morality figure into this?

dream_weaver, Your post #268, does not explain how the facts of reality that pertain to living translate to morality. You state, “Consuming water is an oversimplification. You have to acquire the knowledge to ensure it's potable” Let us slightly change the statement from post #267 and #259 to: If you chose to live, then you have to acquire the knowledge to ensure that water is potable, and then you have to use that knowledge to ensure that the water is potable, and then you have to consume the water. Acquiring the knowledge, using the knowledge, and consuming water are the correct actions to take in order to achieve your choice of staying alive. Not acquiring the knowledge, and/or not using the knowledge, and/or not consuming water are the incorrect actions to take in order to achieve your choice of staying alive. How does this relate to morality? Again, I will relate this to the original post as I did in post #267 and #263: one cannot make the statement: if I choose to live, then killing the man who washed up on the beach is the incorrect action to take to achieve my choice of staying alive, because this is not true based on the facts of reality that pertain to living. I choose to live, I kill the man who washed up on the beach, I still live, and therefore, the killing of the man who washed up on the beach was not the incorrect action to achieve my choice of staying alive. How does morality figure into this?

dream_weaver, From post #266, “By post #260 you had essentially stated how morality reduced to the facts of reality. It can't be broken down any further, though someone else may be able to couch it differently.” And, “The answer to the question "What would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living?" is in essence morality.” In answer to the question, “what would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living,” my answer is there are four. A human being, by the nature of human beings, 1) needs to breathe oxygen, 2) consume water, 3) consume food, and 4) make use of shelter in order to live. This is true of every human being. While there are variations among individuals e.g. some people can live longer without eating than others and the climate one lives in will determine the type and extent of the shelter one needs, etc., it is a fact of reality that every human being will cease to live if deprived of one or more of these four things for a long enough period of time. Everything else beyond these four is not required for a human being to live. So to reiterate my statement from post #259, if you chose to live, then consuming water is the correct action to take in order to achieve your choice, and if you choose to live, then not consuming water is the incorrect action to take in order to achieve your choice (You can substitute any of the other three facts for water). The reasons that these choices in this context are either correct or incorrect are based on the facts of reality that pertain to living. I understand that you are stating that this is how morality is reduced to the facts of reality. But I do not understand how. Can you explain? Further, I do not understand how the facts of reality that pertain to living answer the question in the original post. To reiterate what I stated in post #263, one cannot make the statement: if I choose to live, then killing the man who washed up on the beach is the incorrect action to take to achieve my choice, because this is not true based on the facts of reality that pertain to living. I choose to live, I kill the man who washed up on the beach, I still live, and therefore, the killing of the man who washed up on the beach was not the incorrect action to achieve my choice. How does morality figure into this? Additionally, I have never requested for you to address my choice of substituting the word kill for murder in your OP because I have never substituted the word kill for murder. I wrote the question in the original post as: “Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach?” and have not changed the word kill to murder in any of my posts. The question is what it is. If you choose to read the question in the original post as "Why is murder wrong, improper or immoral?" then that is your choice.

StrictlyLogical, From post #261, “I think the answers to help you understand lie in the difference (perceived) you have between the questions you feel you can answer (correctness) and those which you feel you cannot answer (morality, right and wrong).” I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that I perceive a difference between two types of questions and that perception is why I do not understand? Or are you saying that since I feel I can answer some questions but cannot answer other questions, this feeling is the cause of my not understanding? Or is it something else? Also from post #261, “If a hypothetical person told you "literally Nothing i.e. that which does not exist" in fact tells you how you should live your life. How would you respond?” I do not know exactly how I would respond since I have not been asked. However, my first answer would be that for me (disregarding the original post for a moment), whether it be cultural norms that I have been indoctrinated with since birth, a legal system that compels me to live a certain way via force or threat of force, wishful thinking on my part about how I want to live based on the various events that occurred in my life and my physiological responses to those events, or something else, there is something, not nothing, that tells me how I should live my life.

dream_weaver, From post #260, “Your [sic] pretty much explained how morality ties into it right here.” How? I still do not understand how this is moral. Can you explain it, perhaps, in the context of the questions asked in the original post? Your position seems to be: if I choose to live, killing the man who washed up on the beach is immoral (please correct me if I am wrong about your position). Unlike the example of water (if I choose to live, then consuming water is the correct action to take to achieve my choice), where it is a fact of reality, based on the nature of being a human, that unless a human consumes water the human will die, the killing of the man on the beach does not end my life. One cannot make the statement: if I choose to live, then killing the man who washed up on the beach is the incorrect action to take to achieve my choice, because this is not true. I choose to live, I kill the man who washed up on the beach, I still live, and therefore, the killing of the man who washed up on the beach was not the incorrect action to achieve my choice. What am I missing? Can you please explain?

dream_weaver, From post #254, “Morality is a requirement of human life (conceptual consciousness) in general. Any human being, should they choose to live, require it.” Can you please explain this statement further? I understand that due to the nature of human beings certain things are required in order to live e.g. oxygen, water, food, shelter. I also understand that if a person chooses to live then that person needs to obtain and use oxygen, water, food, and shelter in order to fulfill that choice and stay alive. I also understand that in the context of the choice to stay alive, there can be correct or incorrect actions, e.g. if you chose to live, then consuming water is the correct action to take in order to achieve your choice, and if you choose to live, then not consuming water is the incorrect action to take in order to achieve your choice. The reasons that these choices in this context are either correct or incorrect are based on the facts of reality. What I do not understand is how morality enters the picture. You seem to be saying something like: if you choose to live, then consuming water is the moral action to take in order to achieve your choice and if you choose to live, then not consuming water is the immoral action to take in order to achieve your choise. How does the fact that a human being needs to consume water if that human being is to remain alive (a fact of reality), translate into a morality?

Devil’s Advocate, From post #255: “Is that another statement of fact? It seems to me that the ability to respond to a question of wrong behavior necessarily presumes some reference to proper behavior. If we cannot agree to common definitions, perhaps you can provide the necessary part of the ethical evaluation you're asking for; wrong compared to what? One interesting variation of your OP would be, how would you explain yourself to a shipmate who washed ashore a mile or so from the first man, and who caught you in the act of killing him? Would your life continue to go on exactly as before?? What if the first man regained consciousness and asked you not to kill him???” I do not understand your line of questioning. You provided your answers to the questions asked in the original post and in post #221 you stated that your position has not changed. It appears that you are attempting to determine whether or not I have some moral theory of my own that I am attempting to put forward. I do not. As I responded to StrickyLogical in post #250, I am not trying to push my own viewpoint nor am I trying to discredit anyone else’s viewpoint. I am trying to learn and I ask questions because I wish to understand. You provided your answers to the questions in the original post, thank you for doing so, and unless you are changing or modifying your answers, I do not understand the point of your recent posts.

Devil's Advocate, From post #246, " 1) Is your statement of fact genuine? ... and if so... 2) Is living your life to the fullest of your ability appropriate given the circumstances in which you find yourself?" The answer to both of the questions is that I do not know.

dream_weaver, From post #249, "It is (human) life, not 'your life specifically' that serves as the standard of morality. Your life specifically serves as the basis of another aspect of morality." From post #228, " Morality is only necessary if the choice is to live." How do these two thoughts fit together? If it is not my life specifically, where does the choice to live that makes morality necessary come from? Are you suggesting that there is some entity called human life that chooses to live therefore there is some standard of morality?

StrickyLogical, From post #245: "Do you think that Morality is somehow unknowable? What is it about about your concept of Morality that makes it unknowable? What is the existential status of something which is "unknowable"? Do you think that Morality is unrelated to facts of reality? What is the existential status of something which is unrelated to facts of reality? Do you think Morality is unrelated to correctness? Of what possible use or relevancy to anything in your life could something completely divorced of correctness possibly have?" These are all good questions. All of which I am not in a position to answer at this point. That is the reason I started this thread; I wanted to understand what others thought. My questions regarding the various posts are not meant to frustrate anyone nor are they an attempt to push my own view; I ask questions because I am trying to learn. I have received many answers, and I appreciate them all, but I still do not understand.

dream_weaver, My apologies. I missed typed in post #242. It should have read reality not relativity. I am sorry for the confusion. As to your post #244, if "morality... is a is a fact of relativity, the relativity of your actions, how they relate to your continued existence or not" what is answer to the question in the original post? Was it wrong, or immoral, to kill the man who washed up on the beach given the fact that I continue to exist after killing the man?

Devil's Advocate, From post #238, " I'm using the term 'proper' according to the same definition you are..." I never used the term proper to describe anything in the original post. I am not using the term at all. So to restate my answer from post #235, I consider the statement, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself", a statement of fact. I do not understand how one could assign terms such as "correct" and "proper" to a statement of fact.

dream_weaver, From post #241, " Gravity is a metaphysically given. It is why, if you chose to live, you do not step off the edge of a dropoff in the Grand Canyon. Morality dictates that if you choose to live, that step would be antithetical to that choice." If you chose to live and you step off the edge of a drop off in the Grand Canyon, you will cease to live. This is a fact of relativity. How does morality come into this? Going back to the original post, I killed the man who washed up on the beach. I continue to live. The action of killing the man who washed up on the beach did not end my life. How is this either moral or immoral?

deram_weaver, From post #236, "As to choosing to live translating to morality, what part of post #228 did you specifically not understand?" From post #228, "The question of whether these activites [sic] are moral action to take or not rest on your choice to live." Why? From post #228, "If you choose to live, the right identification and actions need be identified and performed." How is this moral? I will repeat the question from post #234: If I choose to live, I ought to breathe (do you agree that this action can be identified as one that is necessary in order live and therefore should be performed?). Does this make breathing a moral or ethical action? If so, how?

Harrison Danneskjold, From post #232, " The correct answer is that it is immoral to kill strangers because it is usually not the optimum choice" and " Your question would essentially be accurate; its moral status is dependent on the conclusion you thusly reach. I just don't believe that anyone could honestly come to the wrong conclusion, given enough information." Since you have reached the conclusion that it is immoral to kill strangers because it is usually not the optimum choice and you honestly believe that you have not come to the wrong conclusion, then, given my personal experience in discussing topics with those who are convinced that their beliefs are right, there is nothing more to add. Thank you for your answer to the questions asked in the original post.

Devil's Advocate, From post #231, " When you say, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself", do you consider this to be correct and proper behavior? If so, why? If not, what is the relevance of asking whether a meaningless act of unprovoked aggression without consequence is wrong??" I consider the statement, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself", a statement of fact. I do not understand how one could assign terms such as "correct" and "proper" to a statement of fact. Can you explain it to me?

dream_weaver, From post #228, "The question of whether these activites [sic] are moral action to take or not rest on your choice to live" and "Morality is only necessary if the choice is to live." Can you please explain how my choice to live translate to morality? I asked Eiuol this question in post #177 and will ask you here again: if I choose to live, I ought to breathe. Does this make breathing a moral or ethical action? If so, how?

Harrison Danneskjold, From post #215, “You asked if it's moral to kill a random stranger on a desert island. To answer your own question, simply compare that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving your life. “ I asked in post #218, “So are you concluding that the answer to the question in the original post is that killing the man who washed up on the beach may be right or it may be wrong, it depends on the conclusion that I come to after comparing that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving my life?” And your answer from post #226 was, “It was an attempt to clarify my own reasoning behind it” but this did not answer the question. Then in post #226, you dispense with moral terms and ask “Is it healthy or unhealthy to eat poison?” You then state that “Now, with regard to poison, we could form different conclusions about its harmfulness, but only one conclusion is correct.” I agree. This is similar to asking what 2+2 equals or does an object fall to the earth when dropped. You then conclude that because we can determine whether it is healthy or unhealthy to eat poison then “The same applies ro [sic] the op” and that (from post #227) “There is only one right answer.” Can you explain what the only right answer is, why it is the right answer, and how we know it is the right answer?

Devil’s Advocate, If your position has not changed and you still believe that it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because of ethical reciprocity, then why the concern or questions over the wording in the original post? What does it matter? You have answered the question and provided your reason why you answered the question the way that you did. In response to your question from post# 221 of, “So again, and again, wrong compared to what?” I say that I cannot answer you because, using what appears to be the circular logic you have promoted, the only way to answer your question is to provide you a “what” that is not wrong. But we cannot know if that “what” provided is not wrong unless we compare that “what” to another “what” that is wrong. But we cannot know if another “what” is wrong unless we compare it to another “what” that is not wrong. Again, I cannot answer your question.

dream_weaver, From post #223, “If you were to discover outside your abode, be it a cave or man-made structure, poison ivy and poison sumack encroaching on the entrance, would you leave it and contract a case of poison ivy or sumack on a regualr recurring basis, or might you remove it?” This question is similar to the one asked in post #219 and the answer is the similar. If you are asking is killing, or removing, the poison ivy or sumack the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poison ivy or sumack causes you to contract a case of poison ivy or sumack . If you are asking is killing, or removing, the poison ivy or sumack the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know.

dream_weaver, From post #219, “If you ran across a deadly yew tree on your island and consumed the fruit, or some poisonous mushrooms, would you consider it right or wrong to consume them?” The answer to this question depends on what you are asking. Are you asking is it right to consume the poisonous fruit or mushroom with “right” meaning correct or “right” meaning moral? If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. For example, if you are trying to accomplish living for another day, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would not be the correct action to take because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not live for another day. If you are trying to accomplish your death then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would be the correct action because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not be alive. If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know. All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me.

Harrison Danneskjold, From post #215, “You asked if it's moral to kill a random stranger on a desert island. To answer your own question, simply compare that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving your life. “ So are you concluding that the answer to the question in the original post is that killing the man who washed up on the beach may be right or it may be wrong, it depends on the conclusion that I come to after comparing that action to each and every possibility it excludes, as they relate to improving my life? If this is the case, do you agree that it is possible that you and I and anyone else could come to different conclusions about whether it was right or wrong to kill the man on the beach? If so, are all the different conclusions equally valid? Additionally, is it possible that my conclusion about whether killing of the man on the beach was right or wrong could change over time?

Devil’s Advocate, From post #213, “To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong. What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?” I do not understand from where this question is coming. In post #2, in response to the question of whether it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach, you answered, “Yes” But then after more than 200 different posts discussing this subject, of which you contributed many, you write in post #207, “What is this wrong of which you speak? I know not...” Has your thinking on this subject changed? As to your question from post #213, “To ask if something is wrong is meaningless without some reference to something not wrong. What in your scenario is not wrong prior to the man washing up on the beach?” I will apply what appears to be the circular logic you are promoting, and respond with: To ask if something is not wrong is meaningless without some reference to something wrong.

Harrison Danneskjold, From post #208, “Love of life must be the ultimate value because the alternative (hypothetically infinite alternatives but the only plausible one) is happiness.” I understand that you are claiming that “love of life” is the ultimate value and I am not questioning that that is your claim. Your arguments appear to be premised on your concept of ultimate value so I am trying to understand your premise. In post #191 you wrote, “3: true joy is the joy of existence, which means: To be happy THAT you're alive. This is crucial because that joy, the love OF LIFE, is our ultimate value.” In post #205 I asked, “What does “love life” mean?” Then I continued, in reference to the original post, “If it means to love the fact that I am alive, then I love life even after killing the man who washed up on the beach because I am still alive.” You have not directly answered this question; rather you just restated your starting premise. I think that I am having trouble understanding your positions, arguments and conclusions because you are not making them clear and/or they are ever changing. Case in point: your statement: “It would be moral to cut off your own leg in order to survive but not just for kicks.” You stated in post #201, “…it's immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot.” When you made this statement, you did not include any qualifiers, any “expect in the case of” or “if this” or “if that”, you simply declared that it was immoral. When I then asked you in post #205, “Is an action, such as intentionally shooting yourself in the foot, always immoral or can it be a moral action if it makes it easier to live and love life as in the case of shooting yourself in the foot so that you will be removed from a life threatening battlefield”, you stated that, “All actions are only moral or immoral relative to their alternatives (because the alternate is absolutism). It would be moral to cut off your own leg in order to survive but not just for kicks.” Are we to infer from your response about cutting off your leg that even though you declared that it is immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot, you really did not mean it? Did you really mean to write something like: it is immoral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot if [fill in the blank], but it is moral to intentionally shoot yourself in the foot if [fill in the blank]? Should we infer from your response about morality being relative to alternatives that when you declared “Killing random strangers is immoral” you really did not mean it? Did you really mean to write something like: killing random strangers is immoral if [fill in the blank], but it is moral to kill random strangers if [fill in the blank]?

Devil’s Advocate, From post #207, “I adopted my position from your scenario in which you never establish a moral benchmark...” So is your position one of: something is wrong only when compared to something right and something is right only when compared to something wrong?