next »

[Christian Knudsen]

Well, I am just sticking to the definitions. If you use the word "Objective" it should be according to it's definition, or at least bring your own definition of objectiveness.

Not once have I used that word in this discussion.

[Christian Knudsen]

But just to be clear, you're saying empathy can't be used as a guidance for moral codes because not all people have empathy? So you're saying the moral code of a psychopath is equal to that of a normal empathetic human being?

[PompiPompi]

But just to be clear, you're saying empathy can't be used as a guidance for moral codes because not all people have empathy? So you're saying the moral code of a psychopath is equal to that of a normal empathetic human being?

(Oh, hmm, you didn't use that word, heh.)
Well, I am saying that basing a moral code on empathy shows that moral codes are not objective. But since you didn't use the word objective, I assume you agree that moral codes are subjective?
Now, you CAN measure which moral code is superior. You can do that by somehow measure how much a moral code is good or bad. It is possible, but the thing is that there is a need to agree about the tools of measurements. And the tools of measurements are subjective themselves.

Edit: And no, I am not saying they are equal, they are DIFFERENT. But I am not sure how you decide which one is "better" or "superior".

[Christian Knudsen]

From a descriptive standpoint, they aren't objective. From a normative, they are. And I definitely lean towards the latter. And here's my "tool of measurement" that I think is shared by most other people when judging whether or not a moral code is "good" or "bad" (I suppose that would be an immoral code): If your moral code has a positive effect on your surroundings and fellow human beings, then it's a "good" moral code. And "bad" if the opposite.

[jotapeh]

Wait what? I don't understand I clicked on this thread thinking there was going to be a game jam for charity. Help!

[PompiPompi]

From a descriptive standpoint, they aren't objective. From a normative, they are. And I definitely lean towards the latter. And here's my "tool of measurement" that I think is shared by most other people when judging whether or not a moral code is "good" or "bad" (I suppose that would be an immoral code): If your moral code has a positive effect on your surroundings and fellow human beings, then it's a "good" moral code. And "bad" if the opposite.

I don't think normative is a good measurement, because what's normative in europe is not what's normative in the US, it's not what normative in China, and etc.
More over, you will find there is quite a diversity of ideologies(and moral codes) in your own country, but anyone that has a different moral code than what you think is right, will be not normal or inferior according to you.
Even if we do accept the normative assumption, and even if we do agree that people want empathy and help their fellow human beings. You can never help your "fellow" human being equally. So you need to set preferences, sometimes you will help one more on account of another. And while everyone have empathy and want to help, each person will prefer to help someone else and in other degrees.
For instance, let's say there is a mad man with a knife, running around stabbing people. You have a gun(and have the right to kill him), what will you do? Remember, if you care about your "fellow" human beings, you should care about the well fare of that mad man as well. Unless you have preferences which people you care about and which you don't?

A more relevant example, "Child's play". Both people who support Child's play and people who support other charities have empathy and care for their surroundings and fellow human beings. Yet, you claim Child's play is inferior.
According to your definition it's the same, unless you want to insert new restrictions?

[Christian Knudsen]

That's not what normative means. Normative means that what's right and wrong is independent of cultural differences. You should read up on it.

If a madman is running around killing innocent people, then his moral code is having a negative effect on the people he's killing. This madman is actively forcing pain, suffering and death on other people. That's why it would be morally right to stop him instead of helping him kill his victims and assist in the spreading of pain, suffering and death.

Your entire argument is based on false absolutes and dichotomies. If your moral code is based on empathy for your fellow man, then of course that empathy can decrease when faced with a madman slaughtering innocents -- or the empathy for his victims weigh higher.

And I never said that people supporting Child's Play aren't empathetic people with high moral codes. I'm saying there are other more worthy charities. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy.

Seriously? We're even having this discussion? It's like trying to explain basic human behavior and decency to an alien or robot...

[Dragonmaw]

It is objectively moral not to cause harm to others without them first causing you harm. What defines as "harm being caused to you" varies from culture to culture. In some cultures, it is as little as not having the same faith. In others, it is active, wanton, deliberately cruel behavior. But there are moral precepts which are, from both a philosophical and evolutionary psychology standpoint, objectively better than others. And, naturally, if you have a strong moral code you offer others the same protections you yourself demand. Thus, in that incredibly stupid "madman with a knife" argument, you disable him somehow because he is actively harming others.

Basically, you have completely derailed this thread for no real reason. Not only that, but you showcase a painfully bad understanding of morality, and as Christian Knudsen points out, it rests on various strawmen, absolutes, and dichotomies.

[Zaphos]

Perhaps the thread could be split?  I would like to know more about the game jam.

[PompiPompi]

Well, to be honest, I am not the one who started critcizing "Child's play". Which is the point where this thread has derailed.
My point about the madman, is that, you arn't really empathic to everyone like you claim or base your moral code on.
Some protestant Christian would have tried to save that mad man, but you are not empathic enough to save him, you want to kill him. So you are not as empathic as you think you are.
For instance, pacifists wouldn't have killed the madman.
What you claim you base your moral code on is incomplete, because you obviously have exceptions to empathy. I don't say you can't have exceptions to empathy, but you have to be more accurate when you tell me what every normative person in the world should base his moral code on.
So, please redefine what moral code should be based on, because in practice your moral code does not match your basic definitions.
"If your moral code has a positive effect on your surroundings and fellow human beings"
You obviously don't have a positive effect on the madman.
The madman seem like an obvious example, but there are other less obvious examples.
What I am trying to say is that, being empathic to one person will many times be on account of another person. Being good to one person, can be bad to another person. Because there are conflicts in the world, and you can't always be beneficial to everyone. Just like in the madman case.
That is why I find the "being good to your surroundings and fellow man" like something that doesn't make sense. Or a simplification that hides the complex reality behind an ideal to justify doing right to one and doing wrong to the other.
You base your moral code on broken ideals.
Of course some things can benefit all humanity, but that is a rare case.

[Christian Knudsen]

If you're not even going to try to understand what's being said and stop using false dichotomies and attributing stuff to me that I've never claimed nor said, this is going to be very fucking annoying.

My point about the madman, is that, you arn't really empathic to everyone like you claim or base your moral code on.

I never claimed my moral code is based on being equally empathetic to everyone. Stop making shit up.

Some protestant Christian would have tried to save that mad man, but you are not empathic enough to save him, you want to kill him. So you are not as empathic as you think you are.
For instance, pacifists wouldn't have killed the madman.

I want to stop him from killing other people and you presented a scenario where the only way of doing that is shooting him. Stop making shit up.

What you claim you base your moral code on is incomplete, because you obviously have exceptions to empathy. I don't say you can't have exceptions to empathy, but you have to be more accurate when you tell me what every normative person in the world should base his moral code on.

This isn't a math problem.

So, please redefine what moral code should be based on, because in practice your moral code does not match your basic definitions.

Yes it does.

"If your moral code has a positive effect on your surroundings and fellow human beings"
You obviously don't have a positive effect on the madman.

I'm having a positive effect on the greater good and all my fellow human beings that are being killed by the madman (and, again, you're the one that presented a scenario where the only option was to kill him!). Like I already explained.

Of course some things can benefit all humanity, but that is a rare case.

I never said my moral code is based on what benefits everyone equally. It's based on what has the most positive effect on the world. Like saving a human being instead of a dog. Stop making shit up.

[PompiPompi]

It's based on what has the most positive effect on the world

This is where your logic fails.
What is "most positive effect on the world"?
Who decides that? You are aware that a very wide variety of ideolegies can be justified with doing the "most positive effect on the world"? Including ideolegies willing to kill people(mad man or not) for the greater good of the world?
You are already willing to kill a man for the greater good, what else are you willing to do for the greater good of the world? Who will win your favour, and who will you fight against?

[Christian Knudsen]

I am only willing to kill a man for the greater good of the world because you presented a scenario where that was the only option! I would prefer that he was incarcerated and got help so that hopefully he would at one point see the error of his way and become a productive member of society.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that everything is subjective, there is no right or wrong, nobody's accountable for their actions. It's such a fucking cop-out. In a discussion as well as in life.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

but what if the person the madman was trying to kill was actually someone trying to kill him, or someone who was going to kill the madman's son in three days, and you didn't know that? that's the problem i have with killing someone to prevent a death: you might not know the whole story (you never have complete information) and could easily be making a mistake and killing someone for no reason

[Christian Knudsen]

Like I said (and have said repeatedly), PompiPompi presented a theoretical scenario in which the only way to stop a madman from killing (I presumed innocent) people was to kill him. And, yes, in that highly hypothetical scenario, I would kill him. But, like I said in my very last post, the ideal would be that the man was arrested, which would also clear up any justifiable reasons he may or may not have had for his actions (though the mere fact that PompiPompi called him a madman implied that he did not have justifiable reasons).

[PompiPompi]

The mad man is just an extreme example.
Can't you think of other less gruesomely violent examples that have conflicts between the good of different people?
For instance, do you invesnt money in cure for cancer or in helping starving people?
Do you intervene in a country with a conflict? Sending your troops to play police order, or do you keep your business to yourself and your own country?
Do you give a serial killer a death sentence? Or do you give him "humane" amount of time in jail and try to teach him in prison and treat him so he can return to society? (Or other things?)
There are tons of conflicts examples in which one side can benefit and the other lose, and vice versa. You really can't decide which side should benefit with only "The good of the world". That's assuming you can order all solutions in one line and pick one which is better than all the rest. Which is not true.
The preferences in which good you will do, and which things you will neglect or fight against, depend on the specifics of your moral code, which you didn't addressed with the vauge "The good of the world".

Edit: Even more so, two countries might hold the exact same moral code and values, but they will be in a conflict with each other because it's in their interest to care for themselves first.

[Christian Knudsen]

On the one hand, you say that morality and the world is infinitely complex. On the other, you demand an infinitely simple and specific rule for moral codes. If "do what you feel will have the most positive effect on your surroundings and your fellow human beings" is too vague for you, then that's your problem, not mine.

I'm tired of banging my head against the wall trying to reason with you. I'm out.

[PompiPompi]

I am not saying it's infinitely complex. I am saying that "benefiting the world" does not address the issue when you can't benefit both sides, and you need to pick which side you benefit and which side will lose.

Edit: I am sure these situations have been described with Game Theory(I wish to take this course one day)

[Christian Knudsen]

Jesus fucking Christ you're dense. "Doing what you feel affects the world most positively" is not the same as "benefiting the entire world and everyone equally". It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Stop fucking twisting arguments and establishing false absolutes.

Now I'm out for real. Fucking hell.

[PompiPompi]

Jesus fucking Christ you're dense. "Doing what you feel affects the world most positively" is not the same as "benefiting the entire world and everyone equally". It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Stop fucking twisting arguments and establishing false absolutes.

Now I'm out for real. Fucking hell.

Less and more is only valid in a 1D world where you can place everything in front or behind each other.
It's very simple actually, think of rock, paper, scissors. Which one is superior? Nobody, yet they are not equal as well.