Coming up with examples was not the point. The point was getting to a "general consensus" on whatever your answers might be.

Edit: So in your examples, do you think you can get a "general consensus" on what it means to "accomplish maximum happiness"?

What answers? I am confused. Concerto claimed that people could have different ideas on what was 'right' or 'wrong.' I claimed that even if that be true, it did not mean that we could not conclude which was the most beneficial option overall. So if the question be 'is murder wrong' while person A may claim 'yes' and person B may claim 'no' that does not imply that we cannot determine whether or not murder makes the overall population more happy or less happy.

Maybe not, but we can certainly get a general consensus on which option makes people more happy than the rest of the options much of the time.

And I'm saying that while it does not imply that we couldn't, good luck actually doing that.

It's fine to say that you'll get people to agree on something (form/find/build a consensus), but it's another thing to actually do it. Furthermore, having a consensus does not imply in any way that the consensus opinion is the best one to accomplish to consensus goal (see politics).

We have done it plenty of times (see murder). I do not understand the last sentence. What do you mean by consensus goal? For instance, if the consensus opinion is 'murder makes people less happy' what is the consensus goal? Not allowing murder? If we conclude that murder makes people less happy, then not allowing murder seems to be a great idea to me.

Be careful about this "we" business. You are being very selective in the population groups under consideration. (Look up "honor killings.")

You said:

I would consider this to be the "consensus goal." That is, the thing you wish to accomplish is that which is the most beneficial (as defined by accomplishing maximum happiness overall to the population within the boundaries of possibility).

You might get a consensus opinion ("to maximize happiness we should allow/disallow X"). You might even get a consensus opinion as to how this might be accomplished ("implement law/program Y"). But even then, it's still not at all clear whether the "consensus goal" will be met, and there's a lot of reason to think that it won't (which is the reason for the comment about politics).

And those in opposition are wrong. We all like having rights and freedom. In order to ensure these, your rights must end where mine begin. This is why acts such as honor killing detract from the overall happiness of the people.

It is often crystal clear. I chose murder because this one, at least in the most basic of cases, has more or less been 'solved.' We all like not being murdered. The overall benefits of not allowing members of a society to murder one another outweigh the detriments. We would all like to live in a society in which we need not be concerned about somebody murdering us. Our right to not be murdered is more valuable than our right to murder others. We have to give one up. We chose the less valuable one. The consensus goal has been met. Or am i still not understanding you?

Example?

That's because morality is a subjective term. You refuse to recognize subjective and objective in the context of morality. If not morality, what term would you suggest I use?

Oh, well why didn't you just say so earlier? Case closed, I guess.

This is futile. You refuse to distinguish between objective and subjective. You insist on using absolute morality to argue the existence of absolute morality. You're being circular and either don't realize it, or refuse to acknowledge it. I guess you win. I can make no further progress with you.

I can accept subjective morality for the purpose of a conversation. But what you are describing is not what anyone else would describe as morality.

I have not in any way used "absolute morality." As I said, what I have claimed about morality still applies in a subjective sense. You simply are using the term "morality" in a way that is completely different from how everyone else uses the term.

Here are some references:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Nobody uses "morality" as the justification of behavior.

You assert this position, but those who believe in honor killings don't think so. Part of what is going on here is a strongly Western view of individualism, that the individual rights are of a higher priority than the group honor. That one person is "happy" is of greater value than the dozens of people (and sometimes hundreds) in the group who suffer shame and humiliation for the acts of the one.

See above. This has not been "solved" and this is not something that is obviously true. Why does the individual outweigh the group? In fact, I think it's *easier* to argue that the individual does NOT outweigh the group (not that I think it's necessarily true... or false...).

I think you understand me. I just don't think you understand that it's really not as easy as you think it is.

Just in case it's not clear...

It's not whether you think it's right or wrong to steal from the other baby to feed your own. This question is a moral question because it's talking in normative sense: How *should* one act?

The issue here is not whether you would steal from the other baby to feed your own. This would be a question of whether someone is following a particular moral system: Is this behavior "good" (or "right") according to that particular system of beliefs?

What is at issue here is that you are using the term morality to talk about the justification of specific behaviors:

That you are able to justify yourself for your actions is not a moral question. Both moral and immoral acts (under any system) can be "justified" in the sense that you're using it. This is more often called "rationalization." We can basically always find reasons to support whatever actions we take, whether good or bad, right or wrong.

Morality refers to something other than justification.

Okay, then let's cut to the chase... What would you say I am describing? What would you call it so we can converse using the same terminology?

** Remember... I don't even accept the existence of morality unless it is subjective. I view it as being similar to beauty. I'm sure you could get a vast majority of people to agree that some things are beautiful. But it's STILL subjective! Nevertheless, we cannot eliminate the word 'beauty' from our vocabulary, just as I cannot eliminate the word morality as a descriptive term. This should not give you license to nitpick over terminology whenever I describe something as beautiful or moral.

Again, let's simplify. Exactly what is it you are claiming about morality?


Well then I'm completely lost ITT. I thought Jerok's entire point relied on the premise that without god there is no "morality". That there would be no reason to make distinctions between good and bad. Therefore, his behavior would change.

Using your own words, you are discussing the justification of behaviors.

I'm claiming that your use of the word is different from how the word is used by basically everybody else.

I'll let Jerok speak to his own point. My point is that you are using morality as a system that justifies behaviors, rather than one the prescribes (or even describes) behaviors.

Are you posting from prison?

Of course. Why else would this be something to talk about?



This means nothing without an example.


I think my work is done here. Beyond the fact that prescribed behavior is subjective (not unlike a prescribed drug is individually tailored to meet a patient's needs), I have nothing else to add. Having no logical counter points or refutations to my point(s), you are stooping to insane levels of nitpicking over terminology that aren't even worth responding further to. I guess this has become somewhat for you as I remember you doing it in another thread with another poster when you couldn't muster a logical refutation. It's too bad you couldn't actually engage in a discussion relevant to the OP. Maybe next time?

You're involved in a conversation about morals, so it seems important to be talking about morals.

You should pay more attention. I've highlighted it twice for you.

LOL. I stand by my assertion that you really have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't made *ANY* points about morality. I don't know how many other sources I can cite to help you realize that you're using "morality" in a sense that nobody else uses.

Going back in the conversation, you've never even addressed the initial comment I made regarding the "rules" and how even an absolute morality does not imply that there is only one allowable behavior. But I can't even begin to talk about that with you in any reasonable way until you at least assent to the definitions of morality that have been provided by my citations.

Edit: A simple question that, if you answered, would either solidify or negate my characterization of what you have said. Is it true or false that morality is that which justifies behavior?

Not if God created mankind in His image, innately having a sense of absolute right and wrong (conscience) based on the character of God. In that case, insofar as man does not corrupt his conscience, he should see aright.

ORLY? I've never met a Christian man who wouldn't snap-call fornication if it were lawful. No man I know feels he'd rather wait 23, 30 years for marriage rather than have sex with dozens of women, hundreds...whatever he can get.

The flesh desires all kinds of things we put off-drunkenness, smoking weed, promiscuity, violence, stealing, cheating, etc.

Just b/c you see hypocrisy doesn't mean *everyone* is that way.

You are right that interpretation is subjective in the sense that, say I want to interpret the Constitution as teaching that freedom is terrible, I can find a way to twist it to my satisfaction. But of course the Constitution means something specifically, objectively, and the Bible is no different. In and of itself it conveys meaning, and this is knowable to the extent that a person is willing to realize his presuppositions (personal prejudices) and lay them aside. Greg Bahnsen wrote extensively on this subject.

You need to confront your logical fallacies, and your OP is full of them. For instance, just b/c a bazillion people interpret a document in different ways does not mean the document has more than one meaning. Do you see this logically?

This is the key to the whole discussion for you and your problem with interpretation. Since you don't read the Bible, you completely forget that it's there. You say, oh man, there's nothing to compare one interpretation to vs. another...except there's the one thing you should be comparing your interpretation to--the text itself! When you study the historical background of the writing, the language it was written in, the author who wrote it, the readership who received it, etc., you can interpret it objectively. I know you have serious problems understanding this simple concept, but it's no different than the Constitution. And just like the Constitution, there are differing interpretations because people have different motives--but there are people who set them aside and objectively interpret, so it's possible.

Even you should see why "only" is wrong here.

sex outside marriage
getting drunk
prob. smoking some weed
making money illicitly
seeking my own glory as a purpose in life - so taking a basketball scholarship and becoming a doctor or lawyer, something that gets a lot of money and attention

False. Now...

You can keep insisting that I'm using morality as a justification for behavior, but your little word games fall apart when you consider that behavior defines where one stands on issues of morality. Do you disagree with that?

I am using morality as a descriptive term to refer to: A code of conduct put forward by a society and/or that which is accepted by an individual for their own behavior.

You seem to have a problem with this or we are so far apart in understanding each other that we don't know what the other is talking about. I personally think you're being deceptively coy in your nitpicking of terminology in order to say, "Aha! You've misused this word!".

What I'm getting at is incredibly simple to understand (even though whatever you're getting at is most definitely not)...

* I am saying that we do NOT get our morality from a god. It was inevitable for the survival of humankind to evolve similar code(s) of conduct that most societies subscribe to now. It was inevitable that altruistic acts from when we lived mostly in tribes carried over to where people now can feel charitable or compassionate about the plight of a complete stranger.

Let me also repeat my question a 2nd time on the outside chance you'll attempt an answer.

I stated that I could make the unbearably tough decision to save my own child over that of 20 other children without being logically inconsistent. Could you? And how would that be consistent to the belief that without god, there would be no right or wrong?

Try not to think of it in terms of justification, but in terms of being logically consistent to your world views. And I am NOT for a minute conceding that there's anything wrong with justifying one's actions based on their moral code of conduct! This is not using morality to justify behavior. If anything, it is quite the opposite. You are squaring behavior with your justification of moral code.

No. Behavior does not define where one stands on issues of morality. If this were so, then everyone would be perfectly moral because their behavior exactly coincides with their behavior.

I know of no person who says that he or she is perfectly moral. Perhaps you feel that way about yourself, but then I will simply assert that you're in a very, very small minority.

Fine. I've got no issue with this. But you can at least understand that this is NORMATIVE, right?

You can say that I'm nit picking, but I think you would have missed the entire conversation if that's your ultimate conclusion regarding my position.

That's fine. I've never argued that this is the only type of morality that one can receive.

If one were to conclude that stealing from other babies is immoral, then it would be immoral. I don't know whether I could make that decision, or would make that decision. Furthermore, I don't know if my decision would be consistent or inconsistent with the moral premises set forth by my belief in God. But the question of consistency is not a question about morals. I've even addressed this directly:

...

I can think about it in terms of "consistency" but then it's no longer a question of morals, but a matter of "consistency." As I stated above, you've completely missed the moral conversation if this is where your focus is.

Perhaps this is the case and I blame it on the fact that I do not define morality the way you do. To me, it is purely a subjective and descriptive term. I do not try and set definitions on what we call beauty and I make no definitions about what is called morality. What is moral to one, may be immoral to another and visa~versa. Same with beauty.

We can agree on certain rights and wrongs insofar as they benefit society as a whole, but we are certain to disagree on most of what can be considered moral issues. Same with beauty. I can send you a snapshot of a Maui sunset that I thought was awesome and you'd probably agree. But I could also send you songs from my iPod that you'd cringe at.

It is not for me to say what picturesque scenes or music you find agreeable. I could call you nuts for not liking something and claim that most people would like it, but you set your own tastes. And in the end, you set your own morality and you DO need to justify it, if only to yourself and/or your god.

For me, I do not need a god in order to know what I should consider right and wrong, and my claim is that no one else does either. With or without god, our societal moral codes would be pretty much exactly as they are right now. Actually, that's not right. I submit it would be a higher standard of what "I" call morality if people didn't believe in fictitious gods, but that's for another post.

There is no disagreement here. This idea of morality is encompassed by the list of definitions I provided. That you still think this is a disagreement about "subjective" morality versus "objective" morality is a demonstration that you still don't know what's going on.

Morality does not justify behavior. You agree with this. With this in mind, the argument you provide with your hypothetical makes no sense.

The grounds on which one might attempt to justify stealing is not moral in nature (because morality does not justify behavior). If I end up stealing, it does not mean that stealing must therefore be moral. If I end up not stealing, that doesn't mean that not stealing was the moral action. Stealing or not stealing may not be justified. But this doesn't mean that there's a logical problem with objective morality.

Oh, well then I am confused! What does god say about stealing and murdering? I thought the 10 commandments were meant to be moral guidelines for us to follow. So you are saying that disobeying a commandment, or desire of god says nothing about whether something is moral or not?

You see, I thought religious people tried to follow what their god would want and that's how they determine whether something's immoral or not. I thought that's why some people are against abortion even if in situations of rape, incest, or severe risk to the mother. I thought the reason they think a person should suffer terribly rather than receive a lethal injection was because only god can dictate when to take a life in that situation. You're saying that Christians would NOT say it is morally wrong to humanely put someone out of their misery? There's some other reason? I'm all ears.

Again, I apologize. I was thinking that Christians first ask, what would god want me to do in this situation (or WWJD)? In the question you've so conveniently been avoiding where I asked if confronted with a situation where either your own child could be saved, or 20 other children could be saved, I was really asking what outcome god would prefer.

There is no reason to think that god wouldn't prefer saving the 20 other children. But I highly doubt you'd do that. In other words, you'd go against what you thought god wanted and commit what you knew to be an immoral act. But now you seem to be saying that letting 20 other children die may or may not be justified. You see, I thought it could never be justified to go against what god would want. Maybe I'm confusing morals with sins. I just thought god would consider it more immoral to let 20 of his children die to save just one. So all my posts ITT have been one big grave mistake. Sorry.

This has so little to do with my post it's hilarious.

respected? by who

No, but it has everything to do with my first posts ITT, which is YOU responded to that created this whole sidetrack! Do you see the irony here?