Simple questions of right and wrong

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Strictly logical:

We're still establishing the fundamentals, although i suspect there may be some method to this madness.

Tj fields:

It was an attempt to clarify my own reasoning behind it.

---

Let's dispense with the moral terms for a moment, because i think they're getting in the way.

Is it healthy or unhealthy to eat poison? Now, with regard to poison, we could form different conclusions about its harmfulness, but only one conclusion is correct.

And if we really wanted to know which was correct we could try an experiment to find out (so long as Im the control group).

The same applies ro the op.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

There is only one right answer. The only question is whether you know it.

Now it isn't wrong to commit an error of ignorance, but it isn't beneficial either.

It is not immoral to eat poison if you truly think it's food, but your innocence will not spare you the physical consequences.

This is one reason why it's so important to find the truth.

Now. . .

---

It does depend on your conclusion, but this conclusion must be sincere; evasion is the root of all evil.

It is possible for multiple people to form different conclusions but only one is valid.

Now ask yourself what the physical and mental advantages are of other people.

[dream_weaver]

One more scenerio, tjfields.

 

You've already recognised that pursuence of life requires consumption of living entities in many forms. If you built your own shelter, unless you built it stricly from rock, timber or reeds to thatch a roof might be required. If fish or animal is on the menu, the animal must give up its life in order to feed you. Consuming the produce of the land would exhaust the land unless you managed it by not consuming the feed stock.

 

With this in mind, do you clearcut the land of all vegetation and kill all the animals and stockpile them so you can free up your time to consuming and entertaining yourself on a full time basis?

 

In post #220 you stated:

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.

 

In post #224 you replied:

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.

 

The question of whether these activites are moral action to take or not rest on your choice to live. Parphrasing from what I recall of the OP, you have managed to become quite self-sufficient, even to the extent of devising entertainment of some fashion. This implies you've not only chosen to live, and are not content with mere subsistence, you want the "good life".

 

Deciding what to eat, what to build, what to devise for entertainment involve a complexity of actions which rest on two things. The right identification of what it is you are dealing with, and the right action to take with regard to the particulars.

Consciousness is identification. Identification is a process. Ascertaining on if this should be performed rightly or wrongly is made in the light of the choice to live or not. If you choose to live, the right identification and actions need be identified and performed. If you do not choose to live, no further identification or actions are necessary to accomplish that. Morality is only necessary if the choice is to live.

Edited August 30, 2013 by dream_weaver

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It would be moral to kill the castaway if, for instance, you were so dehydrated you thought he was a monster.

But so long as you're genuinely searching for THE truth (necessitated by the choice to live) this isn't an issue; such mistakes can only be rare occurrences, thusly.

To evade the correct answer invalidates any innocent error.

---

Morality is not subjective but it is contextual.

The truth is within your grasp.

[tjfields]

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]

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.

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??

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The correct answer is that it is immoral to kill strangers because it is usually not the optimum choice.

A human being, in general, can improve your life more than anything else that exists.

When one meets a stranger for the first time, the value they can actually bestow is a complete blank- all we know is that they are human, in general terms, and so some potentially massive value is all we can infer.

To kill a stranger is to destroy that hypothetical value; precisely analogous to burning your own crops or removing your own foot.

There are exceptions to this, even for strangers, but none applicable to the op.

---

This is based on the premises that one should be selfish and that the most selfish thing to do would be to wake the stranger up and say hello.

---

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.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Autism directly applies to the value of others.

An autistic person is someone who, for whatever reason, has no idea that other people exist.

They see faces and hands, they hear voices, but that these things might be part of someone else is completely foreign to them.

Now, for all that independence and creativity are Objectivist virtues, (and some of the smartest people on earth are autistic) does that sound like a desirable existence; to be utterly alone in the universe?

---

Because the op is describing someone in similar circumstances who actually rejects the possibility of change.

[tjfields]

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?

[tjfields]

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]

If you think you can hold your breath or stop breathing, you will find out that there are automatic functions of your body that are outside your choice to over-ride save perhaps temporarily. If you could hold your breath until you passed out, upon passing out your medulla oblongotta would resume the breathing function for you. 

 

As to choosing to live translating to morality, what part of post #228 did you specifically not understand?

Edited August 31, 2013 by dream_weaver

[tjfields]

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]

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?

I'm using the term 'proper' according to the same definition you are...

 

Can you please explain why it is the proper to take the moral or ethical position that every action in the scenario is wrong until there is something correct to compare it to? Couldn’t one say that every action in the scenario is correct until there is something wrong to compare it to? Wouldn’t this be a proper starting position to take or at least as proper as the position you take?

If I Google 'proper', I get...

--

proper

adjective

1. truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine.

2. of the required type; suitable or appropriate.

--

Now, if we limit the meaning of 'proper' to the common definition just provided, was it proper for you to...

"I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself", or to...

"I use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those things that I need to live"

 

??

Edited August 31, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

This simple question reminds me of Monty Python's argument sketch

--

M: But that was never five minutes just now! (pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)  Oh Come on!  Oh this is...  This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...  I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.)  There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing???  Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
O: (pause) No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!  If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.  I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

--

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-arguement.html

[tjfields]

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?

[dream_weaver]

And I will rephrase what was alluded to in post #236. Breathing is outside the scope of the choice to live (morality). It is an automatic function that can be over-rode volitionally for short spans of time. As such, it is essentially outside the scope of morality in this regard, unless you discover the other aspects (of morality) necessary to continue breathing.

 

Consciousness is identification. Identifcation is a process. The identification of what are moral actions requires the correct identification of what choices are of moral stature and those which fall outside moral province. Gravity, thirst, and heartbeat are generally outside the scope of morality. You have no choice with regard to gravity, thirst or your heartbeat. 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. Thirst is metaphyscally given. It is why, if you choose to live, you seek something to drink when you are thirsty. Your heartbeat is an automatic function of your medulla oblongotta, and while you may be able to consciously alter its rate of beating, it is outside the province of morality in that you do not have to consciously focus on making it beat as it does so on its own without your chosing it to do so, providing you discover the other aspects (of morality) that are required to keep it doing so.

Edited September 1, 2013 by dream_weaver

[tjfields]

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?  

[tjfields]

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]

tjfields,

 

From post #242, "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?"

Morality, too, is a fact of relativity, the relativity of your actions, how they relate to your continued existence or not. Those actions which further, enhance, and continue life would be the moral, those which frustrate, worsen or cease life would not.

 

I was not trying to address your choice to murder the unconscious man on the beach in the OP, only to guide your attention to what serves as the standard of measurment for morality, although I think it relates to defaulting on using your consciousness properly in making the correct identifications. The KKK judged by the color of the skin to select their victims. The Germans used a nationality to select theirs during WWII. In your hypothetical case, simply being "man"  was sufficient.

 

Added.

Edited September 1, 2013 by dream_weaver

[StrictlyLogical]

dream_weaver,

 

...

 

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.

 

dream_weaver,

 

...

 

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.

 

 

tjfields

 

I notice from these responses that:

 

A.  There are questions of "correctness" which you can and do answer:

"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 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 ."

 

Also from your answers you are comfortable in your ability to know facts of reality, such as

"All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me."

 

B.  There are questions regarding moral action and morality as such which you believe you cannot answer.

"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."

"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."

 

 

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? 

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

You never used the term fact in the OP either, and yet you have no problem using it here.  Since you are reluctant to acknowledge the relevance of the term proper to the term fact, I'll add the common definition for the term you introduced to the one you're objecting to...

--

fact

noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

 

proper  (re-posted from #238)

adjective

1. truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine.

2. of the required type; suitable or appropriate.

--

Since you're introducing a term not included in the OP, I fail to see how my responding with a related term is contrary to getting at the answer you seek.

 

You say, "I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself", is a statement of fact.

I ask if living your life to the fullest of your ability given the circumstances in which you find yourself is proper, meaning...

 

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?

Edited September 1, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Killing a random stranger is not morally equivalent to suicide; it doesn't necessarily make you worse off than you had been.

It is analogous to taking a huge mound of money [hypothetical value; future value] and burning it.

To declare that another persons happiness has nothing to do with your own is autistic metaphysics.

Furthermore the ultimate value isn't measured by a static baseline; this isn't congressional spending.

To improve is good. To sustain is contemptible.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[tjfields]

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?

[dream_weaver]

Is it wrong or immoral to murder an unconscious man if the act is referred to merely as killing rather than murder? Hmm. 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.

 

Does substituting the word "kill" for the word "murder" abdicate the moral implications that murder implies?

[tjfields]

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.