Why do you choose to be wrong?

[Pope Joan]

Just as a President or Prime Minister relies on wise counsel from his or her cabinet advisors, I have those to whom I listen and by whom I am guided. I admire their lives and their actions, and I call them to mind when faced with a serious decision. If I am able, I also call them on the phone.

I do not know whether "right" or "wrong" are words which apply to this process.

"Wise"? Certainly. "Compassionate"? I hope so. "Prudent"? Not always.

[Trotskylvania]

Let's discuss morality and the basis for which one determines correctness and moral judgement particularly in the examination of the morality of others.

Basically, why are you wrong when I'm right you right when others are wrong? Is there a right and a wrong that can be determined, in any fashion? Is one ever justified in standing for one's moral code if there is no right and wrong?

Utilitarianism naturally follows from accepting the basic axiom that positive utility is a good thing for moral agents. I am of the mind you need a reason not to be a utilitarian, because its conclusions follow automatically from the very nature of our existence as moral agents. It's metaphysical; utilitarianism would be true in any conceivable universe.

The intellectual history of moral philosophy has consisted of theorists (Kant most notably, but there are many others) trying to come up with arcane ways of resisting the simple logic of consequentialism.

[Ugatoo]

I'm an asshole, but I'm not wrong.

[Conserative Morality]

Utilitarianism naturally follows from accepting the basic axiom that positive utility is a good thing for moral agents. I am of the mind you need a reason not to be a utilitarian, because its conclusions follow automatically from the very nature of our existence as moral agents. It's metaphysical; utilitarianism would be true in any conceivable universe.

The intellectual history of moral philosophy has consisted of theorists (Kant most notably, but there are many others) trying to come up with arcane ways of resisting the simple logic of consequentialism.

Could you explain this? I really don't understand how utilitarianism is so... inherently correct.

[The Emerald Legion]

A moral act is one that advances your chosen goals. The ultimate goals of your existence are neither inherently moral or immoral. They simply are, and it is only following those goals as best you are able that allows you to be a moral person.

[Earth c-137 (Ancient)]

The opposite of a profound truth is more often than not, another profound truth. Everyone is right given the correct context and perspective. It is important to look at politics this way, and especially relevant when debating. So yes, I picked the third option in the poll.

[Australian rePublic]

It really depends.
People like Hitler, the members of ISIS etc. are understandably evil
Whilst things like abortion etc. are a moral dilemma

[Trotskylvania]

Utilitarianism naturally follows from accepting the basic axiom that positive utility is a good thing for moral agents. I am of the mind you need a reason not to be a utilitarian, because its conclusions follow automatically from the very nature of our existence as moral agents. It's metaphysical; utilitarianism would be true in any conceivable universe.

The intellectual history of moral philosophy has consisted of theorists (Kant most notably, but there are many others) trying to come up with arcane ways of resisting the simple logic of consequentialism.

Could you explain this? I really don't understand how utilitarianism is so... inherently correct.

Basically, so long as we accept all of the elementary rules of logic, we're steered towards accepting that positive utility should be maximized and suffering minimized.

Okay, let's begin with some basic axioms that no one can really deny. Humans are moral agents; we think in moral terms, we can be held responsible for our actions. Certain things are intrinsically beneficial to us; happiness, autonomy, etc. These things are isomorphic to the concept of utility. They are good, and no one can seriously deny it. It is basically tautological; when we say it that happiness and flourishing are good, what we're really saying is that good is good. Its inverse, pain, and suffering in all of its forms, are bad.

If we accept that good is good, and bad is bad, than it naturally follows that we want to have as much of the good and as little of the bad as possible. Therefore, we should endeavor to maximize utility and minimize suffering. And from that follows that as moral agents, we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I fucking love these vague, existential philosophy threads. Really let me spread my wings of bullshittery, and fly, fly like the drug-addled pseudo-philosopher I know I am.

There is no such thing as objective and inherent good and evil. Morality and ethics are social constructs developed by sentient beings stemming from instinctual desires for self-preservation, continuation of the species, reciprocal empathy, etc. "Justification" in standing for something is impossible (as well as unnecessary) from such an existential standpoint, because ultimately, it's all pointless and absurd anyway. *waves hand dismissively* One's morality is one's morality, and there is not much more to be said about it. It is the reaction of one's mind, affected by internal development, external stimuli, culture, society, upbringing, nature, nurture... you get the picture. Do what you feel, but don't expect objective and overarching confirmation.

[Conserative Morality]

Basically, so long as we accept all of the elementary rules of logic, we're steered towards accepting that positive utility should be maximized and suffering minimized.

Okay, let's begin with some basic axioms that no one can really deny. Humans are moral agents; we think in moral terms, we can be held responsible for our actions. Certain things are intrinsically beneficial to us; happiness, autonomy, etc. These things are isomorphic to the concept of utility. They are good, and no one can seriously deny it. It is basically tautological; when we say it that happiness and flourishing are good, what we're really saying is that good is good. Its inverse, pain, and suffering in all of its forms, are bad.

You see, this is where it gets on unsteady ground for me. There are plenty of people and moral codes that would object to that equivocation of things like happiness and autonomy to moral good, not to mention questioning the ideas of happiness and autonomy both as concepts and as compatible ideas.

[Zottistan]

Let's discuss morality and the basis for which one determines correctness and moral judgement particularly in the examination of the morality of others.

Basically, why are you wrong when I'm right you right when others are wrong? Is there a right and a wrong that can be determined, in any fashion? Is one ever justified in standing for one's moral code if there is no right and wrong?

Moral judgements are completely arational and arbitrary and there's no escaping that. However, I think the key word in your questions is "justification". If there is no external moral system denying you the right to enforce your moral views on people, why do you need to justify it? How are you even supposed to justify it? Justification isn't a meaningful concept in the absence of standards by which to justify.

[Morr]

Moral nihilism is pretty much the only sensible position apart from religion.

[The Emerald Legion]

Basically, so long as we accept all of the elementary rules of logic, we're steered towards accepting that positive utility should be maximized and suffering minimized.

Okay, let's begin with some basic axioms that no one can really deny. Humans are moral agents; we think in moral terms, we can be held responsible for our actions. Certain things are intrinsically beneficial to us; happiness, autonomy, etc. These things are isomorphic to the concept of utility. They are good, and no one can seriously deny it. It is basically tautological; when we say it that happiness and flourishing are good, what we're really saying is that good is good. Its inverse, pain, and suffering in all of its forms, are bad.

If we accept that good is good, and bad is bad, than it naturally follows that we want to have as much of the good and as little of the bad as possible. Therefore, we should endeavor to maximize utility and minimize suffering. And from that follows that as moral agents, we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.

Except none of these things are basic axioms. Is happiness truly good? Then why do people make themselves unhappy for a good cause? Indeed, can you even prove Happiness exists at all? Is autonomy good? Then why do we take some peoples autonomy away and call it good?

What about those crazy BDSM enthusiasts who get a kick out of pain?

[Alvecia]

Basically, so long as we accept all of the elementary rules of logic, we're steered towards accepting that positive utility should be maximized and suffering minimized.

Okay, let's begin with some basic axioms that no one can really deny. Humans are moral agents; we think in moral terms, we can be held responsible for our actions. Certain things are intrinsically beneficial to us; happiness, autonomy, etc. These things are isomorphic to the concept of utility. They are good, and no one can seriously deny it. It is basically tautological; when we say it that happiness and flourishing are good, what we're really saying is that good is good. Its inverse, pain, and suffering in all of its forms, are bad.

If we accept that good is good, and bad is bad, than it naturally follows that we want to have as much of the good and as little of the bad as possible. Therefore, we should endeavor to maximize utility and minimize suffering. And from that follows that as moral agents, we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.

Except none of these things are basic axioms. Is happiness truly good? Then why do people make themselves unhappy for a good cause? Indeed, can you even prove Happiness exists at all? Is autonomy good? Then why do we take some peoples autonomy away and call it good?

What about those crazy BDSM enthusiasts who get a kick out of pain?

Should be noted that from a Utilitarian standpoint, making yourself unhappy to make more people happy is a net good, which doesn't invalidate "being happy is a good thing"

[The Emerald Legion]

Except none of these things are basic axioms. Is happiness truly good? Then why do people make themselves unhappy for a good cause? Indeed, can you even prove Happiness exists at all? Is autonomy good? Then why do we take some peoples autonomy away and call it good?

What about those crazy BDSM enthusiasts who get a kick out of pain?

Should be noted that from a Utilitarian standpoint, making yourself unhappy to make more people happy is a net good, which doesn't invalidate "being happy is a good thing"

I'm not saying "Making yourself unhappy to make more people happy." I'm saying making yourself unhappy for what you believe is a good cause.

[Alvecia]

Should be noted that from a Utilitarian standpoint, making yourself unhappy to make more people happy is a net good, which doesn't invalidate "being happy is a good thing"

I'm not saying "Making yourself unhappy to make more people happy." I'm saying making yourself unhappy for what you believe is a good cause.

Noted, but if you think the good cause will make people happy then my point still stands.

[United Dependencies]

Should be noted that from a Utilitarian standpoint, making yourself unhappy to make more people happy is a net good, which doesn't invalidate "being happy is a good thing"

I'm not saying "Making yourself unhappy to make more people happy." I'm saying making yourself unhappy for what you believe is a good cause.

Are you making yourself unhappy? or are you simply making yourself experience some sort of displeasure?

[United Dependencies]

Let's discuss morality and the basis for which one determines correctness and moral judgement particularly in the examination of the morality of others.

Basically, why are you wrong when I'm right you right when others are wrong? Is there a right and a wrong that can be determined, in any fashion? Is one ever justified in standing for one's moral code if there is no right and wrong?

Utilitarianism naturally follows from accepting the basic axiom that positive utility is a good thing for moral agents. I am of the mind you need a reason not to be a utilitarian, because its conclusions follow automatically from the very nature of our existence as moral agents. It's metaphysical; utilitarianism would be true in any conceivable universe.

The intellectual history of moral philosophy has consisted of theorists (Kant most notably, but there are many others) trying to come up with arcane ways of resisting the simple logic of consequentialism.

Why do we have so many people who believe in natural rights? Why have a system that can and does outlaw certain situations at all times no matter the surrounding context?

Would it not be better to have some sort of utilitarian court that measures the positives and negatives of an action that is in question, and award punishments as necessary?

This question is a little jumbled up in my own head, so let me know if this doesn't make any sense.

[The Emerald Legion]

I'm not saying "Making yourself unhappy to make more people happy." I'm saying making yourself unhappy for what you believe is a good cause.

Are you making yourself unhappy? or are you simply making yourself experience some sort of displeasure?

Is there a difference? And if there is, what does it mean to be happy or unhappy? If happiness is not necessarily pleasure, than how can it be optimized for?

And again. Is there even proof that Happiness exists at all?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Are you making yourself unhappy? or are you simply making yourself experience some sort of displeasure?

Is there a difference? And if there is, what does it mean to be happy or unhappy? If happiness is not necessarily pleasure, than how can it be optimized for?

And again. Is there even proof that Happiness exists at all?

There is a major difference, yes. You can be happy while experiencing pain or discomfort. Someone voluntarily sacrificing for a good cause is probably, to a certain degree, happy about said choice.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Don't be silly, I'm never wrong.

[Zoice]

I fucking love these vague, existential philosophy threads. Really let me spread my wings of bullshittery, and fly, fly like the drug-addled pseudo-philosopher I know I am.

There is no such thing as objective and inherent good and evil. Morality and ethics are social constructs developed by sentient beings stemming from instinctual desires for self-preservation, continuation of the species, reciprocal empathy, etc. "Justification" in standing for something is impossible (as well as unnecessary) from such an existential standpoint, because ultimately, it's all pointless and absurd anyway. *waves hand dismissively* One's morality is one's morality, and there is not much more to be said about it. It is the reaction of one's mind, affected by internal development, external stimuli, culture, society, upbringing, nature, nurture... you get the picture. Do what you feel, but don't expect objective and overarching confirmation.

Objectively wrong.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Objectively wrong.

shiyit

a damn waste of the four minutes i took writing that

[Zoice]

Objectively wrong.

shiyit

a damn waste of the four minutes i took writing that

Thank you for acknowledging it.

Thread complete.

[Morr]

I fucking love these vague, existential philosophy threads. Really let me spread my wings of bullshittery, and fly, fly like the drug-addled pseudo-philosopher I know I am.

There is no such thing as objective and inherent good and evil. Morality and ethics are social constructs developed by sentient beings stemming from instinctual desires for self-preservation, continuation of the species, reciprocal empathy, etc. "Justification" in standing for something is impossible (as well as unnecessary) from such an existential standpoint, because ultimately, it's all pointless and absurd anyway. *waves hand dismissively* One's morality is one's morality, and there is not much more to be said about it. It is the reaction of one's mind, affected by internal development, external stimuli, culture, society, upbringing, nature, nurture... you get the picture. Do what you feel, but don't expect objective and overarching confirmation.

So morality is just a matter of taste?