How Far is "Too Far?"

[QI 541]

I think the misconception you're making is that you assume that if people don't believe that their morality or ethics are objective, they won't bother trying to follow or enforce them anymore.

 

[Cwckifan]

My mind is closed on this subject. Mmyeah.

I think that's the general sentiment of everyone here

I think the misconception you're making is that you assume that if people don't believe that their morality or ethics are objective, they won't bother trying to follow or enforce them anymore.

I can tell you from experience, that such a belief is not a misconception... :?

 

[QI 541]

I think the misconception you're making is that you assume that if people don't believe that their morality or ethics are objective, they won't bother trying to follow or enforce them anymore.

I can tell you from experience, that such a belief is not a misconception... :?

Let it be known that there are plenty of people who don't give a damn whether or not the cosmos supports their morals.

 

[Cwckifan]

I think the misconception you're making is that you assume that if people don't believe that their morality or ethics are objective, they won't bother trying to follow or enforce them anymore.

I can tell you from experience, that such a belief is not a misconception... :?

Let it be known that there are plenty of people who don't give a damn whether or not the cosmos supports their morals.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. That's not necessarily a good thing, however, so it's good to have a solid, uncompromising basis for what constitutes right and wrong. Really, you can never be too careful

 

[QI 541]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. That's not necessarily a good thing, however, so it's good to have a solid, uncompromising basis for what constitutes right and wrong. Really, you can never be too careful

Being subjective doesn't mean it doesn't have a solid or uncompromising basis. There's simply no objective way to determine which basis is better than another. Any method you use to determine that will depend on another basis. At the root of it, you follow these bases because that's what you value.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

So what are you saying, Alec? That everyone is responsible for everything, regardless of their actual involvement?

When you hear a vegetarian say that they choose their lifestyle because they don't want to support the killing of animals, what exactly do you interpret from that? Why do you think you don't have the same power to make life choices that they do? Alternatively, why do you think that your money somehow doesn't have an impact on turning the world the way it turns like other peoples' money does?

Your definition of "innocent" is not university accepted

Not universally accepted? Neither is the existence of color, but that doesn't make it untrue.

So that analogy means that you really believe your personal definition of "innocent" is indeed the objectively true one, and that any who disagree with you are wrong. Is that what you mean? People who say color is an illusion would generally be considered ridiculous, therefore anyone who disagrees with your "objective" beliefs are likewise ridiculous? There is simply no room for you to ever even add to or modify your beliefs, because they're just that perfect?

Nobody with a functioning mind can say that I've ever killed any of my food, so that's a moot point.

That doesn't matter, it's the bigger picture. If you say that you aren't a part of it because you don't personally deal the killing blow, then I guess 99% of the meat industry isn't responsible either, right? Only the one guy in the factory farm who presses the button to kill the cow? The guys who hold down its spasming body aren't responsible? The guys who then cut the animal up and prepare the meat for processing aren't responsible? The meat industry looks at people like you and say to themselves, "hey, that guy will pay to eat our meat if we keep manufacturing it. So let's continue to kill more animals for meat!" You ARE a part of the world in which you participate. I don't understand how you can have absolutely no comprehension of the basics of economics and that you are a consumer within that system. Whether you care about animals or not, eating meat shows that you care about delicious meat more. People might not like Walmart's shitty labor practices, but if they buy at Walmart then that means that the deals they can get has a higher priority to them over Walmart's labor practices.

I have no choice on taxes, and I don't vote, so he has nothing to fear.

You DO have a choice. You could not pay taxes. You might get in trouble, even go to jail if the government gets pissed enough, but by not going that far you are saying that protecting yourself from legal problems is more important to you than protesting what the government does with your money no matter how much you disagree with it.

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

One, yes, it is in the same way that anyone who uses petroleum products contributes to environmental destruction and unjust wars; and two, are you saying that nothing is wrong unless it's proven so by some police force coming to punish you? Why do you even bring up the EPA?

I think the misconception you're making is that you assume that if people don't believe that their morality or ethics are objective, they won't bother trying to follow or enforce them anymore.

I can tell you from experience, that such a belief is not a misconception... :?

There are a bunch of people here who have spent 6 pages telling you that they follow/enforce their own personal morals without believing them to be objective.

 

[Cwckifan]

Being subjective doesn't mean it doesn't have a solid or uncompromising basis. There's simply no objective way to determine which basis is better than another. Any method you use to determine that will depend on another basis. At the root of it, you follow these bases because that's what you value.

That's the problem, though. If it's just something you value, then on what basis can you say that someone who hurts you is actually wrong and should compensate you, versus you just feel that they're wrong, and they don't have to compensate you? It's an issue of whether or not someone else shares your values, and if they don't, not only are you screwed, but you might not even be compensated for your loss or injury. Obviously, seeing as how all animals have such shifting values, it's just dangerous to chalk ethics, the law, and crime and punishment to that. Really, why else is lynching okay one decade, but not the next? Look how long it took everyone to realize that conquering and hunting to extinction is something worthy of punishment, and not to be celebrated! That is why there has to be an undeniable basis, with which one cannot reasonably argue. Otherwise, what's stopping an aggressor from being convinced that they're not in the wrong for causing you a loss? How could you prove it, if without a unifying, unwavering philosophy?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

That's the problem, though. If it's just something you value, then on what basis can you say that someone who hurts you is actually wrong and should compensate you, versus you just feel that they're wrong, and they don't have to compensate you?

In all honesty? The most practical answer to that might be to balance all affected parties' morals against each other and find the mean. Which I think is essentially what modern society has done, or is attempting to do. And on a personal level - and also taking practicality into account - each person does have to accept that the farther they stray from the collective norm, the bigger price they're going to have to pay to keep it up. But depending on how strong your beliefs are, the price may be worth it.

Really, why else is lynching okay one decade, but not the next? Look how long it took everyone to realize that conquering and hunting to extinction is something worthy of punishment, and not to be celebrated!

How can you prove that just because that is the standard by which we live now, it happens to be the right one? Doesn't that sound a little too convenient to you? Maybe a thousand years from now people will be slaughtering species left and right, and the philosophers among those generations will feel very strongly that they have very good reasons for why it is the "right" way. Or maybe those living a thousand years from now will look back and say "they put people in prisons as punishment? How unbelievably cruel and barbaric!" Personally, I have very little affection for animal life. I don't want to see them harmed or caused pain for trivial reasons, but frankly I feel the most important reason to protect species and the environment is because doing so is the easiest way to preserve human prosperity; the ecosystem becomes unbalanced and we have a bunch of problems we didn't have to have. And I certainly don't feel any qualm about eating them. Some would agree with me, some who love animals a lot more than I do would call me a monster. Who among them is right?

 

[QI 541]

That's the problem, though. If it's just something you value, then on what basis can you say that someone who hurts you is actually wrong and should compensate you, versus you just feel that they're wrong, and they don't have to compensate you?

You're missing the point. It's not whether or not we should. It simply is. Your ethics and morals are formed from your personal values. Usually, most of these values are shared amongst your population, allowing them to agree on a set of rules.

It's an issue of whether or not someone else shares your values, and if they don't, not only are you screwed, but you might not even be compensated for your loss or injury. Obviously, seeing as how all animals have such shifting values, it's just dangerous to chalk ethics, the law, and crime and punishment to that.

Exactly. Because this is how we form our ethics, morals, and laws. This is why there exist people with different morals and ethics than yours, and why there are many laws you find unjust. Something I value may be important to me, but meaningless for someone else. This will always be a possibility regardless of what basis you choose for your ethics and morals.

Really, why else is lynching okay one decade, but not the next? Look how long it took everyone to realize that conquering and hunting to extinction is something worthy of punishment, and not to be celebrated! That is why there has to be an undeniable basis, with which one cannot reasonably argue. Otherwise, what's stopping an aggressor from being convinced that they're not in the wrong for causing you a loss? How could you prove it, if without a unifying, unwavering philosophy?

There doesn't have to be an undeniable, unarguable basis. Things that you believe are unjust can exist. People with different ethics and morals can exist. People who believe lynching is okay can, and did exist. That's why there doesn't have to be an undeniable basis. Otherwise, there wouldn't even exist aggressors who believe they're right for causing you loss.

Even your "undeniable basis" definition is vague, and depends on what people perceive as "reasonable".

 

[Cwckifan]

So what are you saying, Alec? That everyone is responsible for everything, regardless of their actual involvement?

When you hear a vegetarian say that they choose their lifestyle because they don't want to support the killing of animals, what exactly do you interpret from that? Why do you think you don't have the same power to make life choices that they do? Alternatively, why do you think that your money somehow doesn't have an impact on turning the world the way it turns like other peoples' money does?

Whenever I hear that, I believe that they have followed their noble ideals to delusional heights, and are not acting with any respect to the real impact their choices actually have on the use of animals for food. I do have the same power to make choices as they do, and I do so with respect to the actual impact my individual choices actually have on the supply and demand of meat, which is basically nil. Same goes for money, too, especially considering that nothing I do can prevent their slaughter from happening. Still, this doesn't mean I don't act to save animals from the slaughter when I can, as I've adopted more than a few chickens for just that reason.

Not universally accepted? Neither is the existence of color, but that doesn't make it untrue.

So that analogy means that you really believe your personal definition of "innocent" is indeed the objectively true one, and that any who disagree with you are wrong. Is that what you mean? People who say color is an illusion would generally be considered ridiculous, therefore anyone who disagrees with your "objective" beliefs are likewise ridiculous? There is simply no room for you to ever even add to or modify your beliefs, because they're just that perfect?

Here's some formal definitions of innocent: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent . How exactly are they inconsistent with my assertion that an innocent person is one who does not act on others in a harmful way, or has nothing to do with a conflict?

Nobody with a functioning mind can say that I've ever killed any of my food, so that's a moot point.

That doesn't matter, it's the bigger picture. If you say that you aren't a part of it because you don't personally deal the killing blow, then I guess 99% of the meat industry isn't responsible either, right? Only the one guy in the factory farm who presses the button to kill the cow? The guys who hold down its spasming body aren't responsible? The guys who then cut the animal up and prepare the meat for processing aren't responsible? The meat industry looks at people like you and say to themselves, "hey, that guy will pay to eat our meat if we keep manufacturing it. So let's continue to kill more animals for meat!"

First, yes. Second,those are their actions, choices, and problems, not mine. Really, again, if you stretch the notion of 'responsibility' out this far, it's like blaming a mother for her mass-murdering child. Seriously, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Blame the CEOs for managing the networks which exploit the need of others to make money to fund their animal-slaughtering business if you want, but even then they're having a meaningful part in initiating\ maintaining the whole operation; I'm not

You ARE a part of the world in which you participate. I don't understand how you can have absolutely no comprehension of the basics of economics and that you are a consumer within that system. Whether you care about animals or not, eating meat shows that you care about delicious meat more. People might not like Walmart's shitty labor practices, but if they buy at Walmart then that means that the deals they can get has a higher priority to them over Walmart's labor practices.

Right, in the same way that you support child labor and slavery, by eating chocolate and buying Chinese-made products? Seriously, it's the still just taking otherwise noble ideals, and promoting them to absurdly lofty heights. Like I said, my individual contribution is literally a spec of a drop in an ocean, and makes no real difference. I didn't kill those livestock, I couldn't prevent their deaths, and my money alone is basically meaningless, so what difference does it make? Seriously, how could I care more about eating them, if the meat is already dead and being sold regardless of my actionst? Really, do I have to raid a farm to show my sympathy? I hope not, because if any of the livestock died or were killed, I'd be responsible for those deaths too

I have no choice on taxes, and I don't vote, so he has nothing to fear.

You DO have a choice. You could not pay taxes. You might get in trouble, even go to jail if the government gets pissed enough, but by not going that far you are saying that protecting yourself from legal problems is more important to you than protesting what the government does with your money no matter how much you disagree with it.

Right, in the same way that giving my money to a guy with a gun pressed against my head shows that I care more for allowing criminals to be successful in their actions, than I do for not enabling them. Really, that's what you may've well have said right now. Seriously, does your refusal to join the peace corp. 'prove' that you care more for living your own life, than making life better for others? I find that to be a weirdly idealistic way of thinking

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

One, yes, it is in the same way that anyone who uses petroleum products contributes to environmental destruction and unjust wars; and two, are you saying that nothing is wrong unless it's proven so by some police force coming to punish you? Why do you even bring up the EPA?

No, I'm saying that since he's responsible for so much in the way of war crimes and environmental destruction because of his use of petroleum products, it's a bit strange that he's not being punished for it. Huh, maybe all of those systems have this misguided idea that to be responsible for something, you have to actually initiate or maintain it in a meaningful way. Those poor, misguided souls

There are a bunch of people here who have spent 6 pages telling you that they follow/enforce their own personal morals without believing them to be objective.

Fair enough. So when push comes to shove, how do you defend them? Suppose someone wanted to say that something you did was deeply immoral, and that they're justified in punishing you for it? Can you show them why they're wrong?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Seriously, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

That's what I've been trying to ask you.

Fuck it, I'm done with this. You're impossible to reason with.

 

[Cwckifan]

That's the problem, though. If it's just something you value, then on what basis can you say that someone who hurts you is actually wrong and should compensate you, versus you just feel that they're wrong, and they don't have to compensate you?

In all honesty? The most practical answer to that might be to balance all affected parties' morals against each other and find the mean. Which I think is essentially what modern society has done, or is attempting to do. And on a personal level - and also taking practicality into account - each person does have to accept that the farther they stray from the collective norm, the bigger price they're going to have to pay to keep it up. But depending on how strong your beliefs are, the price may be worth it.

What does that even mean? Really, suppose the morals of 'party A' are, 'we are superior and can do whatever we want', and 'Party B' believes 'You should always treat people well', what is the mean for that, and who decides it? I guess trading would be a compromise, but suppose they make the argument that since they're fundamentally superior, any deal they make is a good deal, which must be accepted. Really, it's not looking good for 'Party B'

Really, why else is lynching okay one decade, but not the next? Look how long it took everyone to realize that conquering and hunting to extinction is something worthy of punishment, and not to be celebrated!

How can you prove that just because that is the standard by which we live now, it happens to be the right one? Doesn't that sound a little too convenient to you? Maybe a thousand years from now people will be slaughtering species left and right, and the philosophers among those generations will feel very strongly that they have very good reasons for why it is the "right" way. Or maybe those living a thousand years from now will look back and say "they put people in prisons as punishment? How unbelievably cruel and barbaric!"

Huh? Again, from where do you get these interpretations. What I said above was an argument for why we must have a solid, objective system of ethics, so things like that don't happen. Hell, I would say that our current standard of no conquering, over-hunting, and lynching is the 'right' one, because it ensures that the murder or harm of innocent beings is never justified. Really, why do you consider that a bad thing?

Personally, I have very little affection for animal life. I don't want to see them harmed or caused pain for trivial reasons, but frankly I feel the most important reason to protect species and the environment is because doing so is the easiest way to preserve human prosperity; the ecosystem becomes unbalanced and we have a bunch of problems we didn't have to have. And I certainly don't feel any qualm about eating them. Some would agree with me, some who love animals a lot more than I do would call me a monster. Who among them is right?

So if they ever stop being convenient, or if the environment will be fine without them, to hell with them then? See, this is what I mean; your philosophy can (even if implicitly) justify harming and killing innocent beings, and that's just not right. It is the very crux of what can be considered to be violent crime, and gives no respect to the will of the innocent. Really, suppose tomorrow that it was decided that all of your property was given to what was considered to be a better use of it. Would you really believe in such a means of acting, then?

Seriously, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

That's what I've been trying to ask you.

Fuck it, I'm done with this. You're impossible to reason with.

Alec, you're the one who's been bringing up (over, and over, and over again) how I would be responsible for things beyond my control, even though my personal contribution is minimal at best, and my philosophy emphasizes being responsible when acting (a personal thing, now), on others. Seriously, I've diligently addressed damn near all of your points,responses, and re-responses, while you've hopped, jumped, and skipped around basically most of what I've said. Honestly, I don't know how I can make myself more clear, so here it is : hurting innocents is always wrong, and should never be done ever, since we're all equal in our desire to live our lives how we'd like. Feel free to go back and read my pages and pages of responses if you still don't get why, because I'm not writing it again

That's the problem, though. If it's just something you value, then on what basis can you say that someone who hurts you is actually wrong and should compensate you, versus you just feel that they're wrong, and they don't have to compensate you?

You're missing the point. It's not whether or not we should. It simply is. Your ethics and morals are formed from your personal values. Usually, most of these values are shared amongst your population, allowing them to agree on a set of rules.

Fair enough...

It's an issue of whether or not someone else shares your values, and if they don't, not only are you screwed, but you might not even be compensated for your loss or injury. Obviously, seeing as how all animals have such shifting values, it's just dangerous to chalk ethics, the law, and crime and punishment to that.

Exactly. Because this is how we form our ethics, morals, and laws. This is why there exist people with different morals and ethics than yours, and why there are many laws you find unjust. Something I value may be important to me, but meaningless for someone else. This will always be a possibility regardless of what basis you choose for your ethics and morals.

Raymond, how did you get that from what I wrote? I said that because values constantly shift, that's why they shouldn't be used to form the basis of any ethical system, seeing as how unjust laws are generally not a good thing!

Really, why else is lynching okay one decade, but not the next? Look how long it took everyone to realize that conquering and hunting to extinction is something worthy of punishment, and not to be celebrated! That is why there has to be an undeniable basis, with which one cannot reasonably argue. Otherwise, what's stopping an aggressor from being convinced that they're not in the wrong for causing you a loss? How could you prove it, if without a unifying, unwavering philosophy?

There doesn't have to be an undeniable, unarguable basis. Things that you believe are unjust can exist. People with different ethics and morals can exist. People who believe lynching is okay can, and did exist. That's why there doesn't have to be an undeniable basis. Otherwise, there wouldn't even exist aggressors who believe they're right for causing you loss.

Huh? You seem to be missing the point that lynching, conquering, and over-hunting are not good things, and are precisely why we need an objective basis for an ethical system which ensures that they'll never be justified. Why is this not clear?

Even your "undeniable basis" definition is vague, and depends on what people perceive as "reasonable".

Basically, a basis that can't be denied. I really don't know how to make that more simple. Really, just as evolution is formed on the undeniable basis that beings change over time as a consequence of environment and reproduction, my system of ethics rests on the undeniable basis that we all want to live in a way that we find pleasing. That's an objective fact, no emotion required

 

[QI 541]

Raymond, how did you get that from what I wrote? I said that because values constantly shift, that's why they shouldn't be used to form the basis of any ethical system, seeing as how unjust laws are generally not a good thing!

Whether or not they should isn't the issue. It is what it is.
Laws that you perceive as unjust exist not because we're using a non-objective system of ethics, but because ethics are formed from your values.

Huh? You seem to be missing the point that lynching, conquering, and over-hunting are not good things, and are precisely why we need an objective basis for an ethical system which ensures that they'll never be justified. Why is this not clear?

Even if some kind of objective ethics system somehow existed, people can always justify it using their own personal ethics. Any basis you choose is vulnerable to the existence of people who don't agree with it.

Basically, a basis that can't be denied. I really don't know how to make that more simple. Really, just as evolution is formed on the undeniable basis that beings change over time as a consequence of environment and reproduction, my system of ethics rests on the undeniable basis that we all want to live in a way that we find pleasing. That's an objective fact, no emotion required

Statements like "Things change over time because evolution" and "Jake stole my cookies" are objective because there's a simple "True/False" answer to them. Either it happened or it didn't. Note that this isn't the only criteria for determining whether or not something is objective, but it is a requirement.

Ethics are a set of rules. Asking whether or not your ethics are objectively correct is like asking whether the rules of basketball are objectively correct. The idea of an objective ethics system doesn't make sense. Even if everyone in the world shared the same values and ethics, it still wouldn't be objective.

However, it probably is possible to objectively determine which set of rules are best for fulfilling your principles, but there's no guarantee that others will share your principles.

 

[Holdek]

And it has been pointed out to you here by others that:

1. Your definition of "innocent" is not university accepted

Not universally accepted? Neither is the existence of color, but that doesn't make it untrue.

2. Nor is "excessive punishment"

See above

3. Nor is your claim of being detached from the problems that you have a very real involvement in creating, at least in combination with others

Nobody with a functioning mind can say that I've ever killed any of my food, so that's a moot point. Really, the point of being 'responsible for' has been stretched so thin here, that's it's basically meaningless. Hell, based on what I've seen, if someone assaults you for wearing something you didn't know was offensive to them, you're 'responsible' for that too!

Do you know that folks like Henry Thoreau would be appalled that you pay taxes to fund a government doing unethical things, and that you elect rulers on whose orders those things are carried out?

I have no choice on taxes, and I don't vote, so he has nothing to fear.

That there is a movement to abolish imprisonment as a punishment because they consider incarceration inherently inhumane?

So according to your reasoning, if anyone gets attacked by a criminal because of their actions, they're all responsible. I hope none of the people they help release is a murderer, because if anything happened, they'd all be eligible for the chair

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

"Something tells" you? How do you know? The only thing you know about me is what I've said online and I haven't posted much about my opinions on the balance between individual rights and coercion for the greater good. You would be surprised.

So you're saying that you wouldn't be bothered if the federal government took your land without paying you, because you must serve what it thinks is the greater good? That you'd be okay with a criminal who attacked you getting off scot-free because it was 'your fault' for being in a place where it could happen, though you were minding your own business? That you'd be just fine with being considered an accomplice to a crime, simply for not wanting to talk for fear of your life, and not having anything to do with it? Well if so, you'll have to teach me your ways, because if I would give my left arm to be that calm and centered.

There's a couple of problems that keep recurring in your posts. The first is that you don't seem to know what "objective" means (see your equating the nature of physical realities and your opinions on what are right and wrong). The second is that you spend most of your time burning down straw men, a game that is not only obnoxious but also one a lot of people refuse to play.

I think you need to do a lot more reading (as in the basics) and a little less writing. Start with foundational philosophy, ethics, and epistemology, and keep going. It's obvious you didn't understand my Thoreau reference; read Civil Disobedience. And just...yeah, study moar.

So what's going on in here?

It's mid-June; school year ended.

At the root of it, you follow these bases because that's what you value.

^This, QFE

 

[Bgheff]

At the root of it, you follow these bases because that's what you value.

^This, QFE

Wrong. Everything I tell you is True, Honest and Legit. ]P
At any rate, this discussion had been a dead horse for pages, since you are all trying to convince one person his personal beliefs are not absolute for the universe, and he doesn't seem to understand what you mean.

 

[Holdek]

That you do not exist outside of the economic law of supply and demand? Supply = beef, demand = you buying it. Thus, you contribute to the slaughtering of cattle?

In the same way that you contribute to environmental destruction and unjust wars, because you use petroleum products? So when will the EPA and military police come to your home?

One, yes, it is in the same way that anyone who uses petroleum products contributes to environmental destruction and unjust wars; and two, are you saying that nothing is wrong unless it's proven so by some police force coming to punish you? Why do you even bring up the EPA?

No, I'm saying that since he's responsible for so much in the way of war crimes and environmental destruction because of his use of petroleum products, it's a bit strange that he's not being punished for it. Huh, maybe all of those systems have this misguided idea that to be responsible for something, you have to actually initiate or maintain it in a meaningful way. Those poor, misguided souls

Dude, the government requires that the car I buy has a fuel efficiency standard set by the EPA. The EPA requires me to buy gasoline with certain percentage of ethanol blended in. The city that I live in will fine me if I don't recycle my plastic beverage bottles (which are made from petroleum). These things are done so that I don't use as much oil as I otherwise would. If I violate these laws, I get punished.

So, to answer your question, yes, I do contribute to environmental destruction and wars because I use petroleum products. The role of society and its components is to determine 1. Is that a problem? 2. If it is, what should be my punishment? And a lot of complicated considerations get factored into that, including both objective facts and subjective values.

 

[Cwckifan]

Whether or not they should isn't the issue. It is what it is.
Laws that you perceive as unjust exist not because we're using a non-objective system of ethics, but because ethics are formed from your values.

So laws that I perceive as unjust really just go against my values? So tell me, are laws which allow female circumcision unjust because they allow for the legalization of a process which hurts and permanently damages hundreds of thousands of women each year, or is that just because of my values? What about laws that allow child abuse, racism, or environmental destruction? Does the lack of justice of those have anything to do with beings and property being harmed, or is it all in my head? That's what I mean, raymond;because they aren't following an objective basis of ethics, there is literally no solid means by which you can say that they're wrong , even though they clearly are. Hell, suppose all the men in a region really value female circumcision? I guess those women are just SOL, and the men are totally in the right. Really, it's not a problem which could be solved by implementing an ethical system which determines how just an action is by looking at whether or not it's consensual, or if the recipients of that action are injured by it; after all, such an objective basis just doesn't exist!

Even if some kind of objective ethics system somehow existed, people can always justify it using their own personal ethics. Any basis you choose is vulnerable to the existence of people who don't agree with it.

People can justify stealing cars and murder, too, but our solid legal base ensures that those who do it are still in the wrong, liable for punishment, and that you're entitled to compensation. Really, good thing the objective facts that someone else did something to you without your consent that caused you a loss, were used as the basis for those laws! Could you imagine the authorities telling you that there's nothing they can do, because there's no way they can solidly say that the aggressor is in the wrong?

Statements like "Things change over time because evolution" and "Jake stole my cookies" are objective because there's a simple "True/False" answer to them. Either it happened or it didn't. Note that this isn't the only criteria for determining whether or not something is objective, but it is a requirement.

Funny enough, the same 'simple "True/False" answer' can also be applied to questions like, 'did you consent to this action?', 'did you suffer a loss because of them?', and 'did you initiate or meaningfully contribute to a bad situation?'. Strange how it's not possible to form an objective ethical basis, based on them

Ethics are a set of rules. Asking whether or not your ethics are objectively correct is like asking whether the rules of basketball are objectively correct. The idea of an objective ethics system doesn't make sense. Even if everyone in the world shared the same values and ethics, it still wouldn't be objective.

You're right; after all, a system of ethics based on simple questions and undeniable observations which seek to determine if one acted on another in a way that caused them a loss and violated their consent, and give punishment on the basis of the (equally objective) meaningful involvement an individual (or group) had in an activity which caused harm or loss to another? How could that ever help complex legal battles, or be applied universally?

However, it probably is possible to objectively determine which set of rules are best for fulfilling your principles, but there's no guarantee that others will share your principles.

It's actions I care about, mostly. Really, whether a person doesn't stab me in the face because it'd hamper my ability to live/enjoy my life, or because they'll go to jail, so long as there is a solid basis for why they mustn't (and why their punishment is justified if they do), I'll take it

There's a couple of problems that keep recurring in your posts. The first is that you don't seem to know what "objective" means (see your equating the nature of physical realities and your opinions on what are right and wrong).

And what's wrong with that? Are the assertions not logically consistent, and valid through-and through? Is the fact that they provide solid reasons for why we can't hurt others, are eligible to (fair) punishment of we do, and can't be held accountable for problems we didn't start or meaningfully contribute to, a problem?

The second is that you spend most of your time burning down straw men, a game that is not only obnoxious but also one a lot of people refuse to play.

Say what you want, but I tell you from my experience that my concerns are not strawmen. I'm sure you look at the possibility of your land being seized and laugh, but it happens a lot, and may even be justified by your notion of ethics.

I think you need to do a lot more reading (as in the basics) and a little less writing. Start with foundational philosophy, ethics, and epistemology, and keep going. It's obvious you didn't understand my Thoreau reference; read Civil Disobedience. And just...yeah, study moar.

Oh, I've done my reading. I've suffered through Epictetus and Camut, I've read Socrates' debates with the sophists and priests, and through it all, all of them justify hurting or suppressing others to some degree. Hell, Camut and Kant are the only ones who even try to establish a solid basis for why it's wrong to hurt others (I really like Camut's position on suicide), and even then, Kant says that it's okay to suppress an 'inferior' race if it'd help the 'superior' one. Sorry, but does that sound like a rule you'd like to live by? Really, the theory of biological jurisprudence really covers those bases well
My position is simple: 1)no hurting innocents ever, and if you do, you're in the wrong and can be justifiably punished, 2) You can't be held accountable for any problem you didn't start, or didn't act to meaningfully contribute to. My reasoning is solid, and their factual basis observable by anyone sane

 

[Venusaur]

So laws that I perceive as unjust really just go against my values? So tell me, are laws which allow female circumcision unjust because they allow for the legalization of a process which hurts and permanently damages hundreds of thousands of women each year, or is that just because of my values? What about laws that allow child abuse, racism, or environmental destruction? Does the lack of justice of those have anything to do with beings and property being harmed, or is it all in my head? That's what I mean, raymond;because they aren't following an objective basis of ethics, there is literally no solid means by which you can say that they're wrong , even though they clearly are. Hell, suppose all the men in a region really value female circumcision? I guess those women are just SOL, and the men are totally in the right. Really, it's not a problem which could be solved by implementing an ethical system which determines how just an action is by looking at whether or not it's consensual, or if the recipients of that action are injured by it; after all, such an objective basis just doesn't exist!

Now… I think female circumcision is a deplorable act. But in some regions? It’s culturally accepted and not viewed as an unethical act. It is not punished. Just like a lot of people are fine with males being circumcised , yet in some regions it is viewed as mutilation and it’s illegal. Again, it just depends on what people agree is right or wrong, and again this is based on their values. We’re going back to what people have been repeating over and over in this thread.

You keep referring to your own system of ethics any time you attempt to tackle anyone else’s arguments. But, I think the main idea that people keep trying to get across to you is that in the end it’s your ethical view point. Some people might agree with it, but in the end ethics and morality are not universally objective.Your views apply only to you, and whoever else might share your view point.

While it's tempting to label some issues as being cleary "ethical" or "unethical", it becomes incredibly difficult to assert if something is ethical or not once you start bringing in all the different ethical viewpoints that exist. Once you start delving into the complexities of an issue and how it begins to interconnect with different systems…. You’d be surprised how hard it can be to clearly answer questions like “Is this ethical?”.

 

[Cwckifan]

Dude, the government requires that the car I buy has a fuel efficiency standard set by the EPA. The EPA requires me to buy gasoline with certain percentage of ethanol blended in. The city that I live in will fine me if I don't recycle my plastic beverage bottles (which are made from petroleum). These things are done so that I don't use as much oil as I otherwise would. If I violate these laws, I get punished.

I agree; you follow the rules and don't bother anyone, and under my philosophy, you're golden. Since your philosophy states that your tangental relationship with these companies makes you responsible for all of their misdeeds to some degree, however, it seems like these rules are a pretty cozy punishment

So, to answer your question, yes, I do contribute to environmental destruction and wars because I use petroleum products. The role of society and its components is to determine 1. Is that a problem? 2. If it is, what should be my punishment? And a lot of complicated considerations get factored into that, including both objective facts and subjective values.

Under your notion of ethics, a lot of considerations sure do go into it, and you'd have a lot of defending to do. Of course, I'd say that you're not at fault because you caused no trouble, and don't significantly contribute to it, but apparently that ethical judgement isn't based on anything objective. Still, I do have to commend you for being so calm despite your somehow being partially responsible for so many atrocities

 

[Kosher Dill]

The thing with "not harming people except for good reason" is that what counts as a good reason ultimately depends on what your expectation of the future is if you choose to do that harm, versus if you choose not to. And last time I checked no one can 100% predict the future. Being humans with limited information, we can't even 100% agree on what the situation in the present is. So there's never going to be universal agreement on ethics.
Example: when we sentence a man to a year in jail, that's essentially making a prediction that society will be better off in the next year with that guy in jail than free (factoring in the harm done to the man himself by jailing him). Similarly for other punishments. Can we ever have certainty on that?

And really, let's say that we magically did come up with universal objective ethics. What are you going to do with the people (or entire societies) who can't or won't listen to reason? How would it be different from how we deal with ethical differences today in a non-universal framework?