metaethics

[Rupert]

Are there any objective moral truths?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Are there any objective moral truths?

No. But there are some Universal moral truths (to a point).

 

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Multiverse]

On May 12, 3:32 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are there any objective moral truths?

How bout.......

All moral authority is derived from violence.

The very purpose of religious beliefs is to enforce the moral code
contained therein.

The this religious moral code, historically, was enforced through
violence.

Modern civilizations do not require religious beliefs to codify and
enforce morals.

However, modern civilizations employ police to enforce the law code,
and they WILL use violence to do so if needed.

It seems that morals are rooted in their use as a survival advantage
for humans. So it would appear that if a moral provides survival
advantage to the species, it is true until it no longer offers a
survival advantage and is dropped from use.

[Rupert]

On May 13, 10:04 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 3:32 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Are there any objective moral truths?
>
> How bout.......
>
> All moral authority is derived from violence.
>

It's complicated, though, because some forms of violence we regard as
enforcing "moral authority" and others we don't. Some uses of force we
legitimize and others we don't. And moral discourse is what we use
when we argue about this.

[Multiverse]

On May 13, 3:22 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 10:04 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 3:32 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are there any objective moral truths?
>
> > How bout.......
>
> > All moral authority is derived from violence.
>
> It's complicated, though, because some forms of violence we regard as
> enforcing "moral authority" and others we don't. Some uses of force we
> legitimize and others we don't. And moral discourse is what we use
> when we argue about this.

I don't disagree but which uses of violence cannot be connected to
morals? I am just pointing out that a majority vote that produces
legitimate enforcement of morals does not mean that the other uses of
violence are not connected to morals.

For ex:

It is ok to kill,

and

It is not ok to kill,

are both morals.

Police can kill to prevent someone who thinks it's ok to kill from
killing someone.

>
>
>
> > The very purpose of religious beliefs is to enforce the moral code
> > contained therein.
>
> > The this religious moral code, historically, was enforced through
> > violence.
>
> > Modern civilizations do not require religious beliefs to codify and
> > enforce morals.
>
> > However, modern civilizations employ police to enforce the law code,
> > and they WILL use violence to do so if needed.
>
> > It seems that morals are rooted in their use as a survival advantage
> > for humans.  So it would appear that if a moral provides survival
> > advantage to the species, it is true until it no longer offers a

> > survival advantage and is dropped from use.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Rupert]

Well, we probably wouldn't think of a mugging as an enforcement of
morality. A mugger, unlike a policeman, isn't claiming any special
moral legitimacy.

[Multiverse]

Other than the mugger is forcing the mugee to SUBMIT, via the use of
violence, to the muggers moral view that it is ok to mugg someone for
what ever reason the mugger has. So the mugger is an easy example of
the use of violence that is connected to a moral view. The moral view
need not be considered legitimate for it to be a moral view.

But really I think the only proper explanation of this (and all
morals) can only be teased out of in investigation of their inception.

So, no, the mugger in modern times is not claiming a widely accepted
moral. The mugger is an example of an evolutionary step in what is
now considered a "bad" moral direction, but is nothing more than a
survival strategy at inception. There are still plenty of reasons why
a person would need to "mugg" in order to survive. Of course we have
to expand the common modern civilization idea of mugg to include what
it really amounts to as a mechanism of survival.

Humans allowing themselves to be mugged have a reduced survival
advantage. Not as pronounced in modern times however 20,000 years ago
(however far back you have to go actually) if all the muggee owned was
a spear, some fire starting tools and a deer skin; loss of these to
the mugger could be catastrophic to the muggee's health. Easy to see
how the moral view "it's not ok to allow myself to be mugged" came
about. Easy to see how this simple concept would be taught to
offspring right along with teaching how to stick a spear in a wild
boar. And further it's also easy to see how nomadic and tribal groups
would adopt this particular moral and decide eventually that they
would prevent the mugger from mugging again by killing him. I don't
think the muggee's at this stage would have been "thinking"
punishment. It would have been no different than getting rid of a
deadly snake. And contrast that with the fact that the mugger in this
situation is merely using mugging as a survival tool. The spear, fire
tools, and deer skin gained could very well ensure his own survival.

It boils down to simple math then right? 1 mugger surviving and 1
muggee dying. moral view mugging ok 1-0. Or 0-1 if other outcome.
so we have to investigate more to see how "mugging is not ok" becomes
prevailing. "Mugging is not ok" should only prevail if it offers the
greatest survival advantage to the species.

Now, the mugger becomes a mugger because of his survival needs which
can be connected to the fact that he is week, alone, and or is part of
a small group that is week due to numbers and ability to provide for
themselves. The muggee should then be easily seen as the stronger
based on possessions and membership in a larger or more successful
group.

The evolutionary concept "survival of the fittest" explains why the
moral "it is not ok to mugg" becomes the favored moral.

The math should indicate that LESS people die when the moral view "it
is not ok to mugg" is employed. Since a larger group that allows
itself to be mugged by a smaller group could result in the larger
groups death. So by proxy that survival strategy of mugging results
ONLY by way of small in numbers and weak desperate persons, it is the
unsuccessful strategy resulting in less deaths due to the resultant
"mugging is not ok" moral (survival strategy) employed by the larger
in numbers and stronger population.

In other words this is the logical result of "survival of the
fittest."

That's because the muggers will be the only deaths when they are not
allowed to mugg and they are the smaller weaker or LESS NUMBERED
segment of the population.

I think some basic truths can be seen about the mugger morals here.

1. The moral "it is ok to mugg" has existed longer than the moral "it
is not ok to mugg". (at least it existed at some point prior to the
actual mugging and the detrimental effects of being mugged which would
stimulate a "not ok to mugg" moral did not exist until after the
mugging) Also, the moral, "it is ok to mugg" is a survival strategy
that does work individually as a survival strategy.

2. The moral "it is not ok to mugg" results in the greater survival
advantage to humans and is the logical result of "survival of the
fittest."

[kenandkids]

actually, police can kill to prevent "moral" crimes. a friend of my
exwife was on his roof threatening to burn himself up after he
threatened to stab himself. the next days headline read " lethal force
deemed necessary to prevent suicide".

> moral legitimacy.- Hide quoted text -

[Rupert]

If that was genuinely the mugger's moral view, then yes, but I'm not
sure most muggers think of it that way. I think most muggers probably
don't worry too much about the morality of it, or if they did they
would acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong. It's interesting
how almost everyone likes to be perceived as having a moral code of
some kind. There was a chap called Mark "Chopper" Read who wrote a
book from prison about his experiences as a standover man, extorting
money from criminals, replete with nauseauting details of the beatings
he inflicted on them, but he was at pains to point out that these
people were scum who deserved everything they got and he had nothing
but contempt for someone who would open fire on random passersby.

I think you are enforcing a moral view when you have a particular view
of how everyone should behave which you are prepared to publicly
advocate for everyone. Whereas I think most muggers think more along
the lines of "every man for himself", and don't really care how other
people behave as long as it doesn't affect them, which I don't think
really
counts as a moral view.

[Multiverse]

Well I am not saying that you have to "enforce" a moral view, for it
to be a moral view. I point out that their are two moral views.

it is ok to mugg

it is not ok to mugg

My original comment was that ALL MORAL AUTHORITY is derived from
violence.

The last post I discussed a simple concept of the inception of the
moral views "it is ok to mugg" and "it is not ok to mugg"

They are both morals still. I just point out that when they were
first employed, they were directly involved with survival.

When a person today muggs someone, he is using violence as the
authority that allows him to mugg or as you put it act as if "everyman
is for himself"

So really, the mugger today, mugging to feed his drug habit is
different, and it really does not matter if the mugger knows and
accepts what he is doing is wrong. The muggers moral view is then
"mugging is wrong but I will do it anyway".

That is just the result of living in a civilization and the muggers
moral view that "he will mugg to get what he wants".

The modern day mugger does not have to think in these terms of morals
any more than stone age man did. The moral is easily discerned by
"us" modern men but it does not need our realization to be fact.

So going back to my comment about police enforcing morals,...that is
just an example of violence being the authority for morals. The
mugger discussion is an example of how evolution produced morals and
how the moral that becomes the predominant moral and enforced in
society is the one that provides the best survival advantage to the
whole population.

The guy who wrote the book from prison seems an easy proof that morals
really are a matter of perspective and that perspective is viewed in
reference to your own "survival needs". His rationalization that they
were scum just made it easier for him to "mugg them" perhaps but if he
felt the need to mugg, other targets even he considered less
despicable would be targeted. Prison is a good example of moral
authority being derived from violence. In the prison example,
clearly, "it is ok to mugg" provides a survival advantage. Examine
the "ok to mugg" activity of gangs and just like caveman, the more
numbered population suffers the least losses. Due to the seriously
constrained habitat, the moral is actually "it is ok to mugg to ensure
we do not get mugged prevails. <------That's nothing more than land
warfare, which, of course we have been doing ever since groups of us
bumped into groups of them. In other words, the gangs use violence to
enforce their morals. Just like religion uses violence to enforce
it's morals. When a moral really provides no survival advantage it
will be discarded from use as a matter of evolutionary process. Just
like religion.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rupert]

In that case how do we go about reasoning about how we ought to live?

[Multiverse]

Not sure who your responding to here.

[Rupert]

I meant to ask you the question. Sometimes when I confront dilemmas
about what to do I talk to myself in moral language. If I became a
moral nihilist should I stop trying to reason in moral terms? In what
terms would I reason about the decision then? Should I become a
rational egoist?

[Multiverse]

On May 27, 8:22 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I meant to ask you the question. Sometimes when I confront dilemmas
> about what to do I talk to myself in moral language. If I became a
> moral nihilist should I stop trying to reason in moral terms? In what
> terms would I reason about the decision then? Should I become a
> rational egoist?

Well it seems the laws of most modern countries preclude you from
actually deciding for yourself how you will act in all situations
anyway, but, for the purpose of testing out different systems, you
should be able to test drive any you like with thought experiments.

>
> On May 27, 8:59 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not sure who your responding to here.
>
> > On May 27, 12:14 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > In that case how do we go about reasoning about how we ought to live?- Hide quoted text -

[Rupert]

On May 28, 10:27 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On May 27, 8:22 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I meant to ask you the question. Sometimes when I confront dilemmas
> > about what to do I talk to myself in moral language. If I became a
> > moral nihilist should I stop trying to reason in moral terms? In what
> > terms would I reason about the decision then? Should I become a
> > rational egoist?
>
> Well it seems the laws of most modern countries preclude you from
> actually deciding for yourself how you will act in all situations
> anyway, but, for the purpose of testing out different systems, you
> should be able to test drive any you like with thought experiments.
>

Don't really follow this. Are you saying I should be guided by my
moral intuitions?

[Multiverse]

No I am saying that unless you want to end up in jail, many of your
actions already have a moral code you need to follow, but for thought
experiments, test drive all the different systems you want.

So, if I were giving advice on which system to apply, it would be the
one that does not violate the written laws of your country.

[Rupert]

In general, obeying the laws of the country you happen to be in seems
like a good idea. Staying on top of what is required in order to
comply with all the laws of China is a bit of a tall order, however.
Some of the laws in China are a bit draconian. Some people were
recently arrested in Beijing for sending sexually explicit text
messages, for example, unaware that the practice was illegal.

There's a bit more to morality than just staying out of jail. There
are some decisions which I need to make which seem to me to raise
moral issues over and above the question of whether I'm going to
comply with all the laws of China. In any case this doesn't seem like
moral advice, it seems more like advice about what is rational, what
is the best approach to risk management. Are you recommending rational
egoism?

[Multiverse]

Well having traveled to many countries outside the U.S. including
China, all I can say is you need to be square on what can land ya in
the pokey. Since my travels were with the military we always had
someone in the chain of command who would make sure we were informed
of certain laws we might not be familiar with as well as other customs
and courtesies.

>
> There's a bit more to morality than just staying out of jail. There
> are some decisions which I need to make which seem to me to raise
> moral issues over and above the question of whether I'm going to
> comply with all the laws of China. In any case this doesn't seem like
> moral advice, it seems more like advice about what is rational, what
> is the best approach to risk management. Are you recommending rational
> egoism?

Well, the conversation has landed here through a curious path. Do I
have a recommendation of a moral system for you to use that has some
cookie cutter definition but fits all applications of society to
include the "over and above the question of whether your going to
comply with all the laws of china" decision that you need to make that
you have not explicitly stated in detail? The answer is no. I don't
have such a recommendation.

I don't think there is a "one size fits all" let alone a "one MV size
that fits all" and I am certain there is not even a "one MV size" of a
moral system.

How bout you lay the cards on the table and we take a crack at it?

[Rupert]

I'm interested in quite a lot of moral questions, but lately I've been
thinking about the issue of how much people living in affluent
societies should do to lessen suffering and death in the Third World.
In "Living High and Letting Die" Peter Unger sets forth a fairly
demanding view which basically says you should do everything you can.
That would mean that I should abandon the attempt to have an
intellectually fulfilling career doing research in pure mathematics
and should try to break into the mathematical finance job market, and
then direct all the disposable income I earned towards the charities
which alleviate suffering in the most economically efficient way.

If I were a moral nihilist, how would I go about deciding how much
effort to put into taking advantage of opportunities to relieve
suffering? Would it just be a matter of personal preference?

[Multiverse]

Well this stuff can be interesting in conversation. Personally I
don't feel I need to subscribe to some cookie cutter definition carved
out for a meta-ethical view. That's probably because I have family in
the way of wife, kids, all our extended family and friends and I live
in a society that has very extensive laws and all that comes with
certain obligations on me for part to be part of all that.

But if I would have zero obligations to family etc... which apparently
would leave me available to contemplate pursuing the fine art of
fleecing myself of as much as I could to relieve suffering elsewhere I
would use the same strategy I have used since I was 11.

That strategy is LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY to which
I prefer to lead, know when to follow, and maintain a position that's
not in the way.

My point being I would not dabble in any armchair pondering over the
virtues of various meta-ethical views to decide if there was a
definition in a textbook that was applicable to my situation.

I would do it, or I would not do it. Personally, if I were somehow
free of all the obligations that I have, and able to conjure up such
idea's as dedicating my existence to relieve the suffering of others,
that idea, would be immediately superseded by the idea of hiking the
Appalachian trail. Once the Apps were finished, relieving the
suffering of others would be superseded by.......

So, well, call me crazy but that relieving the suffering of others by
way of consigning myself to the doldrums of self imposed squalor and
maximum effort to earn money and give it might make the
list.....but.....theres a good chance I'll not get the other stuff
crossed off in time for curtain call.

[Rupert]

I guess I was interested in exploring the question of what
consequences moral nihilism has for what grounds our choices about our
basic commitments and projects in life, if anything. Sartre talks
about choices like these in his "Existentialism and Humanism".

If talking about this stuff is not really your thing then that's fine,
of course.

> That's probably because I have family in
> the way of wife, kids, all our extended family and friends and I live
> in a society that has very extensive laws and all that comes with
> certain obligations on me for part to be part of all that.
>

I'm not married and I don't have any children. I have an extended
family and a lot of friends. I too live in a society which has a legal
system, of course.

As a matter of fact I have a girlfriend in Shanghai. I've just
received a very attractive job offer from the Australian Catholic
University in Sydney, but my girlfriend doesn't want to leave
Shanghai. So that's another example of a choice about your fundamental
commitments in life. Sometimes it may be a moral issue, as it
presumably would be if there were children involved, for example, or
sometimes it may simply be a matter of how strong your commitment is
to a relationship.

Obviously only I can decide which commitments are most important to me
in life. You say you view yourself as having a commitment to your wife
and children, which is great. You probably still have the option of
doing something to relieve suffering and you will decide to what
extent you will do that, but you're saying you don't feel the need to
philosophise about your decisions and what grounds them, to relate
them to systematic theories in normative ethics or meta-ethics. So
that's fine, maybe that's the end of the conversation.

> But if I would have zero obligations to family etc... which apparently
> would leave me available to contemplate pursuing the fine art of
> fleecing myself of as much as I could to relieve suffering elsewhere I
> would use the same strategy I have used since I was 11.
>
> That strategy is LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY to which
> I prefer to lead, know when to follow, and maintain a position that's
> not in the way.
>

Well, that's not all that clear to me, if it works for you then that's
great.

> My point being I would not dabble in any armchair pondering over the
> virtues of various meta-ethical views to decide if there was a
> definition in a textbook that was applicable to my situation.
>

You don't really have the drive to philosophically reflect about your
basic decisions in life.

> I would do it, or I would not do it.

Yes, indeed, that's a tautology. We both have a range of options
available to us and each of us will choose one of them. The question
is whether we choose to think systematically about what grounds our
decisions. You apparently choose not to do that.

> Personally, if I were somehow
> free of all the obligations that I have, and able to conjure up such
> idea's as dedicating my existence to relieve the suffering of others,
> that idea, would be immediately superseded by the idea of hiking the
> Appalachian trail. Once the Apps were finished, relieving the
> suffering of others would be superseded by.......
>

Sure, I too have other things to do, such as performing my duties at
work, spending time with my friends and girlfriend, and working on
mathematical papers I want to publish.

However, I do spend some time thinking about issues like these. I do
make some effort by way of putting my money where my mouth is and
actually making contributions which I believe will alleviate
suffering. It is up to me to decide to what extent I will do that, as
it is up to you. I was simply calling for some kind of comment about
what you believe grounds such decisions, as a moral nihilist. Is it an
ungrounded decision?

> So, well, call me crazy but that relieving the suffering of others by
> way of consigning myself to the doldrums of self imposed squalor and
> maximum effort to earn money and give it might make the
> list.....but.....theres a good chance I'll not get the other stuff
> crossed off in time for curtain call.
>

Jolly good, no doubt a lot of people think like that, the question is
is there anything philosophically interesting to say about what
grounds such a decision, or is it an ungrounded decision. Or maybe you
don't find this a fascinating topic.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

> Well this stuff can be interesting in conversation.  Personally I
> don't feel I need to subscribe to some cookie cutter definition carved
> out for a meta-ethical view.

I guess I was interested in exploring the question of what
consequences moral nihilism has for what grounds our choices about our
basic commitments and projects in life, if anything. Sartre talks
about choices like these in his "Existentialism and Humanism".

If talking about this stuff is not really your thing then that's fine,
of course.

My two cents worth,  not from a philosophical approach but a common sense approach.

It's an admirable quality to want to alleviate suffering in the world especially from someone who is themselves financially comfortable.

However, the solution is not to throw money at it.

The solution is to set up social systems which take these things into account and provide universally for those in need.

A capitalist system with a strong social safety net seems to be what works best.

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime"

I don't recall who said that but when it comes to charity and other good works I believe it applies.

My older brother used to donate to an organization called Kiva when he was alive.

This organization provides loans to people in third world countries so that they can start businesses.

You can select the project you contribute to and the person pays you back.

Their loan repayment rate beats the banks by a mile apparently.

Morality and ethics, in my opinion, is about balance, as is how we choose to live our lives.

So, yes we want to help the disadvantaged.

A balanced approach would be to either work for an organization that does that which is what my son does or contribute to (or create) organizations like Kiva which help people help themselves or volunteer for such organizations which is what my daughter does. She goes on volunteer vacations where she will work in another country for a couple of weeks helping out various organizations. She prefers to work with children.

It's not selfish to look after yourself and to live a comfortable life which is financially secure.

It's what you should do because that is the life you have.

Assisting in providing long term solutions to people's problems is what will help.

Giving all your money away will simply result in the degradation of your life which serves no-one including you.

Now if we want to look at this philosophically which is what you seem to want to do, then in my experience there is never one philosophical approach which will answer all our questions consistently and in a way which we consider moral.

We usually have to use a combination of approaches.

I'd have to read up a bit on moral nihilism before I can respond on that and things are bit weird in my life right now (and have been for a while) so it's a little hard for me to focus on the more complex issues people are discussing on these boards.

However, I hope these comments at least help.

[Multiverse]

I guess you would need to define consequences.

>
> If talking about this stuff is not really your thing then that's fine,
> of course.

No, I jumped in. I don't mind swimming. I think part of the problem
I am having here is you seem to be mixing vague general speculative
type questions with questions of "what would I actually do".

Perhaps I responded vaguely in kind. Let me lay it out:

If we are discussing completely hypothetical scenarios, my moral views
and opinions would be different than if we were discussing actual
scenarios of events that can or will take place.

If we are discussing hypothetically, and of course this might be the
more interesting, then the scenario needs to be clearly identified as
hypothetical.

If we are discussing a moral view that would guide my actual actions
then clearly state such and expect a different answer.

I also do not subscribe to any moral view in particular and guide
myself through life with it.

If I were planning any major events in my life or if I was considering
various opportunities I won't sit back and fiddle with any ideas of
what moral view the decision entails to see if it fits with some moral
view I would like to live by. Like any other decision I would weigh
the pro's and con's, decide, and then act. whatever moral view the
decision and actions fit into is pretty irrelevant to me really.

I say that because I don't live in the wild west. I make a bunch of
decisions everyday to not break laws. For example I would love to go
much more than 5 mph in the boat in lots of inter-coastal areas that
are wake free zones but I don't because I don't want to pay a hefty
fine. Now if there were no fines involved but still the request for
reduced speed I would keep a good eye out and apply power. So the
actions I take can depend, and do depend, on the laws. I can shoot an
unarmed intruder inside my house in the face dead and be very certain
that my state won't prosecute me. I might want to shoot his ass
through the door as he is trying to break in to make it easier to
clean the mess but I can be relatively certain of going to jail. In
both cases I would prefer to shoot the guy in the face and if this
were the wild west I would. But it's not so I'll just wait for mr
intruder make it to the big plastic tarp Ill try and spread out on the
floor on my side of the door while I'm waiting:-)

>
> >  That's probably because I have family in
> > the way of wife, kids, all our extended family and friends and I live
> > in a society that has very extensive laws and all that comes with
> > certain obligations on me for part to be part of all that.
>
> I'm not married and I don't have any children. I have an extended
> family and a lot of friends. I too live in a society which has a legal
> system, of course.
>
> As a matter of fact I have a girlfriend in Shanghai. I've just
> received a very attractive job offer from the Australian Catholic
> University in Sydney, but my girlfriend doesn't want to leave
> Shanghai. So that's another example of a choice about your fundamental
> commitments in life. Sometimes it may be a moral issue, as it
> presumably would be if there were children involved, for example, or
> sometimes it may simply be a matter of how strong your commitment is
> to a relationship.

Well for me, if there would be a question as to whether I should stay
or go, obviously there is no question and I should go.

>
> Obviously only I can decide which commitments are most important to me
> in life. You say you view yourself as having a commitment to your wife
> and children, which is great. You probably still have the option of
> doing something to relieve suffering and you will decide to what
> extent you will do that, but you're saying you don't feel the need to
> philosophise about your decisions and what grounds them, to relate
> them to systematic theories in normative ethics or meta-ethics. So
> that's fine, maybe that's the end of the conversation.

No, in everyday application of moral decisions I don't evaluate my
morals and then apply them. I apply my view of morals to the
situation and take action. All that means is I apply what I think is
the best moral view to the situation and often in a civilized society
you don't have a choice about all or part of what actions you will
take anyway unless your willing to pay a penalty.

>
> > But if I would have zero obligations to family etc... which apparently
> > would leave me available to contemplate pursuing the fine art of
> > fleecing myself of as much as I could to relieve suffering elsewhere I
> > would use the same strategy I have used since I was 11.
>
> > That strategy is LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY to which
> > I prefer to lead, know when to follow, and maintain a position that's
> > not in the way.
>
> Well, that's not all that clear to me, if it works for you then that's
> great.

My point being I am a man of action. Nothing out of the ordinary with
that. When it's time to take action I take it. Pussyfooting around
the decision process is not my bag. Guess that's why they call it
learning from our mistakes.

>
> > My point being I would not dabble in any armchair pondering over the
> > virtues of various meta-ethical views to decide if there was a
> > definition in a textbook that was applicable to my situation.
>
> You don't really have the drive to philosophically reflect about your
> basic decisions in life.

Not at all. Unless your using the term reflect differently from me.
I've always tried to improve from past actions. My moral views have
evolved as I think everyone's does.

My comments are directed at dillydallying prior to the decision by
fiddling around trying to come to grips with morals.

>
> > I would do it, or I would not do it.
>
> Yes, indeed, that's a tautology. We both have a range of options
> available to us and each of us will choose one of them. The question
> is whether we choose to think systematically about what grounds our
> decisions. You apparently choose not to do that.

See again you misunderstood my comments I think.

To be certain I don't feel the need to see if I have a grip on morals
prior to applying morals to my decision process.

I reflect back on decisions and there effects and gain different
perspective based on the results of decisions which are then
incorporated into future decision making.

So yes, I do systematically think about what grounds my decisions. do
I care what category the morals applied to a decision come from
definitionally? No. do I think any particular moral view is
universally right or wrong? No, all are subject to the situation. do
I apply whatever moral view I personally think should be the guiding
principle in decisions? Yes.

>
> > Personally, if I were somehow
> > free of all the obligations that I have, and able to conjure up such
> > idea's as dedicating my existence to relieve the suffering of others,
> > that idea, would be immediately superseded by the idea of hiking the
> > Appalachian trail.  Once the Apps were finished, relieving the
> > suffering of others would be superseded by.......
>
> Sure, I too have other things to do, such as performing my duties at
> work, spending time with my friends and girlfriend, and working on
> mathematical papers I want to publish.
>
> However, I do spend some time thinking about issues like these. I do
> make some effort by way of putting my money where my mouth is and
> actually making contributions which I believe will alleviate
> suffering. It is up to me to decide to what extent I will do that, as
> it is up to you. I was simply calling for some kind of comment about
> what you believe grounds such decisions, as a moral nihilist. Is it an
> ungrounded decision?

I am not a moral nihilist. Your mistaken for inferring that or I
misspoke.

How could a moral decision be ungrounded to a moral view and still be
a moral decision?

>
> > So, well, call me crazy but that relieving the suffering of others by
> > way of consigning myself to the doldrums of self imposed squalor and
> > maximum effort to earn money and give it might make the
> > list.....but.....theres a good chance I'll not get the other stuff
> > crossed off in time for curtain call.
>
> Jolly good, no doubt a lot of people think like that, the question is
> is there anything philosophically interesting to say about what
> grounds such a decision, or is it an ungrounded decision. Or maybe you

> don't find this a fascinating topic.- Hide quoted text -

[Rupert]

Microcredit is a good strategy for helping people in the Third World.
It is true that you should not simply "throw money at the problem" in
the sense that you need to look into what is going to help most
effectively, taking the long-term picture into account. I believe that
interventions such as immunisation of children and blindness curing
are well worth contributing to. Obviously that needs to be fit into a
bigger-picture view of how best to tackle the problem of world
poverty, and advocating for good social systems is important too.

On May 31, 10:31 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Microcredit is a good strategy for helping people in the Third World.
It is true that you should not simply "throw money at the problem" in
the sense that you need to look into what is going to help most
effectively, taking the long-term picture into account. I believe that
interventions such as immunisation of children and blindness curing
are well worth contributing to. Obviously that needs to be fit into a
bigger-picture view of how best to tackle the problem of world
poverty, and advocating for good social systems is important too.

Exactly but it's all in the context of our means and one has an obligation to look after themselves and their families (or future families) as well.

For example, someone with little means can volunteer.

Someone with larger means can create charitable foundations like Bill Gates has done.

From an individual perspective it's about creating a balance in our lives by both looking after ourselves as well as giving something back.

[Rupert]

J. L. Mackie was a moral nihilist. He thought that all atomic moral
propositions involved a claim to there being some objective values,
but that in fact there were none, so that all such propositions are
false. But he still didn't think this gave you good reason to abandon
your moral commitments. But when you are making a choice about what
your fundamental moral commitments should be, then if there are no
objective values, what grounds the choice?

Well, you can't help taking a decision of some kind in any given
situation. From moment to moment we all make decisions about how to
live, and postponing a decision is really just another way of making a
decision. But you can also reflect on the principles underlying such
decisions.

Well, I thought you said there were no objective moral truths.

> How could a moral decision be ungrounded to a moral view and still be
> a moral decision?
>

Well, perhaps there can be such a thing as a moral commitment even if
you don't believe there are any objective values. Mackie thought so.