The Hogman question.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Nameless said:

So you'd deny an innocent citizen their right to protection against foreign authorities?

Assuming the king was there for diplomatic relations I would consider anywhere he stood as part of his country. Therefore any and all crime would have to be tried by thier athourities and in accordance with thier laws.

[CameronUluvara]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

I have no such desire, as I feel it irrelevant (not unlike you, though for different reasons). But the concept that ethics and morality can only exist if they come down on high from a deity (a claim which, itself, is far from airtight), or exist in the framework of a "religion" (quotes to underscore that you define that loosely here) is one that I totally reject.

It may be hard to establish what the terms of discussion are, but that just means that the discussions are difficult, not impossible. The perspective you present here is a variety of nihilism, which I both reject in its own right and view as a degenerate philosophy (particularly as it's deployed by most everyday people who espouse it). If that's the basis of your interpretation of the dilemmas presented here then that's implicitly rejecting that any action can be moral or immoral; the concept simply does not and cannot apply. There's no room for discussion of the thread's topic to be had, as the amoral frame preempts any other elements.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! How does that become Nihilism? No, forget it, That's not a question. The idea of morality only being able to be judged when the method of judgement ( the 'religion') is agreed upon is a perfectly sound idea and in no way insinuates that nothing matters. But the existence of morality does automatically prove the existence of a higher being of some kind. There's a logical proof for that. It doesn't mean that if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in morality, but it does mean that if you believe in objective morality, you believe something judges this or knows the ultimate right and wrong. I'm simply saying that things like 'what is a life worth?' or 'who has the power to punish who?' aren't questions that can be answered without first establishing a frame by which to judge. That's why, unless you're in a uniformly religious society, or, have the power to exert your personal religious beliefs over the others, the solution that's the most practical or dare I say, Utilitarian, is the one that's best for the society. That's why morality has no real bearing on this situation.

[Returned]

21 minutes ago, CameronUluvara said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa! How does that become Nihilism? No, forget it, That's not a question.

I'll answer it anyways: the rejection of all possible frames of analysis as "religions", which no one can judge between, is equivalent to saying that no possible assessment is possible. We can't judge between "religions", which are the only possible modes for assessing morality and ethics, which means we can't establish a frame of analysis, which means that we cannot assess morality or ethics. That may or may not be the actual position that you hold (I suspect it is not, as you seem to favor Pragmatism and Consequentialism), but I believe it's a fair reading of what you wrote as you wrote it.

There is no reason that a deity (or equivalent) need exist for "objective morality", nor that a deity would know (or assert) ultimate right and wrong: if there is some objective moral standard (a position I'm not taking), then you or I would be able to judge against it as well as anyone else, including a deity (though a deity may well have better knowledge or wisdom). The common demand for a supreme being as a necessary component for objective morality is that they assert that morality.

I contend that the word "religion", though it's clear you like it, fits poorly in the manner you've deployed it. It carries implications which would not fit something better defined as an "ideology", or "a system of moral beliefs", for example. We probably can't discuss whether Rama is more or less real or relevant than Ishtar or Huitzilopochtli, and so can't determine which moral positions associated with each should be used. We absolutely can talk about whether or not a consequentialist frame is more appropriate than a deontological one, or if an individual's wellbeing is more or less valuable than a crowd's. Lumping them together dismissively as "religion" is a disservice to both, and muddies arguments.

I 100% agree that we can, and should, work to establish frames of discussion in an effort to discern what the right thing to do is, and to define "right thing" as well. "The best thing for society" is woefully underdefined (here in the forum, which is not the ideal environment to do it, and in the world broadly). It's formless, and only means that "with some criteria a best decision may exist", which is not much help to us. If that's the philosophical stance you prefer, then the "moral" thing to do is whatever is best for society, and that's the way that you would evaluate. That's the frame you're asserting, which is the opposite of saying that morality doesn't apply-- it's saying that your preferred moral system is the right one. We don't need uniform beliefs to talk about that.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Returned

[CameronUluvara]

 

5 minutes ago, Returned said:

We probably can't discuss whether Rama is more or less real or relevant than Ishtar or Huitzilopochtli, and so can't determine which moral positions associated with each should be used. We absolutely can talk about whether or not a consequentialist frame is more appropriate than a deontological one, or if an individual's wellbeing is more or less valuable than a crowd's. Lumping them together dismissively as "religion" is a disservice to both, and muddies arguments

 Now you've switched arguments. You're giving the same 'practicality' you didn't like from me. But then again, you've undermined the whole point of this discussion by saying there is no objective morality. In that case, if the Lord believed he did right by his own subjective morality, he's moral, and that'd be the end of it! Without at least a belief that objective morality exists, all debate of morality would be meaningless. By the way, I could prove that objective morality necessitates the existence of a higher being, but it'd be a lot of ask-and-answer that's really not suited to either the point of this thread or the style of online debate.

I find Consequentialism to be close-minded. And yes, I did establish 'the good of the whole' as the frame by which I was judging, and explained why all others are far more difficult to tie down. Any others we'd spend more time arguing about the definition of the framework than how to fulfill it.

What makes you say we can't judge within religions, or between them? And when I use the word religion, I do intend it with all of its baggage and connotations. I understand your argument at the same time that I think it's ignorant of the workings of theology and of the philosophies that attempt to explain or dictate morality. But since we both agree that we should establish a frame by which to judge morality, what frame would you have?

 

[bmcclure7]

On 4/25/2022 at 4:48 PM, Rg2045 said:

 Ah a day break, now back to the philosophy and/or mud flinging @Returned unsure why you wanted to disprove the 0.5% claim mostly because it was a point in your favor but definitely take a look at statistics of murder cases that are “closed” it’s a vary disheartening reality.especially when you realize that murder cases in big cities are more prioritized.

anyways I did the whole comparison thing as a pro/cons to a more “strict” (arguably bias/corrupt) judicial system to a more lenient one.

And I’m sorry I’m better at presenting facts in person. When I’m  Writing my mind splits off from my main point and I end up with the beginning of one sentence and the end of another making my argument seem choppy when I’m trying to make (what I feel like) is a simple point. 
 

like for example I remember hearing of one country that was relatively peaceful. But it was due to the strict but fair laws. 
caught stealing lose a hand. Steal again another hand. I don’t remember the county but I remember the principal. But it doesn’t matter that I know it, mostly because I lack the ability to know if it was real, how stable was the country, how did it fall, were those the laws or just morals people followed. I can’t ask questions without losing my original thought as to why I asked it. 
In other words you’re right this isn’t the place to have long deep  philosophical or meaningful debate. More a place to paint yourself on whatever side of the philosophical spectrum you reside on. 

I don’t follow the philosophy, I don’t follow any really. I just like to pull apart different ideas and study them to an extreme. Some I’ll adopt others I’ll discard, but my world view is a paradoxical bubble. Something that I feel each person is to an extent. Anyone that’s too far one way or another ultimately can’t function, or falls into villainy. 
 

also thoughts on the lone stranger dilemma.

I say wile being the public image and condemning/planting evidence against the stranger you should secretly help the person leave town before something happens. Tell them that the town thinks he did it and that they are unreasonable and will try to kill him. If he stays he knows what he signed himself for. If he leaves then the town doesn’t riot and you just place a wanted sign in the town. If it’s more modern day then you simply don’t do anything. Just try to pacify the crowd. 
 

Now the final question if there is such thing as definitive proof. I would say no. You could say all evidence is Circumstantial. Memory? Way to unreliable, it’s chemical makeup changes every time you think of the thought. We live in a world where anything can be fake, half truths, or twisted to convince people whatever you want to convince them of. 

Probably correct about proof but don't see how it is relevant. 

 

Don't think you understand the point of the hypothetical question.  It made weigh harm against just. Of course in the real world there are all sorts of compromises that could try. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by bmcclure7

[Returned]

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

Now you've switched arguments. You're giving the same 'practicality' you didn't like from me.

Nope. This is the argument I've presented to indicate why "religion" is not a good word to use to describe all moral frames, nor the beliefs of a deity a necessary element of establishing one. I wanted something a bit more "real world" than pointing out that Odium's views on morality might be very different from Honor's; Odium believing that he did a good thing doesn't translate directly into that necessarily being true just because he's divine. Whether or not there is an objective morality, or if we could know one if it did exist, does not preclude discussions of morality.

 

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

I find Consequentialism to be close-minded. And yes, I did establish 'the good of the whole' as the frame by which I was judging, and explained why all others are far more difficult to tie down. Any others we'd spend more time arguing about the definition of the framework than how to fulfill it.

It's what you espouse here, however you find it. Saying you find it unsatisfactory but better than alternatives is irrelevant to whether or not it's what you bring to back up your positions, which it is. When you say you advocate a show trial of the hogmen, pinning everything on one of them arbitrarily and then executing all four regardless, and that the justification is that the country will collapse otherwise and so it's worth both the sham and the innocent's death because everyone will feel safe and content, you're making a pretty strongly affirmative case under the pragmatist approach. "Other systems are hard to tie down" is not a supporting argument, and arguing about the framework is exactly what the hogmen parable is meant to provoke. What do you value as "right", and what is it worth? If a person's answer to that is that they value stability in their polity and that it's worth any amount of arbitrary punishment of known innocents at the hands of the government, then that's their answer.

 

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

What makes you say we can't judge within religions, or between them?

You said that about judging between them:

Quote

Well any religion’s morality essentially boils down to ‘it’s moral because my god said so’ and then it becomes proving the existence or power of one god over another…

 

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

I understand your argument at the same time that I think it's ignorant of the workings of theology and of the philosophies that attempt to explain or dictate morality.

That's pretty bold to say; it doesn't seem to me that you do understand my argument, though perhaps I'm wrong. Theology tends to examine dictates of a religion (gross oversimplification), which morality can certainly be a part of but morality is largely an effect of the rest. You, as an adherent to a religion, don't need to know why, you only need to know that. Working to construct a philosophy so as to better understand morality works in the opposite direction and invites free-form, direct inquiry about what is right, and why, and how it might be best achieved. Without they why, there is no that. Consequentialists and deontologists have a common ground in which they can argue, which is not so much the case with people whose sense of morality entirely derive from separate and mutually exclusive theistic beliefs.

 

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

But since we both agree that we should establish a frame by which to judge morality, what frame would you have?

I've laid out my position and some of the reasoning behind it previously in the thread. If you'd like further discussion, providing more information on the elements you've claimed to support your position would be useful (such as, how we know the country will collapse without a show trial and public executions, etc.). Or you can address some of the arguments I've already laid out (not a small task, since I'm longwinded and often unclear!).

Edited April 28, 2022 by Returned

[CameronUluvara]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

Nope. This is the argument I've presented to indicate why "religion" is not a good word to use to describe all moral frames, nor the beliefs of a deity a necessary element of establishing one

…what? I thought we were talking about philosophical morality versus religious morality. One is 'practical' and deals with the actions that must be taken to fulfil the morality of whatever that philosophy has set forth as the ultimate good, and the other has to have long-winded debates over a lot of metaphysical things like the worth of a soul before eventually deciding that no one has the authority to do anything.

1 hour ago, Returned said:

2 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

What makes you say we can't judge within religions, or between them?

You said that about judging between them:

Quote

Well any religion’s morality essentially boils down to ‘it’s moral because my god said so’ and then it becomes proving the existence or power of one god over another…

No, never said we couldn't debate over gods. I majored in debating over gods. It's fun and a lot more fruitful than morality. Just like any other framework, the highest moral good is established and then actions are weighed and debated over accordingly. Religion is a lot easier than philosophy because it's a lot more definable and structured. The major issues are set out, and you if you disagree, you go to a different religion. None of this "John Locke Utilitarianism or Jeremy Bentham?" The reason I say morality can't be judged except by religion is because of stuff like that. Philosophical morality is so individual that at the very end of it all, every debate will boil down to "I feel differently than you." That's why I say any morality or philosophy that isn't extremely practical and concrete doesn't have a place in an argument over law and punishment.

 If you want to make it really fun, I'll take a religious side in this argument instead of a philosophical one. Yes, I'm kidding. Mostly.

 

1 hour ago, Returned said:

That's pretty bold to say; it doesn't seem to me that you do understand my argument, though perhaps I'm wrong. Theology tends to examine dictates of a religion (gross oversimplification), which morality can certainly be a part of but morality is largely an effect of the rest. You, as an adherent to a religion, don't need to know why, you only need to know that. Working to construct a philosophy so as to better understand morality works in the opposite direction and invites free-form, direct inquiry about what is right, and why, and how it might be best achieved. Without they why, there is no that. Consequentialists and deontologists have a common ground in which they can argue, which is not so much the case with people whose sense of morality entirely derive from separate and mutually exclusive theistic beliefs.

Okay...insulting to religion and religious people, but okay. I understand that argument too, though I strongly disagree. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite: Religion focuses on the why of what we do and what we should do while Philosophy is man-centric and focused on judging the results of actions based on how they affect others.

3 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

the existence of morality does automatically prove the existence of a higher being of some kind. There's a logical proof for that.

Thought this proof was more widely known and used. Oh well.

[bmcclure7]

2 hours ago, Returned said:

Nope. This is the argument I've presented to indicate why "religion" is not a good word to use to describe all moral frames, nor the beliefs of a deity a necessary element of establishing one. I wanted something a bit more "real world" than pointing out that Odium's views on morality might be very different from Honor's; Odium believing that he did a good thing doesn't translate directly into that necessarily being true just because he's divine. Whether or not there is an objective morality, or if we could know one if it did exist, does not preclude discussions of morality.

 

It's what you espouse here, however you find it. Saying you find it unsatisfactory but better than alternatives is irrelevant to whether or not it's what you bring to back up your positions, which it is. When you say you advocate a show trial of the hogmen, pinning everything on one of them arbitrarily and then executing all four regardless, and that the justification is that the country will collapse otherwise and so it's worth both the sham and the innocent's death because everyone will feel safe and content, you're making a pretty strongly affirmative case under the pragmatist approach. "Other systems are hard to tie down" is not a supporting argument, and arguing about the framework is exactly what the hogmen parable is meant to provoke. What do you value as "right", and what is it worth? If a person's answer to that is that they value stability in their polity and that it's worth any amount of arbitrary punishment of known innocents at the hands of the government, then that's their answer.

 

You said that about judging between them:

 

That's pretty bold to say; it doesn't seem to me that you do understand my argument, though perhaps I'm wrong. Theology tends to examine dictates of a religion (gross oversimplification), which morality can certainly be a part of but morality is largely an effect of the rest. You, as an adherent to a religion, don't need to know why, you only need to know that. Working to construct a philosophy so as to better understand morality works in the opposite direction and invites free-form, direct inquiry about what is right, and why, and how it might be best achieved. Without they why, there is no that. Consequentialists and deontologists have a common ground in which they can argue, which is not so much the case with people whose sense of morality entirely derive from separate and mutually exclusive theistic beliefs.

 

I've laid out my position and some of the reasoning behind it previously in the thread. If you'd like further discussion, providing more information on the elements you've claimed to support your position would be useful (such as, how we know the country will collapse without a show trial and public executions, etc.). Or you can address some of the arguments I've already laid out (not a small task, since I'm longwinded and often unclear!).

While belief in a supreme authority is not necessar for a moral system it is necessary for you to require others to conform to your moral system and still be consistent. 

 

Without a supreme authority your moral arguments become moral preferences and who are you to enforce your preferences on anyone's else? Who are to tell a rapiest that he needs consent? After all who probably has some twist moral justification for his actions, why should he conform to your moral standards and not his own?

Of course you could gather likemind individual and imprison the rapiest but without the belief of a supreme authority all that's then you would have concluded that might makes right in order to stay consistent.

[Returned]

2 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

…what? I thought we were talking about philosophical morality versus religious morality. One is 'practical' and deals with the actions that must be taken to fulfil the morality of whatever that philosophy has set forth as the ultimate good, and the other has to have long-winded debates over a lot of metaphysical things like the worth of a soul before eventually deciding that no one has the authority to do anything.

Yeah, because no one has ever had a long dispute over what a god wants or a religion demands... I'm not talking about "religious morality" versus any other type. I'm saying that claiming that morality follows directly from what an arbitrary deity wants is not decisive (deities vary pretty widely in what they proclaim to be right and good, so saying "a deity thinks it" is not sufficient to establish any particular claim unless you are also claiming primacy and precise knowledge of that deity). We don't have to talk about the worth of a soul to think that cold-blooded murder might be a bad thing, and there does not need to be a framework of spiritual (and related) beliefs in order to arrive at such a claim. That might do it too, but isn't necessary. Even if you disagree with me on that point, asserting that a given religion's dictates on those topics doesn't elide those debates; it only presents an asserted conclusion.

 

2 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

The major issues are set out, and you if you disagree, you go to a different religion.

Uhh... no, that doesn't seem right. You don't shop around and determine what truth underlies the universe by what beliefs are most congenial to you. I mean, you could do that if you wanted, but the nature of reality is not dictated by what you happen to already prefer. "I used to think that the ancient Greek cults correctly portrayed the nature of the world, but on balance they seem anti-pomegranate. And since I really like pomegranates, I'm going to switch to Hinduism. That's what's true now."

Moral philosophy is infinitely more amenable to your own beliefs changing because you can examine them and be persuaded by one or another as the way to assess what right actions are. Whether or not that transfers over to a discussion of law and punishment is a separate issue-- law and punishment may or may not be moral. If you adhere to a pragmatic moral system you may see more overlap, but if you're more into value ethics then it's a different beast. I certainly wouldn't say (or agree) that pragmatism as a moral framework is free from the taint of individualism you claim affects other systems, especially when what's practical is undefined. That's just nakedly asserting that your preferred system is correct.

 

2 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

Okay...insulting to religion and religious people, but okay.

I'm not sure it is, and certainly less so than suggesting that religion is a consumerist choice. It's been your position that "religious morality" flows directly from the religion itself, so I'm not sure what you find insulting about someone else pulling that comment forward; if your fundamental position is that X is good because God said X, there isn't a ton of room for inquiry around X. I disagree with your framing of religion as being about determining "why", and don't really understand where your drawing that from. And the idea about non-religiously based philosophy being focused only on results of actions being about how the affect others is flatly wrong. That's an OK summary of consequentialism, but a very poor summary of philosophy more broadly. It's also a fundamental element of moral inquiry to inquire; there is no question more important than "why" when evaluating a moral framework.

 

2 hours ago, CameronUluvara said:

Thought this proof was more widely known and used. Oh well.

There are many. But saying "there is a proof" is not the same as saying "there is proof indicating that this position is completely accurate."

 

Quote

While belief in a supreme authority is not necessar for a moral system it is necessary for you to require others to conform to your moral system and still be consistent. 

Without a supreme authority your moral arguments become moral preferences and who are you to enforce your preferences on anyone's else? Who are to tell a rapiest that he needs consent? After all who probably has some twist moral justification for his actions, why should he conform to your moral standards and not his own?

Of course you could gather likemind individual and imprison the rapiest but without the belief of a supreme authority all that's then you would have concluded that might makes right in order to stay consistent.

That is exactly why moral philosophy tends to produce such long, intricate, technical arguments. The entire undertaking is to explain why the moral system being proposed is true, deal with counterarguments and flaws, and determine what should be done and under what circumstances. It's not just someone saying "This is the way to do it, just because"-- that's the opposite of moral reasoning.

There are tons of reasons why rape is generally considered a bad thing to do, and if a rapist wants to argue that it's acceptable they can make the effort, though they'll probably find the weight of argument decidedly against them. The fact that one person believes X is OK or not does not by itself establish an unimpeachable set of ethics that everyone has to accept as exactly as valid as any other.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Returned

[bmcclure7]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

Yeah, because no one has ever had a long dispute over what a god wants or a religion demands... I'm not talking about "religious morality" versus any other type. I'm saying that claiming that morality follows directly from what an arbitrary deity wants is not decisive (deities vary pretty widely in what they proclaim to be right and good, so saying "a deity thinks it" is not sufficient to establish any particular claim unless you are also claiming primacy and precise knowledge of that deity). We don't have to talk about the worth of a soul to think that cold-blooded murder might be a bad thing, and there does not need to be a framework of spiritual (and related) beliefs in order to arrive at such a claim. That might do it too, but isn't necessary. Even if you disagree with me on that point, asserting that a given religion's dictates on those topics doesn't elide those debates; it only presents an asserted conclusion.

 

Uhh... no, that doesn't seem right. You don't shop around and determine what truth underlies the universe by what beliefs are most congenial to you. I mean, you could do that if you wanted, but the nature of reality is not dictated by what you happen to already prefer. "I used to think that the ancient Greek cults correctly portrayed the nature of the world, but on balance they seem anti-pomegranate. And since I really like pomegranates, I'm going to switch to Hinduism. That's what's true now."

Moral philosophy is infinitely more amenable to your own beliefs changing because you can examine them and be persuaded by one or another as the way to assess what right actions are. Whether or not that transfers over to a discussion of law and punishment is a separate issue-- law and punishment may or may not be moral. If you adhere to a pragmatic moral system you may see more overlap, but if you're more into value ethics then it's a different beast. I certainly wouldn't say (or agree) that pragmatism as a moral framework is free from the taint of individualism you claim affects other systems, especially when what's practical is undefined. That's just nakedly asserting that your preferred system is correct.

 

I'm not sure it is, and certainly less so than suggesting that religion is a consumerist choice. It's been your position that "religious morality" flows directly from the religion itself, so I'm not sure what you find insulting about someone else pulling that comment forward; if your fundamental position is that X is good because God said X, there isn't a ton of room for inquiry around X. I disagree with your framing of religion as being about determining "why", and don't really understand where your drawing that from. And the idea about non-religiously based philosophy being focused only on results of actions being about how the affect others is flatly wrong. That's an OK summary of consequentialism, but a very poor summary of philosophy more broadly. It's also a fundamental element of moral inquiry to inquire; there is no question more important than "why" when evaluating a moral framework.

 

There are many. But saying "there is a proof" is not the same as saying "there is proof indicating that this position is completely accurate."

 

That is exactly why moral philosophy tends to produce such long, intricate, technical arguments. The entire undertaking is to explain why the moral system being proposed is true, deal with counterarguments and flaws, and determine what should be done and under what circumstances. It's not just someone saying "This is the way to do it, just because"-- that's the opposite of moral reasoning.

There are tons of reasons why rape is generally considered a bad thing to do, and if a rapist wants to argue that it's acceptable they can make the effort, though they'll probably find the weight of argument decidedly against them. The fact that one person believes X is OK or not does not by itself establish an unimpeachable set of ethics that everyone has to accept as exactly as valid as any other.

 Give me one. 

[Duxredux]

I have a few clarifying questions for the debate.

1. There's been talk about establishing a frame of reference from a moral, amoral, utilitarian, religious, and secular standpoints, maybe more. What is the purpose or goal of this debate as you understand it? Is it to gain insight and clarity? Is it to learn more viewpoints of philosophy? Is it to convince the other side that they are wrong? Is it because you worry that the other 17th Sharder and their philosophy is wrecking society? Is it to debate because debate is fun? Why are we having this discussion and what result are we hoping for? No, I'm not asking only Frustration even though they started the thread, because it's dependent on each debator. 

2. Does the current format and conduct support the goal of the debate? If yes, carry on. If not, what needs to change?

3. Have you gained new insight, understanding or clarity from this debate? If no, is it worth it? If yes, where did that insight come from? Did it come from listening to and understanding the other side or did it come from researching and refining your own argument? I'm not discouraging self reflection or clarifying your own belief system, but in a debate context it can have a polarizing effect of entrenching yourself within your own viewpoint. 

I ask in part because I had a similar debate with a friend and it nearly wrecked the relationship.

[Rg2045]

Yo when did this debate fly off the rails? This isn’t the place to talk about absolute morality and religion and whose religion is needed to judge this situation. 
 

 

12 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

Probably correct about proof but don't see how it is relevant. 

 

Don't think you understand the point of the hypothetical question.  It made weigh harm against just. Of course in the real world there are all sorts of compromises that could try. 

are you talking about hogman parable? Because if that’s the case I wonder why  you say I don’t understand when in past posts I’ve said the exact same thing. How would you punish an innocent to punish the guilty?

 

Also if the murder was a king how diss it change? 
if it’s our king then that’s when the advance interrogation techniques come in. 3 men will have the same story and one will not. If it wasn’t our king we give the nation the suspects and any information we have for them to pass judgment 

 

___________________________
undertext 

rg2045 will not comment on absolute morality as morality is too fluid a subject for humans to properly gauge

also the jasnah debate is not one that RG2045 will get into here due to it not being the proper forum as well as it not even being related to the Hogman problem. As one has to do with actions and intent and the other judgement and the value of an innocent 

[NameIess]

22 minutes ago, Rg2045 said:

Also if the murder was a king how diss it change? 
if it’s our king then that’s when the advance interrogation techniques come in. 3 men will have the same story and one will not. If it wasn’t our king we give the nation the suspects and any information we have for them to pass judgment 

I asked the king hypothetical to see if increased severity of the crime would change how people answered the question. 

[Rg2045]

14 minutes ago, Nameless said:

I asked the king hypothetical to see if increased severity of the crime would change how people answered the question. 

Oh I figured I just asked the question so that I didn’t have to go back and look for

1)where it was

2) who said it 

funny enough the only thing that changed for me is that I started using torture methods to figure out the truth. As I don’t feel like it’s right to torture an innocent for a common man

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, Duxredux said:

I have a few clarifying questions for the debate.

1. There's been talk about establishing a frame of reference from a moral, amoral, utilitarian, religious, and secular standpoints, maybe more. What is the purpose or goal of this debate as you understand it? Is it to gain insight and clarity? Is it to learn more viewpoints of philosophy? Is it to convince the other side that they are wrong? Is it because you worry that the other 17th Sharder and their philosophy is wrecking society? Is it to debate because debate is fun? Why are we having this discussion and what result are we hoping for? No, I'm not asking only Frustration even though they started the thread, because it's dependent on each debator. 

I asked the question becsause I've liked similar debates.

[Returned]

8 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

Give me one. 

We should reel this back in to the topic of the thread anywyas, as Duxredux has encouraged, but I'll throw one out there. A person shouldn't impose violence on another, against that person's will, strictly to satisfy their own personal pleasure. Are you really taking a pro-rape position in this thread, or at least saying an anti-rape position is always unjustified?

 

2 hours ago, Duxredux said:

1. There's been talk about establishing a frame of reference from a moral, amoral, utilitarian, religious, and secular standpoints, maybe more. What is the purpose or goal of this debate as you understand it? Is it to gain insight and clarity? Is it to learn more viewpoints of philosophy? Is it to convince the other side that they are wrong? Is it because you worry that the other 17th Sharder and their philosophy is wrecking society? Is it to debate because debate is fun? Why are we having this discussion and what result are we hoping for? No, I'm not asking only Frustration even though they started the thread, because it's dependent on each debator.

It's the extension of another poster saying that moral positions can't be debated outside of religions. At least, that's why I've posted on that topic. But I'll concede that it's gone far afield from the hogman question! I'll rein it back in for future posts. I'd been hoping to get more insight on why people are choosing the outcomes that they are.

 

2 hours ago, Duxredux said:

2. Does the current format and conduct support the goal of the debate? If yes, carry on. If not, what needs to change?

No. Again, I'll do better. Thanks, Dux.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Returned

[bmcclure7]

5 hours ago, Returned said:

We should reel this back in to the topic of the thread anywyas, as Duxredux has encouraged, but I'll throw one out there. A person shouldn't impose violence on another, against that person's will, strictly to satisfy their own personal pleasure. Are you really taking a pro-rape position in this thread, or at least saying an anti-rape position is always unjustified?

 

It's the extension of another poster saying that moral positions can't be debated outside of religions. At least, that's why I've posted on that topic. But I'll concede that it's gone far afield from the hogman question! I'll rein it back in for future posts. I'd been hoping to get more insight on why people are choosing the outcomes that they are.

 

No. Again, I'll do better. Thanks, Dux.

 This doesn't justify why. In the absence of a supreme authority You are merely expressing your preference, It has no weight to it, A rapist could just as easily declare  "A person should impose violence On another if they can get personal pleasure out of it. "  In the absence of the supreme authority This has as much  Moral Validity as your statement. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by bmcclure7

[bmcclure7]

7 hours ago, Rg2045 said:

Yo when did this debate fly off the rails? This isn’t the place to talk about absolute morality and religion and whose religion is needed to judge this situation. 
 

 

are you talking about hogman parable? Because if that’s the case I wonder why  you say I don’t understand when in past posts I’ve said the exact same thing. How would you punish an innocent to punish the guilty?

 

Also if the murder was a king how diss it change? 
if it’s our king then that’s when the advance interrogation techniques come in. 3 men will have the same story and one will not. If it wasn’t our king we give the nation the suspects and any information we have for them to pass judgment 

 

___________________________
undertext 

rg2045 will not comment on absolute morality as morality is too fluid a subject for humans to properly gauge

also the jasnah debate is not one that RG2045 will get into here due to it not being the proper forum as well as it not even being related to the Hogman problem. As one has to do with actions and intent and the other judgement and the value of an innocent 

 Actually I was referring to the  Lone stranger Moral question. You're right this has gotten very off topic. 

[Returned]

45 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

 This doesn't justify why. In the absence of a supreme authority You are merely expressing your preference, It has no weight to it, A rapist could just as easily declare  "A person should impose violence On another if they can get personal pleasure out of it. "  In the absence of the supreme authority This has as much  Moral Validity as your statement. 

We could go back and forth on whether or not a person should have a right to bodily safety and autonomy, or any degree of agency, and what moral framework we are satisfying with that premise, and why that framework is the one to use. There are many moral systems which lay those out, thousands of pages' worth of argument and analysis, positive rights, negative rights, extensions of premises, discussion of why proposed values are right and good. There are others which argue your position, that morality as a concept is non-existent and irrelevant. Not all premises need be given equal weight: one that is more encompassing, has fewer exceptions, and is better argued has a good case for being preferred over one that some person arbitrarily prefers. But as discussed above this thread isn't a great place to go through all of it.

If you want to assert that no moral frame exists or is applicable, you certainly can. That will tend to reduce the ground for discussion pretty severely, and will also tend to prevent you from offering a position that isn't irreducible subjective moral relativism. If that's really your position, then fine, but moral discussions would then seem like an odd thing for you to want to participate in (I'm not judging, if that's the case, it just strikes me as an activity that would have little to offer you). And while I appreciate that you probably chose an example to be shocking (rather than to represent your true views), if you want to declare that a rapist has an identical moral claim to commit rape as their victim has to not be raped, then have at it.

Invoking a supreme authority doesn't answer this issue either, just for the record. It sidesteps it by asserting the authority's existence, primacy, and relevance, and then proceeding as though knowledge of that authority is perfect and irrefutable. If, for example, there is a supreme authority but we don't know about it or have any information on its views, we're still stuck trying to reason our way through morality as if the authority didn't exist.

To bring this back around to the hogmen question, as I asked another poster in the thread before, is your assessment of the situation that it is amoral, and moral judgments do not apply? Is there no right thing, conditionally or absolutely, to do in the situation? If you you have an action that you believe is the right one, do you have an argument for it outside of your whim alone?

Edited April 29, 2022 by Returned

[CameronUluvara]

16 hours ago, Returned said:

Yeah, because no one has ever had a long dispute over what a god wants or a religion demands... I'm not talking about "religious morality" versus any other type. I'm saying that claiming that morality follows directly from what an arbitrary deity wants is not decisive (deities vary pretty widely in what they proclaim to be right and good, so saying "a deity thinks it" is not sufficient to establish any particular claim unless you are also claiming primacy and precise knowledge of that deity). We don't have to talk about the worth of a soul to think that cold-blooded murder might be a bad thing, and there does not need to be a framework of spiritual (and related) beliefs in order to arrive at such a claim. That might do it too, but isn't necessary. Even if you disagree with me on that point, asserting that a given religion's dictates on those topics doesn't elide those debates; it only presents an asserted conclusion.

 

How can you say that murder is bad if you haven't first established that life is good? Your position does require us to talk about the worth of a soul and a bunch of other metaphysical things. But the point of the parable is to look at like a king. To take the ultimate authority into your hands and make a decision that best for your country, not wash your hands of the matter and sit back. It's not a moral dilemma. It's a problem that demands a solution, and you're the one responsible.

16 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm not sure it is, and certainly less so than suggesting that religion is a consumerist choice. It's been your position that "religious morality" flows directly from the religion itself, so I'm not sure what you find insulting about someone else pulling that comment forward; if your fundamental position is that X is good because God said X, there isn't a ton of room for inquiry around X. I disagree with your framing of religion as being about determining "why", and don't really understand where your drawing that from. And the idea about non-religiously based philosophy being focused only on results of actions being about how the affect others is flatly wrong. That's an OK summary of consequentialism, but a very poor summary of philosophy more broadly. It's also a fundamental element of moral inquiry to inquire; there is no question more important than "why" when evaluating a moral framework.

It's insulting in the sense that your words mirrored the "religious people mindlessly follow a cult leader" insult. And as for your views on religion, how can you say that it isn't about trying to discover the big whys of life just like everything else? What do you think religion is, seriously? And on that note, who taught you philosophy? How can you say that philosophies aren't about focusing on the results of actions while talking about Consequentialism in the same breath? What philosophy that's applicable to this parable doesn't determine the morality of actions by their effect on others? Nihilism and Existentialism are irrelevant. Stoicism is an individually focused way of life. In Hedonism we see the roots of Utilitarianism, and in that are the roots of Consequentialism. And if you're fond of Relativism, then there's no reason for this debate at all! If you're make a claim like that, I'd sure like some evidence.

17 hours ago, Returned said:

Uhh... no, that doesn't seem right. You don't shop around and determine what truth underlies the universe by what beliefs are most congenial to you. I mean, you could do that if you wanted, but the nature of reality is not dictated by what you happen to already prefer. "I used to think that the ancient Greek cults correctly portrayed the nature of the world, but on balance they seem anti-pomegranate. And since I really like pomegranates, I'm going to switch to Hinduism. That's what's true now."

No, of course not. I'm not talking about 'shopping around.' What I mean is....uh...for example, if, after great study and debate of John 3, you come to the conclusion that Jesus' response is a clarification of his first answer, you're likely Baptist. But, if you believe it's in answer the Nicodemus's questions, you're more likely Presbyterian or Episcopalian. It's not about choosing what you like the most, it's about people examining the same facts and coming to different conclusions. And people will always come to very different conclusions from the same facts. What I'm saying is that religion is more organized than philosophy. With a single label, you can communicate your views on your most important beliefs, while the name of a philosophy still open to individual interpretation. Like the Util controversy I mentioned before. I know most people think it's opposite, but just because there's more religions doesn't mean they aren't organized and thoughtful and logical, especially in their disagreement. 

1 hour ago, Returned said:

To bring this back around to the hogmen question, as I asked another poster in the thread before, is your assessment of the situation that it is amoral, and moral judgments do not apply? Is there no right thing, conditionally or absolutely, to do in the situation? If you you have an action that you believe is the right one, do you have an argument for it outside of your whim alone?

Returned, I turn the question back to you, because I've answered it. What guides you? Do you believe that there is an ultimate authority or objective morality and what is it? If your assertion is that my solution is immoral because it punishes an innocent, tell me what you judge morality by besides your own feelings. You say morality applies to this parable. You say morality exists outside of religion. You say nothing is more important to a moral framework than the question of why. So what (besides your own feelings, as you've acknowledged that if nothing but feelings were expressed, there would be no room for meaningful debate) is the why that makes you believe you believe your path is moral?

[bmcclure7]

12 hours ago, Returned said:

We could go back and forth on whether or not a person should have a right to bodily safety and autonomy, or any degree of agency, and what moral framework we are satisfying with that premise, and why that framework is the one to use. There are many moral systems which lay those out, thousands of pages' worth of argument and analysis, positive rights, negative rights, extensions of premises, discussion of why proposed values are right and good. There are others which argue your position, that morality as a concept is non-existent and irrelevant. Not all premises need be given equal weight: one that is more encompassing, has fewer exceptions, and is better argued has a good case for being preferred over one that some person arbitrarily prefers. But as discussed above this thread isn't a great place to go through all of it.

If you want to assert that no moral frame exists or is applicable, you certainly can. That will tend to reduce the ground for discussion pretty severely, and will also tend to prevent you from offering a position that isn't irreducible subjective moral relativism. If that's really your position, then fine, but moral discussions would then seem like an odd thing for you to want to participate in (I'm not judging, if that's the case, it just strikes me as an activity that would have little to offer you). And while I appreciate that you probably chose an example to be shocking (rather than to represent your true views), if you want to declare that a rapist has an identical moral claim to commit rape as their victim has to not be raped, then have at it.

Invoking a supreme authority doesn't answer this issue either, just for the record. It sidesteps it by asserting the authority's existence, primacy, and relevance, and then proceeding as though knowledge of that authority is perfect and irrefutable. If, for example, there is a supreme authority but we don't know about it or have any information on its views, we're still stuck trying to reason our way through morality as if the authority didn't exist.

To bring this back around to the hogmen question, as I asked another poster in the thread before, is your assessment of the situation that it is amoral, and moral judgments do not apply? Is there no right thing, conditionally or absolutely, to do in the situation? If you you have an action that you believe is the right one, do you have an argument for it outside of your whim alone?

"Not all premises need be given equal weight: one that is more encompassing, has fewer exceptions, and is better argued has a good case for being preferred over one that some person arbitrarily prefers "

That my point any moral system with a supreme authority is arbitrary.  

 

 

"Invoking a supreme authority doesn't answer this issue either, just for the record. It sidesteps it by asserting the authority's existence, primacy, and relevance, and then proceeding as though knowledge of that authority is perfect and irrefutable. "

 

I am not sure if you strawmaning me or you didn't read my post. I never said that a supreme authority answer all moral questions only that the absence of a supreme authority created a moral problem that as of now cannot be solved. 

 

"If, for example, there is a supreme authority but we don't know about it or have any information on its views, we're still stuck trying to reason our way through morality as if the authority didn't exist."

 

This is erealivent it doesn't matter we know nothing about we could no nothing about him at all and it wouldn't matter.  Its mere existence means that definitive moral answers or plausible,  its absence means that there can be moral answers so let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

[Pathfinder]

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

That my point any moral system with a supreme authority is arbitrary.  

So I'll be honest, your post frankly confused me.

Basically we cannot verify that a supreme being exists right? So stating that an individuals supreme being is against rape is effectively the same thing as an individual stating that their morality is against rape. It has the same "authority " persay. The rapist could just reply that their supreme being is the real one says rape is ok and your supreme being is a figment of your imagination.

A prime example of this is the Son of Sam. His supreme being told him to kill women. His supreme beings existence cannot be verified, so we are left with this individuals word that it is good for him to kill women. Other individuals supreme being disagreed with this but again as we cannot verify the existence of those supreme beings, we have no reason to believe them over the son of Sam except that maybe our own personal morality or supreme being aligns with those saying killing those women are wrong or right. 

But where I really get confused is it looks like that is what you were saying by stating that a supreme authority is arbitrary. Yet below:

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 Its mere existence means that definitive moral answers or plausible,  its absence means that there can be moral answers so let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

Seems to state the opposite. That without a supreme authority, there can be no moral answers. That a supreme authority's existence means there can be definitive moral answers. But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal".

[bmcclure7]

50 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So I'll be honest, your post frankly confused me.

Basically we cannot verify that a supreme being exists right? So stating that an individuals supreme being is against rape is effectively the same thing as an individual stating that their morality is against rape. It has the same "authority " persay. The rapist could just reply that their supreme being is the real one says rape is ok and your supreme being is a figment of your imagination.

A prime example of this is the Son of Sam. His supreme being told him to kill women. His supreme beings existence cannot be verified, so we are left with this individuals word that it is good for him to kill women. Other individuals supreme being disagreed with this but again as we cannot verify the existence of those supreme beings, we have no reason to believe them over the son of Sam except that maybe our own personal morality or supreme being aligns with those saying killing those women are wrong or right. 

But where I really get confused is it looks like that is what you were saying by stating that a supreme authority is arbitrary. Yet below:

Seems to state the opposite. That without a supreme authority, there can be no moral answers. That a supreme authority's existence means there can be definitive moral answers. But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal".

 Again I'm not saying that The mere presence of a supreme authority Tells you what is moral.  Please actually read my post.  I'm saying that in that order to say that morality applies to anyone other than you  It must come From a higher authority than you. 

 

Consider these 2 arguments 

Argument one

Person A.  You shouldn't do that it's illegal.

 Son of Sam.  The president himself came to me and told me  It was legal. 

 

 Argument 2

Person A   I would prefer that you'd stop killing women.

 

Son of Sam . So?

In former argument they're is a higher authority that both sides claiming to speak for.  One of them is clearly wrong and the other right and it maybe possibly to determine which or it may not. Either way there is an right answer even if neither side can determine it.

 

In the second argument.  There is no right or wrong answer because there is no answer.  Neither side is appealing to higher authority they speak for themselves and there own preferences.  There is no debate, person a wants son of sam to stop killing, Son of Sam However prefers to continue.  The end .

Do you understand. 

 

 People may disagree what is legal  Or even on what they should follow the laws of the United States or the laws of Canada.   But in the absence of a governmental authority,  What is or is not legal is meaningless. 

 Similarly in absence of supreme authority what is or is not moral is meaningless.  

 

 

"But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal".

 If that is what you conclude then you must also thereby conclude that morality is meaningless which  makes me wonder why you're here arguing about something that's meaningless.    Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by bmcclure7

[Pathfinder]

3 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 Again I'm not saying that The mere presence of a supreme authority Tells you what is moral.  Please actually read my post.  I'm saying that in that order to say that morality applies to anyone other than you  It must come From a higher authority than you. 

 

Consider these 2 arguments 

Argument one

Person A.  You shouldn't do that it's illegal.

 Son of Sam.  The president himself came to me and told me  It was legal. 

 

 Argument 2

Person A   I would prefer that you'd stop killing women.

 

Son of Sam . So?

In former argument they're is a higher authority that both sides claiming to speak for.  One of them is clearly wrong and the other right and it maybe possibly to determine which or it may not. Either way there is an right answer even if neither side can determine it.

 

In the second argument.  There is no right or wrong answer because there is no answer.  Neither side is appealing to higher authority they speak for themselves and there own preferences.  There is no debate, person a wants son of sam to stop killing, Son of Sam However prefers to continue.  The end .

Do you understand. 

 

 People may disagree what is legal  Or even on what they should follow the laws of the United States or the laws of Canada.   But in the absence of a governmental authority,  What is or is not legal is meaningless. 

 Similarly in absence of supreme authority what is or is not moral is meaningless.  

 

 

"But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal".

 If that is what you conclude then you must also thereby conclude that morality is meaningless which  makes me wonder why you're here arguing about something that's meaningless.    Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

I understand what you were saying. And my point is you are claiming that Joe schmo saying what is moral is meaningless because Joe schmo said it. But since we cannot verify that there is a supreme authority, then saying a supreme authority has to assert absolute morality has as much credence as Joe schmo. You are the one stating it. You are no different than Joe schmo. Now if you want to believe that suddenly means morality has no meaning, you are certainly entitled to but that is your prerogative, not my own. They are not mutually exclusive. 

 

Edit: so just in case, the reason they are not mutually exclusive is you define that there must be an authority to give validity, or a "reason" to follow the morals. And based on that premise that it must follow that without an authority, then morals do not matter.

The first statement is an assumption. You believe that an authority is required. But if an authority is not required, then the absence of the authority then does not inform on whether or not morals matter.

The statement that morals can arise without an authority is just as valid and there is loads of research that have shown signs of such.

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Pathfinder

[Ixthos]

On 4/21/2022 at 9:21 PM, Frustration said:

So not too long ago a thread popped up discussing the morality of Jasnah killing the footpads in Kharbranth, and I really enjoyed it so I thought I'd ask a similar question.

In The Way of Kings Nohadon talks about a town in which a hogman is killed by three others, however there are four other hogmen in the town, and no amount of questioning revealed who was innocent.

If you were the lord of this town how would you have judged it?

In a way I think this is the Cosmere's Trolley Problem, an ethical dilemma where the key part is that there is no-way not to cause some form of harm, or where every decision negatively affects someone or could have room for complaint. That isn't to say these problems are identical, only that there is no-way around the problem - with the Trolley Problem the choices are to determine which way the train goes, so it can't be stopped or diverted, that it must hit at least one person. With this problem there can never be a way to isolate who is innocent and who is guilty.

There is, however, a little more room in this problem than in the Trolley Problem - the King can set the parameters on how the accused are treated: Pick someone at random to treat differently or treat them all the same; the ultimate punishment or letting them all go; something painful or something painless; something permanent or something only temporary. Unless doing something different to one of them randomly there will always be a certainty that either the innocent will suffer or the guilty will go unpunished, and even if selecting someone randomly to exempt or treat less harshly that still gives a greater than average chance that one of the guilty will suffer less than the innocent. 

In the real world I think there may be ways to extract the truth of the matter from them, to determine who is innocent and who is guilty (perhaps by having them each rank the guilt of the others around them, and assuming no shared malice among the guilty towards the innocent the innocent would be most likely to  be considered the least guilty by that vote, though even that risks the innocent still being ganged up on by the guilty). For this thought experiment - and ultimately that it what this is, but much good can still come from thought experiments, even if some cause emotional turmoil - I would say the King, if he has the resources for this, should put the men in forced labour for the dead man's family if he had any, as they would be without support. Failing that, however - as it may not be possible or practical in a kingdom to keep a watch on them, though tattoos and branding may be effective to ensure no-matter where they go they would be known as potential murderers who had their sentence deferred - death may have been required, though only if binding the accused to forced labour for the man's dependants can't be guaranteed, or they can't be marked as those who must remain .

However, I think a key point was noted that needs to be factored in, and which moves this away from the comparison to the trivial form of the Trolley Problem, but not out of the domain of the Trolley Problem entirely - Nohadon (and so Brandon) made this key observation at the end: each problem must be judged by its own context and situation - there is no single solution that fits every example. For the Trolley Problem we know there are versions which make it much easier for the average person to choose to divert the Trolley, or not divert it, as the case may be. If the death required to save others is our own, or that of the person who put the others in danger, people are often more willing to divert the train to hit the individual. For the dilemma, I would think it key to also judge the character of the accused, and if they are motivated entirely by an urge for self preservation rather than malice towards the other hogsmen, it may be possible to yet extract the truth from them with the knowledge they will all die, but how they die will depend on their determining of the innocent - that they will all die in pain except if they say who really is innocent, and if two or three of those who are actually guilty nominate the same man other than themselves, then their deaths will be less painful - and the innocent will be freed - or that they may have just bought life for themselves, but again imprisoned or with forced labour. Though again this is assuming we can go beyond the bounds of the thought experiment to see if the innocence can be determined, that judging based on the situation will help determine the course of justice, as each situation is different.

 

[Edit]

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

The statement that morals can arise without an authority is just as valid and there is loads of research that have shown signs of such.

Given how our previous discussion went I am somewhat reluctant to engage with you again so soon and on another philosophical and laws of logic related topic, but this would seem to contradict Hume's Guillotine - you can't get an "ought" (moral) statement purely from an "is" (factual). Moral statements can't come from natural law and can only come from each other, or each other in conjunction with an "is". I would be interested to see the research you mentioned, as that would be a paradigm shift from Hume's writings.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Ixthos