Test Your Morality

It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values. Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man. And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement--hence any argument that seeks to establish a standard of general behavior is normative.

Well, you yelled, so you must be right.

Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?

Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game.

It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values.

Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man.

And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement-

I just mentioned one that does: Individualism.

And to sustain this as a consistent moral framework, one needs only respect the capacity and justification of another to do the same. 

What is a "guide of how to behave" if not a prescription best suited to reducing conflict as much as possible?

Culture and customs; mores and folkways; the prominence of collectivism; prejudice; complacency, etc. 

And as with anything, "authority" is where people place their trust and conviction. 

Yes we do. The end is that which we seek.

I'll counter this example with one of my own.

The authority in this scenario is oneself and the capacity to consider the prospects of one's actions (i.e. one's being a moral agent.) 

...in reality, it is consensus that makes the rules authoritative.

The Commentaries were long regarded as the leading work on the development of English law and played a role in the development of the American legal system. They were in fact the first methodical treatise on the common law suitable for a lay readership since at least the Middle Ages. The common law of England has relied on precedent more than statute and codifications and has been far less amenable than the civil law, developed from the Roman law, to the needs of a treatise. The Commentaries were influential largely because they were in fact readable, and because they met a need.

It isn't inescapable. I've seen people live contrary to their personal values when in another culture, like westerners who went topless when living in an African village.

No. "Oughts" are not built by consensus.

You may be misunderstanding me. It is a personal judgement whether to follow an "ought", but oughts are free from subjective judgements in their conception.

You mentioned one that you think does. It doesn't. Personal tastes conflict.

And to fly, one needs only to flap his arms fast enough to produce the necessary lift. This comment is technically true, but how informative is it?

It could also be a prescription best suited to reducing falsehood as much as possible.

Then what good is it?

No. That would be political or legal authority. I am speaking about a moral authority. Authorities exercise power, moral authority is the justification to exercise power. It does not come from consensus of the people.

No we don't. No one is omniscient. We may know what we seek, but often do not know what actions will get us to what we seek.

Untrue. The authority is the game of basketball which has known rules. Your analogy is faulty.

If everyone was free to get the ball into the basket whatever way they saw fit, there would be chaos, not a game.

It is not a perfect analogy because in reality, it is consensus that makes the rules authoritative. But with morality, murder would remain immoral even with a 100% consensus that it was moral.

The moral edict not to murder is authoritative, it does not need agreement, and its authority does not flow out of consensus

I agree with your conclusion, but not its premise. Murder is wrong because of a rationalization of an axiom of "right to life." It has no intrinsic authority. While I would agree with you that murder is wrong, and this doesn't depend on consensus, that is germane to the consistency of the rationalization, not "authority." Authority is a reflection of the value moral agents place on their moral concepts. Without the moral agent, moral analysis and authority is insignificant.

Wherein lies the authority of the moral agent?

I would suggest that murder maybe illegal, but is not necessarily wrong.

The question didn't change. It was...

Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?

The point was to highlight the curious agreement between peoples personal tastes and their moral codes.

Why would that be immoral?"

If you butted in and said to the offender, "Hey Mac, why don't you get your own food?" And the victim meekly said, "I don't mind." Would the guys action in eating the food of another person's be moral?

A materialist must say yes, it is moral, because to him, whether the victim is offended or not is what decides morality.

I say he has still been immoral regardless of whether the frightened victim doesn't mind or not. The authority of morality is not sourced in how they feel.

Because right and wrong are unqualified assumptions. In so much as there is no known external authority to make such judgements.

Athias.....Why must right and wrong be qualified by an external authority?

They would have been horrified if their peers from the US Midwest could have seen them. Though they had not been forced, they were NOT living their values. I was there.

Then you are incorrect in stating that personal values are inescapable.

Your argument strongly implied it.

They are. No subjective judgement can be an "ought" for another person.

A person's subjective judgement of an "ought" does not free him from being bound to observe it,

Then no moral framework can satisfy all personal tastes. That is simple logic.

Why should anyone observe it precepts? You answer that a person can morally decide to obey or not obey. True, but then it isn't an "ought", for it is immoral to dismiss a moral "ought".

You are missing my argument. I'm asking why is free speech authoritative at all?

What about people who think free speech is immoral?

What gives free speech more moral value than the opposite?

Your answer so far has just been your personal taste

which you admit other people are free to embrace or reject without moral consequence.

How to determine true morality from personal tastes.

Exactly!!! Now ask yourself, "conflict" based on what metric?

Determining what is truly moral

The morality I'm advancing, sources its authority not from man, so that murder remains immoral even when everyone, including the widow, agrees, that she should be buried along with her dead husband. (India 1700's)

My means is authoritative morality, and my end is true moral behavior.

Yet when a player disagrees with the rules, he is ejected and the rules remain. The game IS the authority.

No sir. It could be called basketball at any time, but it would not BE basketball, for what we call it is immaterial. Make the court larger and on grass, remove the hoop and make it a goal, and prohibit the use of hands, and it would be football, no matter what you called it.

I'm trying to reach what is true morality, not just explain the thing we call morality.

No sir. The agreement of a victim to murder matters not one whit to the immorality of murder. And there have been cases where the victim was a willing victim.

I'm the one who has consistently said consensus is irrelevant. You have not.

So if we did not have this axiom of "right to life",  (which is an " ought") you think murder would be amoral?

Your authority here comes from consensus, but you contradict that at other points in your argument.

"Oughts" do not derive their authority from consensus.

But this isn't logical. The consistency of the rationalization is simply another way to say consensus.

You are still thinking of moral "authority" as in - a power that gains its legitimacy from the agreement and consensus of the people.

The authority of morality does not come from the agreement of people, it remains consistent no matter how thinking changes.

I flatly disagree with this.

This would follow only if your first comment above was true. It isn't.

And this is why we find, in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism.

They don't work in reality.

Lack of consent.

Coersion does not constitute legitimate consent.

..is Alex's action immoral? 

We go by what the adult says, not by what we suspect he feels.

You aren't actually suggesting that coersion is a non-factor which we shouldn't even consider are you?

I am beginning to have doubts about how seriously you are taking this conversation.

No. But in an open place like a restaurant, where there has been no threat of violence, and an adult clearly says he doesn't mind...

The point was, that right and wrong irrespective of social law, can only be regarded as assumptions in a universal context.

The distinction therefore between an Earthbound social edict and morality (right and wrong) as an assumed universal predetermination.

They did not "consent". That is just semantics.

But we can agree to disagree. The point is not important.

I have never murdered anyone, but I observe the moral law that says killing is immoral.

Existing in reality.

<br>

It was just an example to show you that a moral code can be based on other things than just a reduction of conflict, so the metric is irrelevant.W

Then that means it is not authoritative.

Sure you can. The fact that you're a materialist does not mean only materials exist.

Finally! Please allow me to determine whether you understand my argument before we move to the next part.

I'm not yet trying to. I first have to get you to understand what moral authority is.

Moral authority does not come from consensus.

I have.

Like suicide by police?

The victim being willing is not "assistance".

In some cases, the person did not even know when or how they would killed.

Thank you. My position is that murder is not wrong just because people agree it is.

Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.

"Oughts" are oughts because the are authoritative.

I am saying that an empirical moral  truth carries MORAL authority.

I agree and keep telling you so. But you keep contradicting yourself by saying things like, "...authority is informed by the value placed by the participants in a moral framework."

Your agreement is desirable, but not enough for me to be willfully wrong.

It does not conform to reality.

No. I'm being logical.

in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism.

Yet when I asked you why it didn't work, you had an answer.

True moral behavior.

Perhaps you mean "lexicon." 

We're not agreeing to disagree.

They either consented, which doesn't necessarily require explicit verbal consent, or were coerced. Which was it?

Do you intend on dropping this point?

By the mere fact of your observation of moral law, you're subjecting it to your own perspective. How can you do this without being subjective?

What else can a moral framework be based on?

You're rendering a conclusion without a substantiated premise.

how do you define materialism?

My opposing your argument does not mean that I don't understand your argument. 

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Define reality.

What is suicide "by police"? 

But it's definitely not murder.

Presumption of dissent in the absence of consent.

Who made the argument that it was wrong because people "agreed" it was.

Non sequitur.

Oughts are oughts because their normative and prescriptive. Authority is informed by value. 

What is an "empirical" moral truth? 

There's no contradiction;

Hence, I did not claim you were wrong.

All arguments are logical. 

Yes, when you asked me why it hasn't been adopted by the general populace? Is that the same as saying that it's as "impotent as communism"?

You're just arguing a false equivalence 

And that is?