Morality, Immorality, & Amorality

[GUNWOUNDS]

"So when you are faced with several options to choose from, why should you pick the one that brings you the most benefit?

Because gaining a benefit is good?

But let's generalize: When faced with several options, you say that you should pick the one which has quality X. And I ask you: Why? Why should you pick the one with quality X and not the one with quality Y?

Ultimately, it comes down to a judgement of good and evil. Either quality X is good in itself, or it leads to something good."

Ok look at it like this. Why would I pick quality X? Simply because it is more logically useful, not because either qualities are 'evil' or 'good'. This logical usefulness may be defined through instinctual, predetermined genetic choices and these have no bearing on morality.

A dog chooses to eat some food instead of playing outside due to its hunger. This is a 'good' choice as it needs food for energy. The dog has no concept of morals, this is a logical choice based on instinct.

the problem is that every decision you are going to make will always degenerate into you doing it because it was "good" which implies morals..

[Apollyon]

No, good does not have to imply morals at all, as you would realise if you read my previous post.

The dog thought that decision was good and has no moral whatsoever.

[GUNWOUNDS]

No, good does not have to imply morals at all, as you would realise if you read my previous post.

The dog thought that decision was good and has no moral whatsoever.

dont try to use a beast to support your arguement we are talking about people making amoral decisions.

[Apollyon]

Dogs don't do 'random' things, and also in your context 'good' and 'bad' could be replaced with 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

When you work out that 2+2 = 4 is 'correct' and therefore a 'good' answer, do morals come into it? No.

[Dante]

The funny thing about Edric and I is that we tend to be quite similar, even when being completely different. It's quite worrying.  :)

I suppose we're back to semantics again. Pure logic can certainly be used as a moral code but I don't think that this qualifies it as a moral theory (perhaps this is where the confusion set in). I think for something to be morality-based it has to rely on some basic definition of 'virtue' and 'evil' as opposed to the 'positive' and 'negative,' used in logic. The problem arises where people confuse 'virtuous' with 'positive' and bring them both under the heading of 'good;' while at the same time lumping 'evil' and 'negative' together under 'bad.'

This, I feel, is a mistake. The terms may be similar but they are not identical.

Amorality does not necessarily have to involve apathy or being random. It can, but it is not necessary. Amorality simply involves a process of decision making that instead of relying on inherant 'virtue' and 'evil' relies instead on 'positive' and 'negative.'

I think Edric was arguing that both of these terms were themselves based on moral beliefs, which would be self contradictory. I say not necessarily. For example, the potential decision to kill.

Morality: Killing is inherantly wrong, I shall not kill.

Amorality: If I kill I will be punished, punishment is not a logical desire, I shall not kill.

As can be seen, the same conclusion can be reached by both processes, which adds to the confusion I suppose.

Yes, Edric can be very convincing. That doesn't mean to say he's right though.  :) 

[Apollyon]

"dont try to use a beast to support your arguement we are talking about people making amoral decisions."

A person without parental upbringing or human-interaction would be much the same and in this hypothetical situation, have no morals.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dogs don't do 'random' things, and also in your context 'good' and 'bad' could be replaced with 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

When you work out that 2+2 = 4 is 'correct' and therefore a 'good' answer, do morals come into it? No.

well now we have animals and mathematics... ok... let me think about this....

ok...

well 2 + 2 = 4

[Apollyon]

Correct is a synonym of true; Look it up in the dictionary.

[Dante]

Semantics again. This is why subjectivism is so attractive.

[Dunenewt]

Huh how can that be true.

I see two choices:

1)Get loads of money, poor people lose money

2)Lose money, poor people gain money.

I choose 1) because I want more money, that is not random or moral.

[Dante]

I think the argument is that inherantly desiring money would be in relation to morality, a belief that money is 'good.' I personally reject this but this is what the argument is, as far as I can tell.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Correct is a synonym of true; Look it up in the dictionary.

yes but using a thesaurus to cross match a word's definition is faulty because one word can have several meanings

did you know in really old english

[GUNWOUNDS]

Huh how can that be true.

I see two choices:

1)Get loads of money, poor people lose money

2)Lose money, poor people gain money.

I choose 1) because I want more money, that is not random or moral.

if you gaining money was directly linked to poor people losing their money.... then by choosing #1

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Edric O]

Dust Scout, you and Gunwounds have been going around in circles, and he's right about the fact that you haven't actually disproved my argument; you've only tried to circumvent it with semantics.

Any logical reasoning must begin with a certain hypothesis or certain axioms. If you use logic in order to make decisions, then those initial axioms are your "moral values".

Using the word "beneficial" instead of "good" won't help your case. When you say that something is beneficial, I ask you: Why is it beneficial? And why should you do something just because it is beneficial?

It is true that logical values can replace moral values, but they are nevertheless still logical values, not moral ones.

What exactly is the difference between moral good and evil and "logical" good and evil? And just what is a "logical value"? All logic must begin with a certain hypothesis, a certain set of axioms.

Provided the hypothosis can be justified logically (rather than relying on a moral "because it's just right" argument) then there is no reason it shouldn't be used.

If you want to justify the hypothesis logically, you need to use another hypothesis. And so on. Ultimately you get to a set of axioms that you need to accept as a given. This is basic knowledge in math, Dust Scout. I'm surprised you don't seem to understand it.

Provided the benefits to myself are good enough, and the sacricfices are not too extreme, exploitation and manipulation are fine.

As I said before, you are not amoral. You are a hedonist.

[GUNWOUNDS]

As I said before, you are not amoral. You are a hedonist.

Edrico..... why do you think Dustscout rejects the hedonist title

[TMA_1]

hmm this is sounding kinda rude to me. Dust is intelligent and doesnt need your "help" gunwounds. You make it sound like dust is suffering from some mental illness.lol If you actually talk with dust about how he feels, he actually has thought this out. Frankly this isnt an argument that can be won because there are completely differing opinions.

[GUNWOUNDS]

hmm this is sounding kinda rude to me. Dust is intelligent and doesnt need your "help" gunwounds. You make it sound like dust is suffering from some mental illness.lol If you actually talk with dust about how he feels, he actually has thought this out. Frankly this isnt an argument that can be won because there are completely differing opinions.

actually it isnt rude.... and

[TMA_1]

lol good grief gunwounds, what I said makes sense, because at times you do sound abit high and mighty, just my opinion though.

and the extra quote there that I never said in your sig page is kinda pathetic, and is a little creepy.lol Not sure if you are allowed to put something that somebody never said to sound like I actually wrote it. could get ya in trouble.

[Edric O]

Gunwounds, if you want to know what Dust Scout thinks, then I suggest asking him, not me.

And your arrogance towards TMA is unwarranted. You're the last person who should preach to others about elevated debate.

[TMA_1]

thanks edric. By the way did you see the IM I sent ya about Marx?

[Dante]

I haven't disproved Edric's point because I think it's based on flawed logic. As far as I can fathom, he is stating that any judgement of 'good' vs 'evil,' 'positive' vs 'negative,' or 'beneficial' vs 'detracting' is involving some form of moral decision, and that logical rules are in fact synonymous with moral rules. To be blunt, I disagree.  :)  I believe that it is possible for logic to be completely divorced from morality.

Certainly there is an aspect of hedonism to my own amorality. There are aspects of hedonism in most forms of morality as well. But that doesn't mean that it's not logical. Hedonism does not automatically make an argument a moral one.

Well TMA you're not the only one who's got the impression that Gunwounds thinks I'm slightly mentally disabled. If his opinion of gays is anything like Nav's then he probably does.

In any case, I've already said that there's an element of Hedonism in the amoality, but that doesn't imply a moral code. What's wrong with hedonism? In this case it's only part of a much bigger whole. If it were logically more sensible to endure pain then that is what I (hope I) would choose. Logic overrules Hedonism.

If you want to ask a question Gunwounds, ask it.

[Khan]

What are you guys using as a basis for morality. It would change wherever you go. To a pagan sacrificing people or animals would be seen as morally right because that is how they live their lives, whereas christians would see this as a completely alien concept.

[Kiyouta]

Oh thats a lovely answer Khan...

Morality is Agape, therefore you need to take into count situation ethics - relative judgements, i.e. the ideas of Petske and Fletcher.

Its a lighthouse - the hardened symbol of LAW. It will not fall down. For example, say if I was to walk around on the street naked, that would not be moralily right. It is not agape. Its like the man drowning - who is not in the boat with the sails. Therefore to say that all actions are moralily right or wrong, is incorrect, they must be put into context - Situation Ethics.

[GUNWOUNDS]

lol good grief gunwounds, what I said makes sense, because at times you do sound abit high and mighty, just my opinion though.

and the extra quote there that I never said in your sig page is kinda pathetic, and is a little creepy.lol Not sure if you are allowed to put something that somebody never said to sound like I actually wrote it. could get ya in trouble.

... it is a legit quote.. but i posted it to be funny... dont get upset.

as i said before....you did say that quote....