A morality discussion (Neutralmind, Crashfrog, and Chiroptera only)

You edited out the important part of the analogy, which makes me think you didn't understand it.

The part you excerpted was where I said:

quote:

---

But what if you have a peanut allergy? Then it would be very, very bad for you to eat peanuts, even if they're good for everybody else. Where's the "objective" morality of eating peanuts? Good or bad? Do we say that peanuts are objectively good, and force the guy with the allergy to eat them, or do we say that they're objectively bad, and prevent anyone from eating them?

---

Do you see how that makes all the difference? For people with peanut allergies, feeding them peanuts could rise to the level of murder. For people with no such allergy, feeding them peanuts (say, on an airplane) is a courtesy.

That's what morals are like. In the same way that it's impossible to develop a coherent "morality of peanuts" that doesn't have a hundred-page codicil of exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, etc.; it's impossible to develop a coherent, universal, absolute morality. It just can't be done! Which is why we observe that all morality is, in practice, flexible and relative.

No, of course you couldn't. New, unknown situations are always happening. At the end of your thousand years you might have listed every possible situation that had every happened at the time that you started, but now there's a thousand years of new situations that you're behind on.

You could never, ever list every situation. Which means that we're always going to be developing our morality "on the fly", as it's necessary, as those new situations arise.

No, it's actually begging the question. If you think there's an absolute right and wrong, then why would you believe in a relative morality? And if you believe in a relative morality, what would possibly lead you to think there was an absolute morality?

You're all twisted up in circles about this, and I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like you're worried that there's an objective absolute reality inherent in the universe that you simply can't perceive. But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.)

If you don't believe in a judgmental God, sitting there waiting to pass sentence on you for breaking laws you didn't even know existed, then what the hell are you so worried about? After all these posts, I still don't understand.

Look, they're not. The clouds aren't going to part after you read my posts. Light from Heaven isn't going to shroud you when you fully understand my words. You don't need enlightenment; you just need to stop twisting yourself up in word games and figure out what your mental block is. If you're having obsessive thoughts, or you feel like you're under compulsions, or you have an unshakable sense that you're being "judged" or watched at all times, then maybe you should seek professional counseling about that, because those are all signs of mental disorders.

Of course. They just depend.

Go back to the peanut example. An absolute morality would say that feeding peanuts to people was either wrong or right. But the relavtive morality recognizes that whether its right or wrong depends a lot on whether or not the person is allergic to peanuts.

Ok, look. Is this just going to be a "debate" where I make statements and you respond with complete non sequiters? Because if so I'm going to bow out right now. If there's no guarantee that you're actually going to respond to what I'm saying then I don't see the point.

No, I didn't say that "if it doesn't have consequences to you it's not immoral." I have no idea where you got that.

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The situations you seem to be concerned about have no discernable negative consequences to any persons at all. You're worried about them running contrary to some objective moral code - that you don't know about - even though they have no other consequence.

It's still not clear why you're twisted up about this. You're inventing a morality you don't even believe in so that you have something to be afraid of. How the hell does that make any sense? There's no dilemma here except the one you're twisting yourself into.

It doesn't seem "all personal" to your buddy with the peanut allergy. The harm that would come to him if you served him peanuts against his will is pretty objective and real to him. Don't you think?

Wait, what? How do you get from that to:

It has consequences for that guy, though. Obviously.

I'm not following your thought process, I guess. It really seems like you're having a lot of trouble with simple statements in plain English, which is why I wondered if we're going to debate or just lob non-sequiters at each other.

How can they not exist? Even under relative morality, we all recognize that there are consequences that we would prefer, and ones we would not prefer, and when we don't agree exactly, we develop means to come to some kind of compromise that pleases the most people.

Presumably, you don't want me to hit you in the foot with a hammer. Does there really need to be some absolute, unchanging, eternal universal law for you to not want me to do that?

Isn't the fact that it's going to hurt a lot sufficient for you to prefer an alternate outcome?

The same thing that keeps you from doing something immoral under absolute morality - nothing but your own volition.

Even the people who assert absolute morality don't claim that the universe stops you from doing bad things. I mean, it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that people are free to do bad things if they want to, except for how the rest of us react (with laws and stuff.)

Self-interest. We know from game theory (a branch of mathematics) that egalitarian, moral behavior is advantageous in most situations.

And honestly? In most situations where it's against self-interest to be moral, people act immorally. They steal pens from work. They take a penny from the tray but never put one in. People don't always follow their self-interest, and there are situations where society conditions us to act against self-interest for the good of all. Some say that's even in our genetics.

You tell me. Why wouldn't you? Maybe because you hope that others wouldn't do that to you? It's called "empathy." It's just the ability to imagine yourself in another person's situation. I don't want to get stolen from - so I help society develop and enforce rules against stealing, even though they mean that I can't steal things for myself.

An argument of the form:

If A, then B
therefore B

is invalid until you first accept, or defend, A as a premise. If B is contingent on A then B is not true until A is true. If A is unknown, it can't be used to conclude B.

That other people will continue to have it for you?

Because it does help you. You curry good favor with others. You create a reputation of kindness.

From reiterative game theory - and just frickin' sense - we know that people tend to follow the "reverse Golden rule": do unto others as they just did unto you. People are helpful to you because you've been helpful to them. If you cease to act with empathy towards others, people are going to cease to act with empathy towards you.

And I don't understand why you think that's meaningless. If you're saying that you've never, ever benefited from another person's empathy, I'd say you're either not thinking hard enough or just plain dishonest. People don't treat the unsympathetic well. They have a strong evolutionary reason not to.

You're just being ridiculous. That's not at all how most people are.

They do it all the time here in the Midwest USA. Maybe it's a culture thing? I was led to believe that the Finns are a very generous people.