-->
@Sum1hugme
What’s your problem with authority? Your fear of potential bad consequences is doing your thinking. Think for yourself
Consent
Posts
Total:
113
-->
@Theweakeredge
Could you please answer the questions directly? I'd like the clarification.
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't have a problem with authority, I have a problem with fallacies in your reasoning.
-->
@Sum1hugme
1) Is it morally obligatory to generate the most well-being for the most number of sentient (in this case, self-aware) beings in your model?
I'd say good, not necessarily obligated - though you are obligated to not take away well-being
2) What is your definition of moral good?
Benefiting well-being of sentient beings
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you.
In reference to both answers, so you would not consider it morally obligatory to perform actions that generate the most good, as you define the good? But you would consider it morally obligatory to not commit actions against that good?
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am confused by your question. What do you mean by "consent" and what do you mean by "a first principle"?
-->
@Sum1hugme
What fallacies? Your argument of my fallacies depends on acceptance of your denial of authority, and the potential for that authority to be evil. I simply remove the potential. I cannot do that? I don't believe in limitations.
-->
@Sum1hugme
In some instances yes- it would be obligatory, but in others no - but yes to be obligated not to do something against well-being (the obvious caveat being if that against well-being creates more well being, such as working out)
-->
@fauxlaw
I found your comment very difficult to follow.
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect.
Whether morality is, as you claim, a "social construct" is hardly a settled issue; yet your comment assumes it is so. The entire notion that morality even "could" be an artifact of social construction did not even enter human lexical usage until the latter-half of the 20th century; yet, the philosophy of morality dates to antiquity. Arguably, moral philosophy is at least as old an enterprise a human society itself.
It's also not clear whether you're claiming that morality is "only" a social construct; or whether you're claiming that morality is a social construct, in addition to being something else. You didn't specify the "something else," so I am left to wonder.
And you should assume for the purposes of our discussion here that I disagree with your claim that morality is, of necessity, "a social construct"; whether "only" a social construct or not.
It's also not even clear what you mean by "social construct." I am pretty sure that if I used that term, we wouldn't be thinking about the same thing, either. You should define what you mean by "social construct," because that term gets thrown around a lot by people with little regard to what they're actually communicating. Clarity would be helpful.
A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other.
I do not understand this sentence. There is so much going on here and none of it makes any sense. It's too abstract.
What do you mean by "a single person's actions"? Why not just say "a person's actons"? Is that what you meant? Why add the word "single" in there? That is confusing.
It is also unclear what you mean by "wholly separate from another" and "having no effect on another." It seems like you're talking about people doing stuff in a vacuum; but to claim that a person's actions could ever have "no effect" seems like a pretty bold claim, for which you'd have great difficulty even hypothetically describing.
Human beings are social creatures. Nothing we do can fail to affect another in even a trivial way; but any effect, however trivial, is still an effect. Maybe if you added the qualifier "meaningful" before "effect" that would make more sense.
But even then, you're talking in circles. "A person's actions . . . separate from another . . . may have some consequences to that person, but certainly to no other." So you end where you begin? This isn't even comprehensible.
And, generally speaking, whether it is moral, or not, that a single person act without consequence to anyone else, has society really suffered due to those actions?
Again, I have absolutely no idea what this means. The OP was posting about consent. You're talking about action "without consequence." I have no idea how you got from A to B.
If not, then morality is mute.
And having no idea how you got from A to B, I am equally lost as to what this means or what relationship it has to anything else you've said. There is no world where your circular sentence above entails this conclusion; or where this is even a sensible claim in the English language.
What on earth does "morality is mute" even mean? This lack of linguistic precision drives me insane.
The only code that acting, singular person has broken is that of his own well being. That, lone, ma[y] have some effect on another, but it has not a moral effect on anyone else. A sense of loss of some degree, but not a sense of loss of morality.
This is incomprehensible as well. It seems like you talked around the idea that:
If what you're doing impacts other people, then morality requires you obtain their consent.
That is a lucid, clear sentence. One that people can understand. One that, indeed, has meaning and which can be intelligibly discussed. But reading what you posted is like listening to music out of tune played by an orchestra operating at five different tempos. You jumped from one vague, ill-defined concept to another, to another and to another; talked about things that have no relationship to each other whatsoever; and generally posted a bunch of nonsense that was genuinely frustrating to even try to read through.
In the future, endeavor to write with greater precision.
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
You should have deleted every word of your post other than the first sentence in the quoted block directly above.
-->
@coal
Consent-
-noun
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
-verb
give permission for something to happen.
-A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you believe that rational beings ought to act morally?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Ok then. So you want to know whether the act of giving permission for something to happen should be considered so essential that it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
Do you think consent might be a first principle?
What if there was something prior to consent?
-->
@coal
I am not making a positive claim, or a negative claim in the OP. I'm simply questioning the validity of assuming consent is a valid principle upon which to reason about morality.
-->
@Sum1hugme
So that you know . . .
I don't think you can argue that consent is a first principle, because there are more foundational principles on which consent's importance is contingent.
For example. Why would it matter if I did something that affects your rights/interests, but didn't obtain your consent? Why would that be wrong?
It would be wrong because my doing so would imply that I have a right to make decisions affecting your interests, which would mean that I have more rights (and by implication more power) than you do.
So, if I've got more rights and power than you do; we're not equal because I've taken something from you; something which, if we were equal, I would not have a right to take. And maybe we're not equal. Maybe I just have more rights and power than you do, because that's the natural order of things.
Though if we ARE equal, why might that be so? Because human dignity is congruent in its scope among all. We are equal, because we have equal human dignity.
In this way, the importance of consent depends from human dignity, meaning it can't be a first principle.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am not making a positive claim, or a negative claim in the OP.
Are you sure? It sure looks to me like you were asking why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality. In the OP, you asked:
Why should we accept consent as a first principle of morality?
Maybe you meant to ask "whether consent is a first principle of morality," as opposed to "why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality?"
I'm not just splitting hairs here. The OP assumes consent is such a first principle, whereas it seems like now you meant to ask something else.
-->
@Sum1hugme
yes
-->
@coal
You are unnecessarily splitting hairs. In the OP, I do not assume that consent is a first principle of morality, I'm questioning the validity of that claim.
-->
@Theweakeredge
And do you consider a moral action to be one that beings about the good, as you define it?
-->
@Sum1hugme
The language you use matters, but I'm glad you've clarified what you meant.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Overall good yes.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So if presented with a choice between the good of five and the good of one, which should take precedence, assuming those are the only two options?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Again, that situation is extremely nuanced, and the fact that one side has more people does not mean that that side has more good to gain or lose- that was the entire point of my elaborations earlier, if you still don't understand that your questions are fundamentally flawed, then i don't think you're actually listening.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I generalized it specifically so you can't say it's too unrealistic, and you're not answering the question.
If there is any situation where the well being of one, could be taken or diminished, in order to increase the well being of five, it seems that under your model, it would be morally obligatory to infringe on that one person's well being in order to increase the well being of the five. You said yourself with the example of working out, that something's it is justified to diminish well being if it increases it more in the end, after doing the cost-benefit analysis . The point im making is that cost benefit analysis is inadequate to make moral decisions, and can easily lead to immoral decisions, if that is how one determines morality.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Wrong - because you have an obligation to not harm others, did you forget that? I literally talked about that, as I said, you aren't listening.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That conflicts with your claim that we ought to do that which brings about the good. You claimed, through the example of working out, that if the calculus equals out to more good than the negative of that good, then the action is moral. You agreed that we ought to act morally, and that the moral action brings about the most good. You define good as well being. Therefore, when forced to choose between the well being of one or the well being of five, it would logically follow from your own admissions, that the well being of the five should take precedence. However, you are making an arbitrary exception in the case of the organ transplant scenario, on the grounds that the act of harming an individual in order to gain a greater aggregate of well being for the five, is morally prohibited. And herein lies your contradiction. You aren't justifying why the well being of the one shouldn't be infringed to promote the well being of the five, you're just making a random exception to your own logic.
The point I'm driving at is that defining the good as wellbeing is arbitrary, because well-being isn't inherently good. You haven't adequately justified why well-being should be a first principle of morality, other than stating that people value their well being. But ones valuing of well being, doesn't make that well being morally valuable. Furthermore, not all people consider their well being to be important, so if ones intuitions reject your premise that people value their well being, then your whole ethic collapses under the weight of it's arbitrary premises.
-->
@Sum1hugme
What's the point of asking these questions:
1) Is it morally obligatory to generate the most well-being for the most number of sentient (in this case, self-aware) beings in your model?I'd say good, not necessarily obligated - though you are obligated to not take away well-being2) What is your definition of moral good?Benefiting well-being of sentient beings
If you don't factor in anything I said. I said that you ought to do what is good, not that you are obligated to do so - you are indeed obligated to not do what is bad, but you are not necessarily obligated to do what is good. There is a distinction, and you have not considered it.
You agreed that we ought to act morally, and that the moral action brings about the most good. You define good as well being. Therefore, when forced to choose between the well being of one or the well being of five, it would logically follow from your own admissions, that the well being of the five should take precedence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong - you aren't getting it - not everything is black and white, numbers -that's you being ignorant. The well-being loss by the five could be less than the well-being gained by the one, the well-being of the five could be quantitatively similar and not be more than one instance of well-being - you are completely stripping any analysis that isn't surface level from it, and then claiming that the standard is "arbitrary" because the answer isn't what you want it to be.
However, you are making an arbitrary exception in the case of the organ transplant scenario, on the grounds that the act of harming an individual in order to gain a greater aggregate of well being for the five, is morally prohibited. And herein lies your contradiction. You aren't justifying why the well being of the one shouldn't be infringed to promote the well being of the five, you're just making a random exception to your own logic.
Seriously? That's what you got from this - you have really just been skimming then, huh? There is no exception! It is simply not the case that 5 is always greater than 1 in terms of people. One fucking number will never be enough to comprehensively measure human well-being, for generalizations? Sure, but certainly not for such individualistic cases. It requires an case by case basis, not some general rule for numbers, the only general rule is the measure of well being.
That last question most certifiably highlights your own dishonesty, you have asked, and I have answered MULTIPLE TIMES that you are not necessarily obligated to do what is good, but you are definitely obligated to NOT DO WHAT IS BAD.
You seem to think its possible to not value your own well-being, its not, literally, on an evolutionarily level - it is impossible to not value your own well-being. Literally, the fact that you flinch away from pain is proof of that. If you want to fight the axiom fine, but you'll have to do better than "it's not justified", because it sure as hell as been. As a pragmatic theory of ethics, the only reason why humans do ANYTHING, is because they value it, hence why I said: If you accept the axiom..., and the thing is EVERY HUMAN ACCEPTS THE AXIOM NECCESARILY. As any biologically conscious creatures do
. If you can't pull that stick from your ass then this conversation is over.
-->
@Theweakeredge
First of all, I have been nothing but respectful to you, so you need to cool it. It is extremely rude to accuse me of being dishonest when I have read, and taken the time to comprehend and understand your position. Through that understanding, I see flaws in your reasoning.
Secondly, it's you who isn't getting it, but there is a lot there, so I will have to make a thorough response when I get home. Thank you for your patience.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Uhuh - forgive me if I don't believe that after repeating the same thing after I corrected you multiple times.
-->
@coal
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect.
Don't try to complicate what this says. One person, alone, needs no morality. I assume the instinct of self-preservation would prohibit the one to do harm to one's self. Yes, there are people who do that, but, almost never are they in their right mind, and would not cause self-harm were they healthy of mind, body, and spirit. Society, by its nature, is a construct or two, or more, persons. Morality has no effect unless there is a society simply because immorality may have effect on the entire society, small in numbers though it may be. To cause harm to others is immoral.
"Social construct" is simply that two or more people decide to band together with a common purpose of thought and action, such that they can anticipate that one has another's back. Construct, because we develop, or build mutual trust.
Morality may be "something else?" What else might it be? I'm not implying that. Morality, to me, is strictly the rules we apply to our treatment of others. Ours "rules" may differ, one to another, and, therefore, our treatment of one another. Law is what we often think of in these terms, and some want to separate law from morality, as if they are different, and even opposing concepts. We muddle and confuse because we also apply different labels: objective and subjective, to both law and morality. Law may be more easily construed as objective, since it applies to everyone with the jurisdiction of a particular law. But, somehow, morality suffers an assumed duality which I do not see. Since morality may not always align with law, such as how we deal with sexual relations - which some claim is the only application of morality - we, therefore, attempt their separation, as with church and state, when those concepts, as well have intersections wherein both attempt to improve our condition. That is appropriately so. Besides, that wording "separation" is not in the constitutional text, and the 1954 SCOTUS decision of Brown v. Board of Education found in exactly that intersecting purpose of church and state. We ought consider morality in that same fashion, but we don't.
A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other.
Again, don't complicate this. "A single person" is one who is alone; not a society [two, or more] As described above, why does one person need to consider morality. Two or more are either going to trust one another, or not, and we develop a mutual morality as a matter of that trust. I assume one person, alone, should trust them self. One person, alone, is not a society. Simple as that. I am not talking about a group of people all living in a tower of apartments, and they comprise a society, while next door, one person lives in a tent. Yes, that person is "alone," but it proximate to the apartment building and is, therefore, just in a different dwelling, but they will still interact because there is infrastructure with shops and such. They are, the loner and the apartment dwellers, a society. one person, alone, is they guy in the woods whereas a distance away, there is a group of homes and apartments, and even some tents.
In the first example, the one person in a tent may think and act completely separate from the apartment dwellers, and as long as his thoughts and actions have no affect on others, what morality is applied? Is it immoral that he chooses to live alone? No. As long as he acts on his own, without affect on others, there is no law or moralitry that is broken; society remains intact. But, let him think and act to trip one of the apartment dwellers, now, even though he lives alone, he has affected another person, perhaps even by injury, but even without causing injury, he has violated the social trust; he is immoral.
It is said no man is an island. No. A man living alone on an island is an island. He is not a society. A man living alone in the desert is an island. He is not a society. We call them hermits and recluses. These individuals are not society. Try to imagine the distinction. Does a solitary man like this have a consequence on society? No. Therefore, morality, to that man, is mute. It has no effect because he is having no affect on society. Get it? Yes, there are damn few of this sort, but, they do exist. Account for them.
Lack of linguistic precision? What does morality mean? What does mute mean? Does morality matter to a hermit who has no contact with society? What, then, does morality say to the hermit? Nothing. Morality, to him, is, therefore, mute.
If what you're doing impacts other people, then morality requires you obtain their consent.
Yes, but if what you're doing does not impact others, morality does not impose your need of consent, or anything else. Yes, I see now that the sentence I wrote has several errors. My hands are big. I need a keyboard half again as large as they are made. Most stuff is made for little people. I am not little. It's my problem, with its resulting key stroke errors. Most people can figure it out. That you refuse to try is on you.
You should have deleted...
You're my tutor, now? I don't pay you. You may work at your leisure, but don't expect I will follow.
-->
@fauxlaw
Your last post is incomprehensible, much like the others you've written in this thread.