Yes, You Do Have A Moral Obligation

[ladsin]

*TRIGGERED*

I'm sure that many of you stopped reading at the headline, perhaps some halfway through, and immediately came here to state your disagreement, insult, or just get some XPER. That's fine I suppose, for those of you who are actually going to read though, congrats. I decided to write this Take after my recent question about whether or not we have a moral obligation to help people... The responses surprised me to say the least, anyway here we go.

What is morality?

I've covered a lot of this before, but I know I need to go into it again here for those who I've not yet discussed the subject with. In essence I make a separation between our base/ animalistic moral reasoning that we see in other social species, and what philosophically we are talking about when discussing morality. When we look at other various social species we see that most have a general idea about fairness, an innate sense of right and wrong, and that innate sense is modulated by the particular society that an animal finds itself in. One humorous example was a study conducted on Capuchin monkeys in which they were "paid unfairly." In this experiment one monkey was rewarded with a grape, and the other cucumber.

In common discourse though we tend to be talking about something different.

I think that when discussing morality we're almost always discussing well-being, particularly the well-being of sentient creatures. We describe a morally good action as one which is conducive to their well-being, and a morally bad action as one which inhibits or harms their well-being.

What is well-being?

This is a good question, and I don't think that there's an easy answer to this, but just because there's not an easy answer doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to parse it out. Take for example the concept of health. Physical health is actually quite poorly defined, and what is healthy today is far different than what was healthy many years ago. One example of this would be life expectancy. The average life expectancy a millennia or two ago was about 40. Today in America the average life expectancy is ~80. It's not unfeasible that in another few centuries, or perhaps millenia that our life expediencies double again. Additionally, just because we don't know everything involved in well-being doesn't mean that we can in fact say nothing about well-being. Looking again to the health example, even though we don't have a complete picture of physical health, it is quite easy point out that the person jumping and running around is physically healthier than the fellow lying on the ground dead. In much the same way we can say that throwing acid into the face of a young girl for the crime of learning is most certainly detrimental to her well-being.

You still haven't shown that I have an obligation to do anything!

When I talk with a lot of people on the issue of moral obligations I'm frequently shocked at how few people have even thought about what the term "obligation" means. In fact when I talk about obligation to many people it appears as though I've cursed their mother. This repugnance or aversion to the idea of having obligations has always befuddled me. This leads us down the rabbit hole of defining terms. I'll just give the first dictionary definitions I find

Ought:

noun
duty or obligation.

Obligation

noun
1.) an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
"he has enough cash to meet his present obligations"
2.) the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
"they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme"
3.) a debt of gratitude for a service or favor.
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"

Duty (legal)

noun

1.) : tasks, service, or functions that arise from one's position performing a police officer's duties
; also : a period of being on duty — see also jury duty
2.) an obligation assumed (as by contract) or imposed by law to conduct oneself in conformance with a certain standard or to act in a particular way

So, my assertion is that we have moral oughts, or obligations, and one of the first things I'm sure I'll hear is that, "you can't get an ought from an is! Just because something IS the case doesn't mean we're obligated to do it!" Or some other such variation of pointing out the is-ought fallacy. I'm aware of this, and I agree to an extent. It is true that we can't get an is from an ought, but we can get an ought from two is'. To demonstrate:

It is the case that I want my car to continue running.

It is the case that getting my oil changed every 3-5k miles will help keep my car running.

Therefor, I ought to get my oil changed every 3-5k miles.

In the same way we get to moral oughts.

It is the case that X is moral. It is the case that I want to be moral. Therefor, I ought to do X.

Somebody may aptly point out, well this only matters if I want to be moral! If I don't want to be moral then I have no moral obligations! Well, obviously dumby, this isn't an argument against having a moral obligation. In much the same way that whether or not you care about upholding a legal obligation doesn't detract from the idea that we actually have them. Although an additional caveat would be that you'd also have to not want to appear to be moral.

Anyway, a lot of words to get to a pretty simple idea, but I think it was necessary. As always, criticism appreciated.

[Good_Behavior]

This doesn't touch on the is/ought problem.

Also, your assertion about the car is an error, because it is a misuse of the word "is" in your own parlance.

"It is the case that I want my car to continue running."

This is a want.

"It is the case that getting my oil changed every 3-5k miles will help keep my car running."

This is a fact.

They aren't the same. You can't intermix them. You will have to try again if you want to prove obligation.

"It is the case that X is moral."

This is unsubstantiated. It is a belief claim.

"It is the case that I want to be moral."

This is a want.

"Therefor, I ought to do X."

This doesn't guarantee that what you declare yourself as ought to do is actually moral because X isn't substantiated as moral.

Substitution:

"It is the case that killing people who willingly kill animals is moral. I want to be moral. Therefore I ought to kill people who torture puppies."

Obviously you shouldn't rush about killing every butcher in the city.

So no matter what X is you have to somehow, in your syllogism, prove that X is actually moral AND you have to somehow convert your want to a fact because a want, the want to be moral or anything else, isn't sufficient for anything other than a simple want.

[ladsin]

What?
There's no contradiction between my usage of "is" in the statements. "Is" is simply the third person singular present form of be. Wants are factual statements.

Did you miss the portion above where I defined what I'm talking about when discussing morality?

[Good_Behavior]

So a want is not an "is" statement in the frame of the is/ought problem. This is (ironically) wordplay. Consider the statements at their base level without loss of meaning:

"It is the case that I want my car to continue running." is exactly equivalent to "I want my car to continue running." This means it is NOT an is/ought statement. The fact that you managed to sneak in the word 'is' doesn't really dictate the type of statement (objective) that it qualifies as. Meanwhile:

"It is the case that getting my oil changed every 3-5k miles will help keep my car running." cannot be retranslated, or simplified, "It is true that getting my oil changed ever X miles will help keep the car running." This is purely objective. It is observable. It is not a desire. It is not wordplay. It cannot be simplified.

So, no, I read it all and it is completely a contradiction in Value. In morality you have the same issue though worsened by need for substantiation. You don't need to substantiate oil.

[ladsin]

"I want my car to continue running."
"My car needs oil to continue running"
I still am not seeing your point.

[Good_Behavior]

""I want my car to continue running."
"My car needs oil to continue running"
I still am not seeing your point. "

Is not:

"It is true that we can't get an is from an ought, but we can get an ought from two is'. "

You don't have two.

[ladsin]

It is the case that I want my car to drive.
It is the case that frequent oil changes improves the likelihood that my car will drive.
I ought to get frequent oil changes.

I still can't see your argument at all. It seems to just be an assertion that is statements in relation to wants aren't valid. I see no reason to agree with that.

[Good_Behavior]

Right, you're "rewording" it to fit. An 'is' statement is an objective and verifiable state, I. E., cars need gas, not a simple word game in philosophy. To be frank:

"It is the case that I want my car to drive." = "I want my car to drive."

This is not a matter of cleverness. You have to actually NEED the word.

[Good_Behavior]

I don't know how to explain it any clearer though so at this point I just have to give up.

The difference between, "Gas is required for a car to run" and "It is the case that I like my car running" are just too large for me to try to reconcile.

[ladsin]

Perhaps you're right. I don't know. I'm not a logician or a sophisticated philosopher.

Is your assertion that wants/ desires aren't factual statements?

[Good_Behavior]

Wants are not observable physical data. So "I want a jet." has no tangible nature. "Jets require fuel" is tangible and therefore testable.

So to incorporate a want as a premise for anything is rarely wise

[ladsin]

When talking about MY specific obligations how could MY wants and desires not be factual? Or at the very least taken into account?

[ladsin]

I "want" is just as factual as. "I'm cold" "I'm hungry" "I'm tired" etc

[Good_Behavior]

All of which aren't actually factual at all.

"I'm cold" when you step out of a hot shower is not "I have hypothermia" which is a specific body temperature in which the boost begins to fail.

[ladsin]

I'm cold is a factual statement about my subjective experience about reality. Again, talking about MY obligations, and not factoring my wants seems to be erroneous.

[Good_Behavior]

If you admit it is a subjective experience you also admit that it isn't physically objective and therefore nothing can be based off of this excerpt your skin's temperature sensing systems likely works.

We cannot base moral objectivity, even if it is just localized to you, on your perceptions. This is because if your feelings change and your morals follow all things are 'right' and then furthermore your 'obligation'.

And let's say you see a person die of malaria and decide to simply end mosquitoes? Is that moral? Of course not that would be an ecological disaster! But then how does one balance that with the fact that more individualswill die if you don't end mosquitoes?

There are many questions like this where both sides actually make sense.

[ladsin]

Alrighty, I think we've hashed this out enough. Thanks for the response

[Good_Behavior]

Finally. ❤

[keenmind2007]

Morality as you suggest is knowing what is right and wrong and acting accordingly. It is an obligation, yes, but some people lack morals overall or even ignore the conscience that beguiles them to do what is right.

[ladsin]

"Well, obviously dumby, this isn't an argument against having a moral obligation. In much the same way that whether or not you care about upholding a legal obligation doesn't detract from the idea that we actually have them. Although an additional caveat would be that you'd also have to not want to appear to be moral."

[Harsh_5299]

Very few people do it to be moral people
Most people do it so they're not seen as immoral people
That is the fundamental difference between the two
If ever there is a new trend about bitchslapping homeless people on the streets if one sees any, and if the trend becomes successfully popular, only the ones who wish to be moral will abstain from it
However, morality does not always gurantee happiness and wellbeing for oneself and so does immorality...
both are philosophical issues which are certainly not based on satisfying individual OR collective needs

You cannot say that a moral society will always live longer and function better than an immoral society because morality is subjective and there is no universally accepted moral standard to do so
Which is why most people simply obey the law, as it is universally standard in many countries

Ultimately it boils down to what all humans want... to individually live longer and happier
And morals cannot guarantee it

Also, can you give a better example correlating the car's gasoline with moral obligation?
I don't seem to understand it all that much better

[ladsin]

Ugh yes, I think on most of what you said. Many people don't actually care about morality, although in a sense we do. We care about fairness because we care about how we'd be treated if the circumstances of our birth were different.

The "syllogism" could apply to anything. "X is considered healthy. I care about being healthy. Thus I ought to do X"

[Harsh_5299]

"Many people don't actually care about morality, although in a sense we do. We care about fairness because we care about how we'd be treated if the circumstances of our birth were different"
I feel that is a huge generalization, because

a) there are countless selfish criminals who think otherwise on the concept of fairness

b) I think most people's mindset does change by their birth circumstances but it mostly depends on the person himself, for example there were many people in Nazi Germany, who were Germans themselves and were completely indoctrinated by anti semitic propaganda but still refused to discriminate against the Jews and some Germans actually saved them from excecution... so yeah, I felt you were generalizing a bit on that one

[ladsin]

a.) It is certainly the case that many people, regardless of fairness will commit crime. I disagree though that if you asked them, "Would you think it good/ fair if someone stole what you worked hard for?" that their response would be "yes that would be fair for them."
b.) The idea here is that if a person (for example a nazi) were to put themselves into the shoes of a jew (or black or gay or gypsy etc) they would not be happy with the german's treatment of those groups. They would not think it fair to be taken to a shower and exposed to Zyklon-B just because they were born a jew.

[Harsh_5299]

"if you asked them, "Would you think it good/ fair if someone stole what you worked hard for?" that their response would be "yes that would be fair for them.""

You can consider a case of a mafia drug Lord whose cash was stolen by his poor worker to pay some debts/medicine
If the drug Lord ever went to jail on a life sentence with no chances of escape, then he will confess to others that it was fair of that worker to have stolen his hard earned cash, but in an indirect way... because morality matters in this scenario, not hard work/fairness

[Harsh_5299]

b.) "The idea here is that if a person (for example a nazi) were to put themselves into the shoes of a jew (or black or gay or gypsy etc) they would not be happy with the german's treatment of those groups. They would not think it fair to be taken to a shower and exposed to Zyklon-B just because they were born a jew."

Actually, the brainwashing was so strong the many Germans thought they would rather kill themselves if they were born as Jews... one had to be exceptional, if they wanted to protect someone so publicly villified.. and there were people who did

[ladsin]

A.) There are most certainly other confounding factors. That's not an argument about the obligation, rather an argument about the complexity of having differing moral values. I think a more relatable example would be the father that steals from a store to provide for his famly so they don't die. Everyone in that situation would think it morally permissible to steal to save your family. This is the result of two conflicting moral values.
B.) I'm not aware of this statistic. You'd have to point it out to me. I think most germans just pretended it was nonexistent or deluded themselves into thinking it wasn't happening. The peaceful majority were silent. That was the problem.

[Harsh_5299]

A.) There are most certainly other confounding factors. That's not an argument about the obligation, rather an argument about the complexity of having differing moral values. I think a more relatable example would be the father that steals from a store to provide for his famly so they don't die. Everyone in that situation would think it morally permissible to steal to save your family. This is the result of two conflicting moral values.

What if the storekeeper had no morals and lived selfishly?
Isn't that conflicting the thought of "I don't wish for anyone to steal my hard earned work because it is not fair"
Morals will actually change what is fair and what isn't so to say something to be fair in all scenarios would be generalizing
It's just like two countries fighting over a river and both have a drought
Fairness and morals are thrown out of the window here

[Harsh_5299]

"B.) I'm not aware of this statistic. You'd have to point it out to me. I think most germans just pretended it was nonexistent or deluded themselves into thinking it wasn't happening. The peaceful majority were silent. That was the problem."

The majority was out fighting WW2 and the remaining were killing the Jews. There was no silent population, everyone agreed that Jews were bad. You're underestimating the power of mass brainwashing.
The fact that there were 12 year old boys fighting on the Frontline at the end of the war is a testament for this
Because there were no men left.

You should watch the movie "Schindler's list" once again to know what some of the Germans thought of being born a Jew... it was based on a real life story, so I believe there were hardly any fictional parts in it

[ladsin]

a.) Much or morality is actually selfish in nature. It may be the case that I want to murder someone, or steal for someone, but I don't because I am worried about what would happen to me if I did so. Retribution is an important factor. Research in America has shown that in the past year ~80% of males and ~60% of females have contemplated murder. Most of them obviously did not, but this is because they thought about the outcome. (the point of myTake about brain deficits and murder)
b.) only about 10% of germans joined the nazi party.

[Harsh_5299]

"a.) Much or morality is actually selfish in nature. It may be the case that I want to murder someone, or steal for someone, but I don't because I am worried about what would happen to me if I did so. Retribution is an important factor. Research in America has shown that in the past year ~80% of males and ~60% of females have contemplated murder. Most of them obviously did not, but this is because they thought about the outcome. (the point of myTake about brain deficits and murder)"

Well the outcome is pretty much guaranteed to be negative because of the government but in it's absence, it's different, which is why I want governments to follow a universally standard code of law, which is definitely not based on religion

"b.) only about 10% of germans joined the nazi party."
The ones who joined the party were not the only ones who were in the war though
Only elite Civilians were leading peaceful, safe and silent lives
The others were mostly for the anti semitic movement

[ladsin]

A.) It actually can be positive. This leads to some altruistic tendencies.
B.) Right, but only about ~10% actually agreed with the beliefs. The rest were just following orders (myTake titled, Just Following Orders)

[Harsh_5299]

How can the thought of no one being able to punish you for your crimes give rise to altruistic tendencies?
I feel it does the opposite

There is a difference where the soldiers followed orders out of their own free will and soldiers who followed orders who did not want to be shot, for disobedience
And I believe it was the former, as you cannot have 1 million soldiers who work so efficiently on fear and not patriotism
If they did work on fear, there would be massively less Jews killed because there were cases where the jews rebelled but were crushed mercilessly
And Hitler made it feel patriotic to persecute the jews
To commit mass genocide, you need to have a population that actually agrees to it by it's own and not out of fear

[ladsin]

I was referencing this fear of others. We have many selfish tendencies, but when looked at long-term these selfish tendencies can lead to altruism. The whole idea of I scratch your back you scratch mine mentality.

You should really read this Just Following Orders ↗ it may change your mind on why people are obedient. It's just a part of our psychology.

[Harsh_5299]

Hmm, yeah that's a good mytake...
I'll respond to it soon after I get some sleep lol

[ladsin]

XD I'm about to get to bed myself.

[0112358]

Interestingly, I suspect many people wouldn't disagree with the negative case:
that we have a duty not to do things that are immoral/unethical. Now people may get nervous, because a lot of things that have been branded immoral, they may not agree are immoral, but that is, clearly, a separate case. -most- people I suspect would agree we have a duty beyond law to avoid being actively unethical in ways that harm others. Some might not, but i'd guess most do.

So the issue for them becomes that doing 'nothing' is somehow viewed as a special case, when really, I'd argue it isn't. Saying "I won't do anything" doesn't magically absolve you. Life hands you responsibilities you didn't ask for, and you can't abdicate them by proclaiming neutrality.

[ladsin]

I agree. I think it's actually quite irrational. "It is the case that X is moral. It is the case that I want to be moral. Therefor, I ought to do X."
This is really as simple as it gets XD

[0112358]

I agree. I guess using your terminology, fewer people would push back on: "It is the case that Y is immoral. It is the case that I do not want to be immoral. Therefor, I ought not to do Y'.

So then the question becomes, does doing nothing have no moral implication?

That said, I suspect most of us wouldn't like the full implications. For example, most of us, if we gave away most of our wealth and income, could still survive, and that money could be used to feed and provide medicine to the global poor. Is it unethical not to do that?

[ladsin]

True, so at the end of the day many people would have to face the sobering idea that they aren't moral, or at the very least that they aren't living the fully moral life.

I don't think whether or not you're upset about it though makes any difference on the truth value XD

[taleswapper]

Good take, but you missed the main issue with the concept of "moral obligation"; that morality is subjective, and thus a "moral obligation" can only be taken up by the individual who holds that moral position. "It is the case that X is moral" is almost never true, since "moral" is not an objective characteristic.
You also didn't factor in the downside; cost of acting. This, I suspect, is the largest single factor in people deciding not to act in a "moral"situation. Competing needs for limited resources. Here's an example: i think we can agree that human trafficking is immoral, and that acting on that by fighting it is a moral obligation. but to what extent? If I devoted my entire life to fighting human trafficking, throwing every resource and all my time at the problem, I'm unlikely to solve it. And I'm ignoring other moral obligations, such as not becoming destitute, and a drain on my family. So it becomes a matter of balancing competing needs.

[ladsin]

That's why I pointed out that we had to agree on the definition of morality. If we agree that morality has to do with well-being (subjective, but as I pointed out this appears to be what everyone I'm talking to think this is about) then well-being becomes an objective standard that we compare our actions against.

The economy of how much risk/ money/ time you should spend on any one issue could be made into a mathematical equation and I agree that certain desires will take precedence over others. For example, it may be moral to give away 100% of your finances to help others, but this would be immoral in that it would harm your family/ yourself.

[taleswapper]

Well, "well-being" is also subjective, so as an "objective standard" it also fails. My mother (God bless her) thinks everyone should just listen to her, and their lives would be better. She's very opinionated. i don't consider HER definition of "well-being" to be that objective, or desireable. And I assume I suffer the same flaw; that MY definition of what's in YOUR best interest may not line up with your own. You've changed the terms, but not solved the problem of subjectivity.

There IS NO objective morality. Therefore, "moral obligation" is a slippery slope; tread it with great care. It has been used to justify all sorts of evil in the past, and even today.

[ladsin]

Remember that I pointed out the difficulty of describing something like physical health right? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we can't compare two different states. It is objectively harming to a person's well-being to throw battery acid into their face. Whether you (or I) think so is irrelevant. We can demonstrate that.

Also remember that here I never mentioned legislating morality, or enforcing your views on others. It's just a statement that in order to be a moral person you have to act in a moral manner.

[taleswapper]

Fair enough.

[ladsin]

If you notice problems feel free to point them out! I enjoy these discussions and try to be at least somewhat particular with my verbiage to get across my ideas. It appears that in this case I either did so poorly, you struggled with reading, or these two are not mutually exclusive! XD

[taleswapper]

I'm voting on the last, with a healthy nod at the limits of the site's software. ;)

[ladsin]

I suppose we'll agree on that then 😂

[LegateLanius]

This comeback to a person that claims they don't have morals: "Well, obviously dumby, this isn't an argument against having a moral obligation. In much the same way that whether or not you care about upholding a legal obligation doesn't detract from the idea that we actually have them. Although an additional caveat would be that you'd also have to not want to appear to be moral."
- doesn't make sense. Everyone has their own moral code. Laws exist because of an agreement that people have made with their moral values together. Just as in which people can disobey the laws that they are subject to, people can make a choice whether or not to help. I refuse to accept the definition that the dictionary has provided because morals in and of themselves are subjective.

[ladsin]

I'm glad someone actually dealt with the subject matter, and I recognize that many people think different things to be moral. I think they are misguided. That's why I gave a definition of morality. If we disagree with what morality is then we simply aren't talking about the same things. If, fir example, a person thought that morality had to deal with maximizing suffering, then there's no common ground for discourse. This is no different than a person who disagrees with me on what snow is. No matter the argument we are talking about different things.

That said even if they disagreed on what morality is the logic of my statement, "if x... I want to be moral... therefor I ought..." would still be valid.

[LegateLanius]

I appreciate the response

[LegateLanius]

And I am grateful to know what it means

[ladsin]

What what is?

[LegateLanius]

the true definition of morality

[ladsin]

Ah, to be fair it's how I define it, but when I talk with people about the subject well-being always seems to be what we're actually addressing.
It's immoral to hold down and cut the clitoris off little girls! Why?
It's immoral to own other people as property! Why?
It's immoral to grab a person and violently rape them! Why?
It's moral to give some of your bread to a starving friend. Why?
It's moral to stop a child that's about to run into traffic. Why?

These things are all dealing with well-being. The subjective view of morality is, on a factual basis, accurate. Many people think different things about morality, but once we've settled upon a definition we have an objective standard to assess our actions against.

[LegateLanius]

Well that agreement is what we call laws.

[Political_dude]

First of all, morals are subjective and laws are objective. You're obligated to follow both. But it can be immoral for someone to donate his cloths (helping others low-key) as it can be degrading

Secondly, I agree with you for most part. I do help others economically and through SW for personal satisfaction. But If you tell me I'm obligated to do so, I'll stop doing it next minute. Thing is, it is a personal preference and you can't force it on anyone since that help can be someone's property

[ladsin]

That's why I gave a definition of morality. If we disagree with what morality is then we simply aren't talking about the same things. If, fir example, a person thought that morality had to deal with maximizing suffering, then there's no common ground for discourse. This is no different than a person who disagrees with me on what snow is. No matter the argument we are talking about different things.

That said even if they disagreed on what morality is the logic of my statement, "if x... I want to be moral... therefor I ought..." would still be valid.

[Political_dude]

You're born in wrong era mate. You belong to the age of enlightenment

[ladsin]

I deserve praise XD

[oddwaffle]

Actually no.

You do have one for yourself but if you keep worrying about starving syrians killing themselves on a boat to Europe or maybe that homeless guy in somewhere you don't know then you will never be able to sleep.

And you wouldn't be able to learn the one science that study human misery: Economics. The dismal science. All numbers about dismal things. Like how will a family crumple and die as the government falls apart in an oil crash.

[ladsin]

Actually yes.

I only spoke about having an obligation yourself. Not that this obligation ought to be forced upon you by anyone else.

[oddwaffle]

Then perhaps you have heard of tit-for-tat strategy?

It's a social strategy proven to increase the benefit of oneself in all social interactions more than all others.

As strange as it might be, it's probably comparable of an infinite cycle of games in game theory being replayed where the actors do not select the Nash equilibrium.

Essentially, you will act good and co-operate with anyone one 1st meet and copy the other guy's respond.

[ladsin]

I agree. A lot of our desire to "be good" is self serving...

[oddwaffle]

I personally think it's bound into our gene pool. Like we are more willing to make sacrifices when our family members are involved. Brothers, sisters, parents, spouses, children... etc.

We are also more willing to make sacrifices for people we know well than strangers and human more than non-human.

Sort of like we are self serving but not to ourselves but to our genes. The closer the genes, the more we are willing to spend. Obviously, ourself has the closest genes as we match them.

[ladsin]

I don't think you read the Take man.,.

[Goochbreaker]

I'm struggling with morals every day. I realized one day after hearing a convincing argument that I couldn't claim to be moral while eating the dead flesh of innocent animals, so I became a vegetarian. Now I know that the dairy and egg industry is pretty fkd up as well, what do I do? I eat free range eggs and organic dairy but I can't manage to give it up completely, it's too big a change. So I have to live with being immoral. If one is honest with themselves, we will realize none of us are saints and almost all of us deserve the slavery we enjoy

[ladsin]

More or less. We have to make a decision about what we're willing to give up to be moral.

[Goochbreaker]

and what are you willing to give up? Do you eat the dead flesh of innocent beings?

[ladsin]

Yup. I haven't heard any compelling argument yet that eating meat is immoral. When you eat plants you're eating their flesh too, when you eat fruit you're eating a plants ovaries.

[Goochbreaker]

plants don't have a nervous system and we have no idea what they feel. Animals have a nervous system similar to ours and we know exactly what they feel. They feel righteous indignation at the thought of us pretending to be their friend, feeding them, then slaughtering them. They feel betrayed. They are often mammals like us and are really way more similar to us than they are different. Plants are the source of all prime nutrients on this planet and are grown to be eaten, they cannot feel pain and they are happy to give life to us animals. Look up the definition of the word flesh, plants don't have flesh you stupid fuck. Sorry to be so harsh but the idea that you can talk about morality then say you haven't heard an argument that eating meat is immoral blows my fucking mind. How can anyone be so ignorant? Most meat eaters I know can admit it is totally immoral and that they are greedy, why can't you?

[ladsin]

Flesh
3. uncountable noun
The flesh of a fruit or vegetable is the soft inside part of it.
Another
flesh
3. the pulpy or edible part of fruits and vegetables

Yeah man, you need to settle. If you want to convince me that you're position is one that I should hold myself then trying to call me an idiot when you haven't even seen all of the dictionary definitions for the word isn't going to work.

Now, if you want to try again I am more than happy to engage in a discussion with you. If not then I'm not interested in wasting my time.

[Goochbreaker]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flesh?s=t

[Goochbreaker]

yeah if you scroll past the first 50 definitions way down to the bottom people use flesh to describe what's inside a plant BUT THAT IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT NOW IS IT? Let's keep words separate so the world makes sense, shall we? Because obviously the flesh I'm talking about with blood vessels in it is very different from what's inside a fucking plant or fruit. If we keep extending the definitions of words, the world turns into a big mess of shit, so from now on in this discussion, flesh will refer to animal flesh. Plants don't feel pain, they don't have a nervous system, their 'flesh' has no nerves in it, so it's completely different. Are you actually telling me that you can't tell the difference between animal flesh and what's inside a planet/fruit? Are you that fucking stupid? Here's a moral argument ANIMALS FEEL PAIN WHEN YOU SLAUGHTER THEM AND THEY FEEL RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION AT BEING HELD CAPTIVE UNTIL THAT SLAUGHTER is that a good moral argument?

[ladsin]

10.
Botany. the soft, pulpy portion of a fruit, vegetable, etc., as distinguished from the core, skin, shell, etc.

[ladsin]

Alright. have a good one.

[Goochbreaker]

the dictionary. com definition mentions nothing about the inside of a fruit, and the original meaning of the word flesh comes from animal flesh, the only reason it's occasionally used to refer to the inside of a fruit is because that substance resembles animal flesh in texture. Etymology, LEARN IT and respect the original meaning of words if you want to be a man of knowledge and not just some fucking prick who uses whatever definition suits their fancy instead of the primary definition from the origin of the word

[ladsin]

It did. I quoted it for you and offered the number. This is pointless. We can't even get to the discussion because you're hung up on arrogantly cherry picking a single word and then not even bother to check the entire listed definition.

Anyway. Have a good one.

[Goochbreaker]

I'm telling you that for the purposes of this conversation we should agree on one definition of a word you are the retard reaching for less common definitions to put a stop to a conversation that clearly makes you uncomfortable. Let me cut to the chase.

animal flesh. You eat it. it has feelings. Every time you are eating an animal, that is a living being that suffered in exactly the same way you would suffer if I stuck you with a knife. Do you enjoy being cut up? Is that fun to you? You can't even agree that an animal suffers pain and a plant doesn't, CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW YOU DERAILED THE SHIT OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION? Are you actually so blind that you believe I am the one hung up on definitions here? I am just trying to communicate a point, it's pretty fking difficult when you go and redefine my words while I'm trying to do it. You are the kind of insane that cannot be reasoned with. You are not walking away from this with the illusion that I am the one who derailed this

[Juxtapose]

You can play with semantics all you want (yes I read your mytake -_-) but morality is absolutely, 100%, UNQUESTIONABLY subjective by it's very nature.

The only real morality of the universe is "might makes right." You can argue all day about instinct.. yeah, no shit.. we're group animals that thrive on empathy rather than infighting.

It still doesn't make morality objective. I'm still going to do whatever the hell I want. I could be the kindest person in the world or a sociopath, both are equal and insignificant in this universe.

[themetalhead]

guess what? I didn't stop reading past the headline XD this is a great take.

[ladsin]

Heyy! I'm glad to hear it 😂

[SketchForger]

You don't have a moral obligation if you don't have morals.

[ladsin]

"Well, obviously dumby, this isn't an argument against having a moral obligation. In much the same way that whether or not you care about upholding a legal obligation doesn't detract from the idea that we actually have them. Although an additional caveat would be that you'd also have to not want to appear to be moral."

[SketchForger]

What are you quoting?

[ladsin]

Myself in the myTake, if you had read... XD

[SketchForger]

I was mostly joking. XD

[ladsin]

Mhm. Sure

[SketchForger]

Come on I used a Meme because I know about this shit already. XD

[ladsin]

You slack. As always, eres mi puta

[SketchForger]

That's not even correct grammar!

[ladsin]

I only learned how to curse from my friends in Spanish. Proper grammar was never taught 😂

[hise-DepartmenT]

You also have a moral obligation that if your teen daughter speeds on the road and you're her cop daddy to arrest her and not treat her differently than others just because she's related.

[ladsin]

I guess so

[Anonymous]

Yes, with the caveat that morality is relativistic -- making this into more of an argument for existential authenticity.

[ladsin]

I'd argue that morality is objective. At least as I defined it.

[Opinion Owner]

You argued that it was largely consistent but that doesn't mean it's objective.

Or another way to say it would be that there is a separate objective morality for every individual.

There's also that 'well-being,' right and wrong,' etc vary in definition and value across individuals.

[ladsin]

Right, the standard is subjective, but this applies to everything. I alluded to this with the concept of physical health. If someone thinks that drinking lighter fuel is conducive to their health they're just wrong.

[Opinion Owner]

There's a case that it's good for spiritual well-being, there's also a case that the death or illness of the person ingesting it is a moral good.

"Well-being" is more complex that a healthy body -- and this is in an example where we generally know what drinking lighter fluid does, not the more nuanced moral dilemmas.
Same goes for "fairness" and "right and wrong."

[ladsin]

Well-being is at least testable right? I mean these claims about spirits and a purpose for suffering are claims about reality.

[Opinion Owner]

Well-being as a moral good is a premise in the first place, so there's that to contend with. If the spiritual well-being claims outline parameters that are immeasurable then that's a problem. Then there's the more complex aspects of morality, things like freedom and fairness. What constitutes these concepts and how much value they have to the individual or society is a value judgement. If something's moral value can vary from one person's mind to another then it's not objective in the common use of the word.

You can't test for everything and testing for something still presupposes an innate moral good, it doesn't define moral good. Again, you've described common themes of morality, not morality as an absolute objective reality.

[ladsin]

We'll remember that's why I said we have to agree on what is moral. If I thinkorality is about X, and someone argues against my position on a moral claim "X is moral" by saying, "no morality is about Y."

Then we're simply talking about different things. I still don't get how that would escape you from a moral obligation. You would just have to change the X for Y

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, that's the entirety of my original post.

[ladsin]

I worry about this idea that seems so rampant amongst my own community (atheists and science). We pretend that we can't speak out against communities that are advocating for grotesquely immoral acts, yet "we can't judge them because they have a different culture."

This is asinine and I think incredibly morally wrong. It's an abject admission that we don't care about the enormity of suffering of disadvantaged people around the world.

Eh, I started drinking, so I get a little more riled up XD

[Opinion Owner]

The mindset typical of this community is one that looks for universals and objective constants, so when that mindset comes in contact with subjective morality it goes to a place where no morality is real in the sense they want it to be. So anyone who thinks differently has to be equally respected.

This is a problem. The mistake is not embracing their own subjective values. I'm a positive nihilist. To me, the world has no *innate* values, however *we* value things and that is our morality. Now, someone other cultures might value murder or whatever messed up thing, but fundamentally there's no 'out there in world, objective and undeniable morality.' So in this way the universe doesn't care what happens, but *we* do. So if you embrace your personal values wholly then when someone says "we can't judge them because they have a different culture" you simply reply with "watch me."

[Opinion Owner]

"I can respect certain traditions and all that, but if that backwards as fuck culture is fundamentally in opposition to my liberal principles then okay, yes they have a different culture... but it's shit."

[ladsin]

I'll have to look up positive nihilism, but it seems quite in line with my own views. The stars won't weep upon my death, but that doesn't matter. My life has value because of my friends, family, and fellows who enrich my life. I like to think I do the same for some XD

[sp33d]

Much of this morality is dictated by our common sense, therefore one does not carry out these, previously determined moral, actions out of sense of obligation.

'we can get an ought from two is'
*example*
and then you claim it's the same with 'moral oughts'. No, it's the same with the car. You can't make this deduction.

As for criticism - you are talking about morality, don't distract the reader with some distant irrelevant examples such as the oil changing of a car.

[lorenzomichael]

Yeah don't shop at WALLMART. I haven't shopped there in 8 years. Man I used to love shopping there. One dollar magically turned into two dollars just walking through the doors... after I seen on YouTube (the high cost of low prices) I had a moral obligation to hate magic dollars... Fogettaboutit.

[Kaneki05]

Meh moral obligation is a waste of time plus boring so why would i have it. The only time i am moral to the ones i like or getting to know

[ThatPersonOverThere]

Sorry what specifically are you asserting that I'm obligated to do?

[ladsin]

Did you read it?

[jacquesvol]

In Europe there's a limited legal obligation

[ladsin]

Hmm?

[jacquesvol]

If you can help someone without endangering your own life, you have to: "Not assisting someone in danger" is a crime.

[ladsin]

Yeah, I don't get the point in regards to this XD

I failed my new state's DMV test because I didn't know that apparently we have a legal obligation to provide care for an injured party.

[jacquesvol]

If you help and transport a wounded person to a doctor, your car insurance is obliged to pay the cleaning of the car interior, in Europe.

[ladsin]

That's cool at least.

[Giacomanzo]

Why is "TRIGGERED" a thing? Being outrageously angerous is not a bad thing.

[ladsin]

Because people don't like the claim and refuse to listen to the argument simply because of the title.

[Giacomanzo]

Nono, I get that, I meant, why is overreacting considered a bad thing? Having the power, I would start a nuclear war every time I have an argument, and I'm proud to claim that.

[ladsin]

By definition it's unjustified.

[Giacomanzo]

It's not, though. Overreacting is only "over" reacting if you are taking society as the standard. What if you consider as standard that one same person who is overreacting, and he happens to melt down 24/7?

[ladsin]

o·ver·re·act
ˌōvə (r) rēˈakt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: overreacting
respond more emotionally or forcibly than is justified.

[Giacomanzo]

As I was saying, that's just because society is taken as a standard. For example, Nazism might be an overreaction to a defeat in WWI, but in 1930s German minds it wasn't.

[ladsin]

They wouldn't call it an overreaction then would they 😂
You specifically called it one

[Giacomanzo]

Yes, because the level that society has set for acceptable anger is so low that everything is overreacting.

[ovoxo_]

May I ask on who's authority are you basing moral obligation? If none, then no, no one has any "moral obligation" since morality becomes subjective.

[ladsin]

Did you bother to read?

[ovoxo_]

Yeah

[ladsin]

Alrighty then.
You understand that I defined what I'm talking about in regards to morality right? I then demonstrated that if you care about being moral you have a moral obligation to do so?
I think this is quite simple... "It is the case that X is moral. It is the case that I want to be moral. Therefor, I ought to do X."

If your disagreement is about what morality is then we simply aren't talking about the same things. If, for example, a person thought that morality had to deal with maximizing suffering, then there's no common ground for discourse. This is no different than a person who disagrees with me on what snow is. No matter the argument we are talking about different things.
That said even if they disagreed on what morality is the logic of my statement, "if x... I want to be moral... therefor I ought..." would still be valid.

[ovoxo_]

That's the thing, you can't disagree on what snow is. You can believe to something else (in that case your belief would be false), but what is snow is what is snow. Same thing with morality. Morality = The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. You're example has no basis since what is "moral" would be whatever that person believes to be moral.

Bottom line, in order for morality to be objective or for people to hold a moral obligation you need an authority setting the standards for morality. Without that, morality become subjective, so what you consider moral could the complete opposite of what I consider moral and there is no one to tell who's wrong, therefore we'd both be right in our own perspectives.

[ladsin]

Most certainly not my friend. Perhaps you're not aware of this, but dictionaries aren't prescriptive. They're descriptive. They describe common usages of words and over time the definitions of words mutate and evolve. In fact even here I pointed out two different usages of the word morality.

Even if this were not the case, and we take your definition at face value, the "principle" that morality is based upon would be well-being.

People can and do disagree about everything. There is still a sizable portion of the world that believes the earth is a flat disk.

[ovoxo_]

That isn't true. Mutate and evolve? I don't think so. As we continue to advance intellectually we alter the definitions of words to reflect what we're describing accurately. Besides I'm not aware of a time where morality ever meant something other than the discernment between right and wrong.

But regardless of what we think morality means, what you said proves my point exactly. With an authority placing the standards what is morality becomes one definition and therefore objective, without that authority to define it people form their own perspectives to morality and it becomes subjective.

The very same way it would be for a teacher and his students. The teacher sets the standards in a course of what is right/wrong what constitutes passing/failing and how we need to follow the course. Removing that teacher and his standards turns the classroom subjective to how the students learn, one student has no authority over another student.

[ladsin]

Yeah. You're just wrong. All languages evolve. You clearly have never thought seriously about the subject. A simple case study that I think is fun is the word fag. It originally a bundle of twigs, then it became a word to refer to any sort of awkward bundle, then it became a derogatory term levied against the old, in essence calling them useless baggage. Then the term became a word which in the European areas references a cigarette, but in the Americas is a derogatory term against homosexuals.

[ovoxo_]

Oh I'm wrong? Do the same with morality then. Explain how the word morality has changed over time the same way you explained the word "fag" has supposedly changed. Show me a time where morality has meant something other than the discernment between right and wrong. I want to see this.

[ladsin]

Our theories about morality have evolved incredibly over the millennia.
You can wiki it for a start. It's more complex than the fag example, but it's a fitting example to demonstrate that definitions change. Just read about what dictionaries do.

That said, again we're still discussing discerning right and wrong. Again, like I just said the principle used to discern right and wrong is well-being.

[ovoxo_]

Right, our theories about morality, lmao. Bottom line is that morality is and has been discerning right and wrong. So I wasn't wrong.

By the way, the principle for morality exceed personal well being to what is good to make a well adjusted and functioning society. But regardless of the principle, without an authority morality is subjective. Therefore we don't have a "moral obligation". That is correct.

[ladsin]

Oy vey. Alrighty bud

[ovoxo_]

LMAO 😂

[ladsin]

By the way, I'll just point this out. Appealing to a higher power or whatever doesn't help you escape the supposed subjective standard of morality. It's just shifting it up a level. Why should I care what it says? Can it say something else and it also be moral? Did/ could it have set up a different set of morals? Etc

[ovoxo_]

Oh it does completely! It makes morality objective, even you don't care and go your own subjective way, then you simply become a "bad person". You can see this in how society looked at specific issues in the past (ex: single/divorced mothers, gender roles, gay people, ect)

Again with my example of a classroom. The teacher sets the standards in a course of what is right/wrong what constitutes passing/failing and how we need to follow the course. You're free to not care and believe in your own way of completely the course but that doesn't make the classroom subjective (as it would be if there were no teacher) it just makes you a bad student.

[ladsin]

I'm discussing your teacher scenario. Your statement that what the teacher commands is moral is subjective.
I guess to go further into the analogy. You and I are in a classroom. We're discussing whether or not we should do X. My answer is that we shouldn't do X because it subtracts from well-being (the "subjective" standard). Your answer is that we shouldn't do X because the teacher says so (your subjective standard).

We both have a standard set up, well-being v. god, these are both objective because we can evaluate our actions against it. I tried explaining it a few different ways, to ensure I got the right point across. I wasn't trying to belittle you or anything like that. (someone recently told me I sound like an ass over text/ email)

[ovoxo_]

What? 🤔 Okay now you're just starting to sound stupid. What a desperate attempt to sound right.

Look. If we're in a classroom and the teacher give an assignment and on the grading rubric tells us how to do point A, B and C in order to pass the assignment, you cannot do the assignment in you're own manner and think that you are right. If points A. B, C must be done in order to be right how is that subjective in any way? That is a prime example of what objectivity is. If the teacher tells us to do "X" and you decide not to do it because it "subtracts from well being" then guess what? You fail the assignment. I pass. Objective. Simple.

If there were no teacher like an independent course, in which we are simply given the assignment and we can do it in a way that is fits best to us then yes you're example would be fine. You don't have to do something the way I chose to and I have no authority to tell you you're wrong.

[ladsin]

Because if I don't care about flunking the class I don't have an obligation to it. I'm not sure how you're not understanding this point.

[ovoxo_]

Buddy just because you don't care about the classroom doesn't magically make it subjective. How are you not understanding this? You do what the teacher tells you do you're a passing student, you don't do what the teacher tells you, you're a failing student (whether you care about the class or not). That's what objectivity is.

It's really as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. If you don't understand a simple concept like that then you can stick to your erroneous retard logic. I've had enough.

[ladsin]

The standard is subjective in both cases, it has to do with an individuals desires.

But whatever man. Have a good one

[ovoxo_]

Ignorant. But hey what I get for trying to reason with a liberal huh? Lol later.

[ladsin]

The epitome of the pot calling the kettle black 😂

[ovoxo_]

How? I'm smarter than you are 😎

[Anonymous]

How funny! Morality in a nation that elects Donald Trump. Thats a good one. I have to go change my pants now.