Simple questions of right and wrong

[tjfields]

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?

[tjfields]

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.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

What's selfish about human life, in general? Does it benefit me?

If someone were trying to choose which car to drive or where to live, how should the interests of humanity in general affect that?

The space treaty was written specifically for humanity in general and i consider that the most evil law i have ever had inflicted on me, bar none.

I think that line of reasoning leads to bad places.

[dream_weaver]

Morality is a requirement of human life (conceptual consciousness) in general. Any human being, should they choose to live, require it.

 

Life, in general, requires food and water, therefore your life specifically requires food and water for its continuence.

 

Life, in general, requires knowledge of how to cultivate food and make water palatable, therefore your life specifically requires knowledge of acquiring food and safe water.

In a society, the division of laber does not require that you know how to farm or process drinking water, but can go to a grocery store, and have fresh water tapped into your home.

On your hypothetical island, the cultivation of food and having a safe water supply would be knowledge you would have had to acquire, thus implying that you had already choosen to live.

 

This would apply to the murdered unconscious man as well, though at the moment you discovered him, he was unable to act due to his unconsciousness.

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

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???

Edited September 2, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

 

Oh, so close...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23342#entry291304

[tjfields]

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.

[tjfields]

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?

[dream_weaver]

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 [food] is the correct action to take in order to achieve your choice, and if you choose to live, then not consuming water [food] 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.

Your pretty much explained how morality ties into it right here.

 

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

What would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living?

[StrictlyLogical]

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.

 

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). 

 

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?

[Devil's Advocate]

Devil’s Advocate,

 

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.

Your response to dream_weaver is what I was trying to establish with my recent posts...

 

dream_weaver,

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.

Bingo and aha!  Translate correct or incorrect to proper or improper and we are copacetic

 

Correct and proper is the ethical context that validates choices to stay alive, i.e., acts of self-preservation.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tjfields]

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?

[Devil's Advocate]

dream_weaver,

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?

Consequences for acting irrationally; that's what you're missing... but I'll try to restrain myself from jumping into comments made to dream_weaver... so hard not to...

[tjfields]

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]

tjfields,

 

One of the legs of reducing the answer you seek to the facts of reality is to reduce what morality is to the facts of reality. This portion has been done here. I jumped in with questions that some of the others were alluding to starting with post #219. 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.

 

The answer to the question "What would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living?" is in essence morality.

 

You've asked a lot of good questions that led to breaking down "value", and "happiness" toward the facts of reality that give rise to those concepts.

 

From post #263 you reiterate your request for me to address your choice of substituting the word kill for murder in your OP. The question translates, without the rest of your hypothetical framing, to "Why is murder wrong, improper or immoral?"

 

Devil's Advocate identified "The consequences of acting irrationality."

It is easier for me to address "Why choose morality?" for its positive attributes than to identify the negative aspects (consequences) of living irrationally.

[tjfields]

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.

[dream_weaver]

Breathing oxygen is pretty much outside the provence of morality, provided you are not down in the coal mines. Just breath the air. You do not need to consciously concentrate on breathing to do it.

 

Consuming water is an oversimplification. You have to acquire the knowledge to ensure it's potable.

Consuming food is an oversimplification. You have to acquire the knowledge to acquire it.

Making use of a shelter, unless it's a cave, and then you still have to discover it to use it, is an oversimplification.

 

All of these activities require the use of reason to arrive at the knowledge needed to ensure potability, cultivate and discover every other activity necessary to the sustenance of life. This was alluded to in post #254.

[Devil's Advocate]

Devil's Advocate identified "The consequences of acting irrationality."

It is easier for me to address "Why choose morality?" for its positive attributes than to identify the negative aspects (consequences) of living irrationally.

 

But let's face it, we probably wouldn't have ethics if no one ever complained

[tjfields]

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?

[Devil's Advocate]

OK, I said it was hard not to jump into this...

 

dream_weaver,

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?

 

You keep failing to account for how killing the man relates to those actions you took to preserve/enhance your survival.  Your prior actions have a history that led to your survival; were consistent to that end; therefore proper to the preservation of your life.  How does this man fit into that sequence of events?

 

You gathered the correct food to eat = you survived

You provided adequate shelter = you survived

You looked for oppertunities to improve your life = you survived

 

You randomly kill a stranger on the beach = nothing happens (according to you), therefore your action isn't consistent with all your prior results; meaning you expended energy for no gain.

 

Now apply all your energy to acting randomly and see how long you continue to survive.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

I should have anticipated that.

[dream_weaver]

tjfield

 

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.

 

Contrast those concretes of reasoning related to action with the results of random action suggestion provided by Devil's Advocate in post #271.

[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?

[tadmjones]

I think the problem is here:

I choose to live, I kill the man who washed up on the beach

You seem to treat the action of killing as having been 'choiceless'. Morality is a guide to action, thought precedes action. Why choose to kill?( in this situation), the reason for killing is either moral or not.