|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 24, 2008 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I said that you can't know if the people that sacrifice for others do it because they think irrational.
I gave an explanation of it.
Quote:
I named one action that is NOT motivated by some sort of reward (at least, you don't know if it is)
And I explained how it is motivated by a reward.
Quote:
For example (a fictional example), suppose I'll tell you that there is person I know that doesn't feel good nor does he benefit in any way when he helps a beggar, but he still does it (again, this is a fictional example, I don't know someone like this). You'll almost sure answer with "he does it because he's stupid/doesn't think rational"
No, I'll just tell you that he doesn't exist.
Quote:
Because mine is not subjective and applies on an absolute scale, on any being, not just a 'society'.
Or so you think. But think about this: why is a good action good?
Quote:
A guy that does good things but does so only because of the reward is inherently not 100% good
According to your definition.
Quote:
Not necessarily because aliens don't have such an 'emotional' attraction to humans, and it's precisely why I have chosen such an example.
OK, think about it this way. Do humans have much of an emotional attachment to, say, sparrows? And yet many humans have bird feeders. Same here.
Quote:
But that society has absolutely nothing to do with your actions
Except for having shaped your idea of what is and isn't good.
Quote:
No society -> but still morals
If there isn't society, then you'd have to come up with all of the morals all by yourself.
Quote:
The 'origin' of them is not important
It is important. Just because the action will have no impact on the alien's society doesn't mean that the morals that the society gave to the alien do not affect its actions in this case.
Quote:
I don't get it.
Curing makes it feel good while benefitting others. And it wants to feel good.
Quote:
It's like saying you shouldn't kill a terrorist that destroys
It depends on what he's destroying. If he's putting human life or your property in danger, that's one thing. But if he's not, you can only call the police.
Quote:
Maybe for aliens it's the other way around.
Then the aliens should come and make deals with us, not destroy us.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Or so you think. But think about this: why is a good action good?
I already said that good is only a term in the english language with a certain value of it. Good does not mean 'pleasant'. It's like asking: why is a rock a rock?
Feeling 'good' has nothing to do with being 'good', by that definition (you can come up with other definitions, but hell, I think you know what I meant). You can do evil and still feel good/pleasure.
It's like asking: why is a criminal a criminal? That's the term used. Do you want to call normal people criminals while the killers citizens? Fine, it won't change the 'value' of what it means (i.e someone that kills people).
If you want, you can use 'evil' to express the same stuff, doesn't matter as long as the 'value' is understood (meaning). And I think you know the meaning.
Quote:
According to your definition.
Obviously, see above 
Quote:
OK, think about it this way. Do humans have much of an emotional attachment to, say, sparrows? And yet many humans have bird feeders. Same here.
Perhaps, but even if so, then the reward is in the subconscious, and I already stated I don't think we can discuss about it (because since it's subconscious it's hard to 'remember' it).
The thing is, and trust me, not all people do good because they expect a reward (whatever that may be) (including me btw). If you think all are like that, then you have really not so much experience with people or just too narrow-minded because only you or your group (whatever that may be) seeks rewards.
Quote:
Except for having shaped your idea of what is and isn't good.
If you want, the alien could as well not even know about morals. But then, humans would classify it as 'good' or morally ok. It doesn't necessarily mean that you understand this language (because I consider morals a language), that only helps to classify yourself in a category (moral vs immoral). But of course it is in shades of gray, not black and white.
Quote:
If there isn't society, then you'd have to come up with all of the morals all by yourself.
See above. The alien could as well not even know about 'morals' but still acknowledge that is the right thing to do (at least from his view).
Quote:
It is important. Just because the action will have no impact on the alien's society doesn't mean that the morals that the society gave to the alien do not affect its actions in this case.
But you said that the morals are used for the good of society and nothing else 
Quote:
Curing makes it feel good while benefitting others. And it wants to feel good.
Maybe, but that is hardly usually the thing that motivates good people -- maybe it's in the subconscious because no 'good' one ever acknowledged it. It's easy to criticize them if you haven't been like them, but trust me in this regard.. I hope
Quote:
It depends on what he's destroying. If he's putting human life or your property in danger, that's one thing. But if he's not, you can only call the police.
Property? We are Earth's property, we stole from it (if you put it that way)
Quote:
Then the aliens should come and make deals with us, not destroy us.
You mean like threatening us? I already told you, force is only the last resort (and of course I never said they should destroy us), but make us understand -- peace can only be achieved by understanding
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Good does not mean 'pleasant'.
"Good" means "the original meaaning of the action was to benefit society".
Quote:
not all people do good because they expect a reward
They may not consciously expect a reward, but subconsciously they know that they want the pleasure of having performed an action that is considered good.
Quote:
If you want, the alien could as well not even know about morals.
All right, but doing good things for others is, to some extent, innate. But if you say that it does not have that instinct, then while we may judge it by our standards as being good or evil, it would have no idea of such concepts.
Quote:
The alien could as well not even know about 'morals' but still acknowledge that is the right thing to do
How could it acknowledge that it is the right thing to do if it has no idea about morals, has not been influenced by society in any way, has no innate pleasure from helping, and is not receiving any physical reward? If you throw all four of these things away, then what's most beneficial for the alien would be to completely ignore the Earth, neither destroying it nor curing cancer, since then the alien would save effort.
Quote:
But you said that the morals are used for the good of society and nothing else
No, I said that morals originated from the good of society, but since society is composed of individuals, it is the helping of individuals. So today we might not be helping society by helping some individuals, but it is still considered good by those morals.
Quote:
Property? We are Earth's property, we stole from it
Inanimate objects own property?
Quote:
You mean like threatening us?
No, I mean like "You can destroy a few rocks, and we'll give you something for it", or vice versa, or some combination of the two.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Good" means "the original meaaning of the action was to benefit society".
Alright if that's your definition (in which I disagree; see alignment systems in RPGs for examples ).
Then what term should I use for my definition of good?
Quote:
They may not consciously expect a reward, but subconsciously they know that they want the pleasure of having performed an action that is considered good.
The only catch is that you don't know if what you said is true or not, just an assumption (me neither).
Quote:
But if you say that it does not have that instinct, then while we may judge it by our standards as being good or evil, it would have no idea of such concepts.
you don't need to know about good/evil or morals to do 'good'.
I said that humans, at least those that follow my definition of good, would classify it as 'moral' and selfless. But then, the alien could as well not even understand what they say, it does not matter. Maybe the alien e.g: does not even know that evil can exist?
In this way, he does not know about morals (or else he would've known what's to be immoral) but he still is moral, from the definition (my definition, obviously aliens wouldn't even use english anyway).
Quote:
How could it acknowledge that it is the right thing to do if it has no idea about morals, has not been influenced by society in any way, has no innate pleasure from helping, and is not receiving any physical reward? If you throw all four of these things away, then what's most beneficial for the alien would be to completely ignore the Earth, neither destroying it nor curing cancer, since then the alien would save effort.
Has it ever occurred to you that there is more to it than what you think there is?
Btw, that does not mean it has no innate pleasure for helping, but that this pleasure does not motivate it
Quote:
Inanimate objects own property?
Depending on how you define property (but I am not such a property-freak anyway).
Quote:
No, I mean like "You can destroy a few rocks, and we'll give you something for it", or vice versa, or some combination of the two.
Well if they have our flaws such as greed and 'economical gains' and self-interests, then yes.. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then what term should I use for my definition of good?
"Circular logic".
Quote:
The only catch is that you don't know if what you said is true or not, just an assumption (me neither).
But you have to admit that my explanation would explain a great deal.
Quote:
you don't need to know about good/evil or morals to do 'good'
True, but if you would do good, then it would be on accident.
Quote:
I said that humans, at least those that follow my definition of good, would classify it as 'moral' and selfless.
They could classify it, but the alien couldn't classify itself. But the reason that humans could classify it is because they have society to give them morals.
Quote:
Has it ever occurred to you that there is more to it than what you think there is?
Has it ever occured to you that every action that a living thing performs has some sort of purpose?
Quote:
this pleasure does not motivate it
Consciously.
Quote:
Well if they have our flaws such as greed and 'economical gains' and self-interests, then yes
Those are flaws? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:57, 24 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
True, but if you would do good, then it would be on accident.
Really? so if I program an AI to do good, without giving it evil, does that mean whatever it does in an accident?
Quote:
They could classify it, but the alien couldn't classify itself. But the reason that humans could classify it is because they have society to give them morals.
So what if the alien can't classify it? I fail to get how that is relevant -- it's like saying he can't speak the english language.
Quote:
Has it ever occured to you that every action that a living thing performs has some sort of purpose?
Obviously but you seem to think that this purpose has to be for a self-interest. The purpose to help others does not exist in your view, only the purpose to make you feel good (either emotionally or physically).
Quote:
Quote:
Well if they have our flaws such as greed and 'economical gains' and self-interests, then yes
Those are flaws?
lol, that's why we have to use force to stop criminals, thieves, etc.. that's why we have wars, etc..
so yep, they are flaws ingrained in our nature
EDIT: Quote:
Quote:
Then what term should I use for my definition of good?
"Circular logic".
haha what does that have to do anyway?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if I program an AI to do good, without giving it evil, does that mean whatever it does in an accident?
No, but it would be programmed to do so - it wouldn't have any other choice.
Quote:
it's like saying he can't speak the english language
Exactly. It's like someone who randomly makes sounds. If he/she makes an English word, it would be on accident.
Quote:
The purpose to help others does not exist in your view, only the purpose to make you feel good (either emotionally or physically).
The purpose to help others is a part of self-interest.
Quote:
that's why we have to use force to stop criminals, thieves, etc.. that's why we have wars, etc...
But it's also in our collective self-interest to stop criminals, thieves, etc., and not have wars. I meant self-interest and desire for economic gains in the framework of a system of laws that enforces the non-aggression principle is not bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, but it would be programmed to do so - it wouldn't have any other choice.
I meant 'erasing' the evil part for example
Quote:
Exactly. It's like someone who randomly makes sounds. If he/she makes an English word, it would be on accident.
Yes but that wasn't my point. My point was that the english language is only a form of communication, of symbols. The message contained within (i.e the 'value') is universal -- for example, all humans eat, whether they are chinese, japanese, english or russian. Just because they use different symbols for that does not mean that the 'message' or 'value' is not universal. Some 'primitive' humans don't even have a language but still eat!
Same with the morals. The alien might not know about the morals (as for classifying them), but he knows that 'message' expressed within -- to help others, etc.. Even if in his language it's called 'evil' to help others, it does not matter, because 'evil' (as the english text) is only a symbol (or series of symbols). The message or 'value' is the one I was pointing out.
Quote:
The purpose to help others is a part of self-interest.
I fail to see that 
Quote:
But it's also in our collective self-interest to stop criminals, thieves, etc., and not have wars. I meant self-interest and desire for economic gains in the framework of a system of laws that enforces the non-aggression principle is not bad.
But I said, not all humans are bad, but because of these 'flaws' we have wars, destruction, suffering (human-made suffering), criminals, police, etc..
if we did not have these 'flaws' we wouldn't need any one of those, see?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 06:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant 'erasing' the evil part for example
Then it would only be able to do good, as programmed.
Quote:
The alien might not know about the morals (as for classifying them), but he knows that 'message' expressed within -- to help others, etc...
Then it knows this innately. But we agreed that it does not.
Quote:
I fail to see that
It is in our self-interest to help others. We get an emotional benefit when we do so.
Quote:
But I said, not all humans are bad, but because of these 'flaws' we have wars, destruction, suffering (human-made suffering), criminals, police, etc...
But it is more to our benefit to have to have the non-aggression principle and have self-interest withinn it than to not need it at all and not have self-interest.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then it knows this innately. But we agreed that it does not.
Actually I said that it does know the 'value' but not the 'symbols'. Please reread my post if you want an explanation.
Quote:
It is in our self-interest to help others. We get an emotional benefit when we do so.
Are you repeating yourself or do you want me to repeat myself.
You said: "All actions have a purpose" or something like that.
Now what I meant was that the purpose need not be of self-interest. Obviously you disagree.
I agree that all actions have a purpose, but that purpose need not necessarily be for your self-interest 
Quote:
But it is more to our benefit to have to have the non-aggression principle and have self-interest withinn it than to not need it at all and not have self-interest.
I guess you are of the opinion that wars are useful and needed 'for our benefit'. i strongly disagree.
Whatever purpose a war has is dwarfed by the amount of suffering it provokes. And they will ALWAYS return with our flaws -- criminals will always exist, etc.. as long as we have those flaws
anyway your image on what is 'beneficial' is quite strange I must say -- hard to realize that you blame God or religions for "killings" that way
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 07:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually I said that it does know the 'value' but not the 'symbols'.
Okay, then, it knows the value innately (it's programmed into it). It does not know that it's called "good", but it knows that it's good. But it knows because you programmed it according to what you think is good.
Quote:
I agree that all actions have a purpose, but that purpose need not necessarily be for your self-interest
But why would people put themselves at a disadvantage to help others if not for some form of self-interest?
Quote:
I guess you are of the opinion that wars are useful and needed 'for our benefit'.
No, wars are bad because they violate the non-aggression principle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, then, it knows the value innately (it's programmed into it). It does not know that it's called "good", but it knows that it's good. But it knows because you programmed it according to what you think is good.
I never said anything about programming regarding this (I did say previously, but not on this subject). Unless of course God programmed it that way, I'm merely pointing out that you don't need to know the language or word to do a certain thing (see my previous example with 'eat').
As for the "what you think is good" remember that my definition of good, which I'll call *insert a word here*, is absolute -- maybe you meant that I would have programmed it to what I think it should do, it's a whole different matter. Someone who is programmed evil (or whatever, I'm referring to my term) is not 'defect' in any way, it just is that way.
But I think the conversation becomes complicated because there are a lot of things that are 'good'. One is a substitute for pleasure (i.e I feel good). But I was referring to the attribute of your character, so to speak, when talking about 'good'. So if you want, I'll use the *insert a word here* from now on
Quote:
But why would people put themselves at a disadvantage to help others if not for some form of self-interest?
Because that's why they are good, and frankly I think you'll never be able to understand that. On a less serious note, it's the same as asking: "Why would people think that apples are tasty? Bananas are the true stuff, yeah."
This statement shows me that you do not have much experience in people nor in life for that matter. Just get over it, not all people are selfish in that sense in all of their lives, just because you are.
(not all people are good either, like I said, due to our flaws, we will never be 100% good  ) (again I'm using my definition of good, but the symbols don't matter, you can as well substitute a new word for it if you want, I don't care, the 'meaning' is important).
For the record, we claim we are 'evolved' (compared to animals). Why is that? If it is only to pursue our self-interests, I fail to see how we can claim we're any better than an animal. But even if we were evolved, that does not mean we have to be proud about it and neglect the animals for example -- for the strong need not be tyrants; they need to have empathy for the weak, and even help those inferior. If not, then that's the definition of a tyrant
Quote:
No, wars are bad because they violate the non-aggression principle.
Frankly, I don't get you, and perhaps I wouldn't want to extend this any further, but I'll point this one nonetheless because I am bored right now:
I said that the respective things are 'flaws'. You then claimed that they are not. So, i took examples where these 'flaws' have impact (like the above wars, crimes, etc). And you told me that these flaws are beneficial or benefit us in a way. So in conclusion, war (which is a consequence of these flaws) benefits us?
You say that we can also oppose them, but remember what I said in the beginning with the invisible necklace? What would then stop you from breaking the law? Well, the flaws are apparent. Force is no substitute for understanding -- if someone doesn't break the law because he's afraid of being punished, he is not good at all, merely scared and is a consequence of our flaws.
Besides, having a counter-attack for our flaws does not mean that they rule out -- I'd prefer not to have crimes, wars, etc.. in the first place rather than later opposing them.
So you see, they are the biggest flaws that humans need to face, the things that keeps them from evolving.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I never said anything about programming regarding this
We're talking about an AI you programmed.
Quote:
maybe you meant that I would have programmed it to what I think it should do, it's a whole different matter
But programs act according to how they are programmed.
Quote:
Because that's why they are good, and frankly I think you'll never be able to understand that.
No, frankly you'll just never be able to understand the motivation for human action. It isn't always obvious, but there is a subconscious emotional benefit caused by altruism. I've talked about this to several people, and, after a bit of thought, they agreed with me. So it's not just me who thinks this way.
Quote:
For the record, we claim we are 'evolved' (compared to animals).
We're evolved. So are other animals. We're not evolved compared to them. It's just that they're adapted to their niche, and we adapt too.
Quote:
If it is only to pursue our self-interests, I fail to see how we can claim we're any better than an animal.
We're better than most animals because our reasoning capabilities are greater, and therefore we can do more. But we are animals.
Quote:
I said that the respective things are 'flaws'. You then claimed that they are not. So, i took examples where these 'flaws' have impact (like the above wars, crimes, etc). And you told me that these flaws are beneficial or benefit us in a way. So in conclusion, war (which is a consequence of these flaws) benefits us?
When individuals gather into groups, they realize that it may be in their self-interest to prevent force by individuals imposed on other individuals. That is, you lose the ability to steal unpunished, but you also gain safety from being stolen from (this is speaking ideally, of course. You can still steal, and you can still be stolen from, but not without negative consequences for the thief). It is in people's self-interest not to let one individual's self-interest harm anybody.
Quote:
What would then stop you from breaking the law?
The negative emotional impact, as I said many times.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 09:36 PM |
|
|
Now this got a twist, nah, I'll only comment on the misunderstandings.
Quote:
We're talking about an AI you programmed.
Yeah but that had nothing to do with morals, it was a different example
Quote:
Quote:
maybe you meant that I would have programmed it to what I think it should do, it's a whole different matter
But programs act according to how they are programmed.
Please read the bold part and then replace it with "I think is good" that you said -- see why it has a different meaning, because 'good' is absolute (at least my definition of it), so you can't have "I think" in that
Quote:
No, frankly you'll just never be able to understand the motivation for human action. It isn't always obvious, but there is a subconscious emotional benefit caused by altruism. I've talked about this to several people, and, after a bit of thought, they agreed with me. So it's not just me who thinks this way.
You're right there are a lot of subconscious actions, but they are all 'invisible' because we don't remember them -- I never said that subconscious doesn't exist, but some people are 'altruistic' without seeking any kind of reward. Maybe it's ingrained in some people's nature, I don't care what, but it is.
Quote:
We're evolved. So are other animals. We're not evolved compared to them. It's just that they're adapted to their niche, and we adapt too.
Actually what I meant was that humans call themselves evolved and better than animals. Reason has partly to do with it -- it depends how we use our reason. If we use it for purposes the same an animal has, we're no better, we just have a different kind of 'branch'. If we use our reason for things that animals would never have a goal of, we can then say we are different. 'better' I don't know, it's subjective. But different, indeed! 
Quote:
When individuals gather into groups, they realize that it may be in their self-interest to prevent force by individuals imposed on other individuals. That is, you lose the ability to steal unpunished, but you also gain safety from being stolen from (this is speaking ideally, of course. You can still steal, and you can still be stolen from, but not without negative consequences for the thief). It is in people's self-interest not to let one individual's self-interest harm anybody.
But that is also because of our flaws -- and frankly the 'defense' is not influenced by the flaws, but the offense is (i.e thieves, etc). Those that oppose criminals/thieves/whatever are just against those that manifest their flaws with the most impact (I'm not saying police are not flawed for example). What I am saying is that, if these flaws were not a part of us, we wouldn't need cops & law in the first place. Of course that would be an ideal world living in harmony even with anarchy -- but I merely pointed out that our 'attributes' like greed, egoism and self-pleasures are one of the few flaws that lead to downfall and suffering.
I'm not dreaming, I realize these are ingrained in human nature. But I am not saying that they can be eliminated, merely pointing them out.
I do not foresee a great path for this discussion though.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 10:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please read the bold part and then replace it with "I think is good" that you said -- see why it has a different meaning, because 'good' is absolute (at least my definition of it), so you can't have "I think" in that
All right, you'll program it to do what is good (and you think that what is good is absolute).
Quote:
I never said that subconscious doesn't exist, but some people are 'altruistic' without seeking any kind of reward.
But if we don't realize that we perform them (or why we perform them), how can you say that some people are altruistic without a reward? Maybe they just don't realize it. Indeed, if I didn't think about it carefully, I wouldn't have realized it myself.
Quote:
If we use it for purposes the same an animal has, we're no better, we just have a different kind of 'branch'.
All right, let us say that regarding self-interest we are no "better" than animals. So? What matters is what we actually do. Good thoughts alone have never fed the hungry, and thinking about murder does not necessarily lead to murder. The action matters more than what causes it.
Quote:
frankly the 'defense' is not influenced by the flaws
I'd say that the defense is influenced by the same exact things as the offense.
Quote:
Those that oppose criminals/thieves/whatever are just against those that manifest their flaws with the most impact
But when someone breaks into your house, you don't say, "Here, you can have everything. I don't want any of it. I'm altruistic." No, that's why people defend themselves and their property.
But I'd like to see someone else's point of view on all of this. Lately, every Other Side thread has been a quote war between us.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 01:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But I'd like to see someone else's point of view on all of this. Lately, every Other Side thread has been a quote war between us.
Unfortunately, I've only been able to skim the last page, as work has been busy. I intend to give it all a good read eventually, though.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:24 AM |
|
|
@theDeath
I don't want to go back and pick individual quotes out of all that. What I'd rather do is ask you a question, because I'm still not getting your viewpoint here.
You've said a lot about "good" and "evil". Though I'm not sure I really agree with your absolutist definitions of these two terms, I would like to ask - do you feel moral and ethical systems revolve solely around the concepts of "good" and "evil", as you've defined them? I.e., is "moral" synonymous with "good" and "immoral" synonymous with "evil"?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 01:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I.e., is "moral" synonymous with "good" and "immoral" synonymous with "evil"?
There are a few things to consider. First, we need to talk about my absolutist view of morals obviously.
Second, and here's where it gets more important, not exactly. If you are 'neutral' (i.e don't do 'evil' but neither care about 'good') you are still moral since you don't commit any immoral acts. So by that logic, I'd say moral is more like when you are not doing so-called 'evil' (of course, feel free to change the term!). When you do evil, you break the moral principles, so you become immoral. This however does not mean "wrong" (on the absolute sense) because you can still do it, i.e it's not false (like impossible). It's just a term.
So I'd say it's more depending on evil (my definition above obviously). Whether or not you're good does not really 'matter' (but of course I consider the good ones much more 'moral' than the neutral ones, but that's just me). Morality seems to be affected whether you are breaking the principles (do evil) or not (not do evil). Of course like I said, it's not necessarily black and white -- you can be immoral in only some aspects and moral in others. Or for that matter, immoral in only a part of some aspects (i.e very little immoral), etc.. It's like a function that accepts REAL numbers between 0..1 (0 = immoral, 1 = moral), not just 0 or 1.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:40 PM |
|
|
So, according to you, morality is the absence of immorality. Interesting.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
|
I don't know if that's the best way to put it -- maybe you can say that they are opposites (of course, for a specific subject, like I said, not all are black & white). Maybe you can actually say that morality is the absence of my definition of evil
|
| |
|
|
