Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@Frank Apisa,

I am not sure it is worth it Frank, but if you want to I will join in.

I will start by asking if a man should have the right to rape a woman.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdacona wrote:

I think the question "Why does someone have an obligation" is a fair one.

I agree it is a fair question.

All attempts to know anything do require some presuppositions (assumptions).
I believe that by conventional definition Ethical Philosophy is

Wikipedia ;) wrote:

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
I think that a concept of "should" is implied by the task of "recommending"(Ethical Philosophy's defined task).
I was operating under the linguistic assumption that if someone "should" do something, that means the same thing as being "obligated" to do that thing.

I grant you that I am making an assumption in thinking that there exists a right or wrong conduct, but this is the assumption used to define the sphere of Ethical Philosophy.

Denying that such a thing as right or wrong conduct exist is also a perfectly valid assumption, doing so basically amounts to saying "I don't believe that the subject of study in ethical philosophy exists".

So also, in a discussion of the "nature of God",
a perfectly valid assumption is "I believe God's nature is non-existence."
It doesn't offer much in terms of advancing a discussion, but if that is God's nature then there isn't much to discuss anyhow.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I will start by asking if a man should have the right to rape a woman.

No.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Bennet wrote:

I wish you'd stop your wordplay game because going in circles isn't going to get us anywhere.

I'm not sure what "wordplay games" you're talking about. You have asked questions and I have answered them to the extent that I understand what you're talking about. If you're dissatisfied with those answers, let me know and I'll try to clarify them.

Bennet wrote:

I am generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations, while you are suggesting that moral consideration is only restricted to moral agents. If there is a dog and a human friend sitting beside me and I have an extra piece of hotdog to share I can consider giving it to my human friend or my dog now can't I? I'm not restricted to just giving it to a moral agent, or the human in this case.

Well, that all depends, doesn't it? Morality isn't concerned with non-moral acts. If giving food to a dog in preference to giving food to a person has no moral implications, then it really doesn't matter what choice you make. On the other hand, if you give food to a well-fed dog in preference to giving food to a starving person, then your choice may have moral implications.

Bennet wrote:

Where did I say acting morally with regard to a non-human makee the non-human a moral agent?

I don't know. Where did I imply that?

Bennet wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Are you asking if morality is up to each individual?

No but consideration, or "moral" consideration is.

Are you suggesting that each individual can pick and choose among those to whom that individual will consider to be a moral agent?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

In the quote above, what exactly are you considering to be "the premises of morality?"

That all beings whose acts are governed by morality are equally bound to observe its dictates. For example, if morality holds that lying is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone to whom morality applies.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I don't think that the assumption that there is an absolute right or wrong is a very good assumption at all if it contradicts with other assumptions. Any philosophical system that is contradictory isn't very appealing.

Obviously if there is a deity involved, then the problem of where an absolute morality comes from is easy. If there is a God who says what is right and wrong than so bit it (although believing a God who places such a value on human life created a world so callous about human life is a bit of a stretch).

But if we are one result of a large set of chemical processes devevolving through a haphazard system of evolution, then an absolute system of right or wrong makes no sense. Why would humans have such a system that doesn't apply to every other result of evolution (i.e. ants or chimpanzees)? It is also clear that this morality, had it been applied through the history of Human Beings, would have led to our extinction.

Even as an assumption the idea of an absolute morality contradicts with other assumptions.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5249514)
I am not sure it is worth it Frank, but if you want to I will join in.

If you do not think it is worth it...just do not do it.

Quote:

I will start by asking if a man should have the right to rape a woman.

A man...or a woman...has the "right" to do anything he
she can and wants to do.

Society, can limit those rights in the interest of society as best it can.

So...a man certainly has that right...and I think it is wonderful that society takes that right away from him...or more exactly, exacts a huge punishment for exercising that right.

Society (at least, our society) dictates that it will severely punish any man who rapes a woman.

Some societies DO NOT restrict this right in any meaningful way!

The god of the Bible certainly had no problem with a man raping a woman. In fact, the god of the Bible actually tells men that they can do so under certain circumstances without incurring any moral penalty from the god.

I AM NOT ENDORSING RAPE HERE...AND I THINK ANY MAN WHO RAPES A WOMAN IS A SCUMBAG WHO SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR SUCH A DEED!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That answers my question Frank, you are using a different definition of the word "right" than I am.

This statement is the one that I think is funny.

Quote:

and I think it is wonderful that society takes that right away from him

But I don't think it will be much fun to argue the definition of a word when it seems we agree on the underlying concepts.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I understand what you are saying completely, Max...and for sure we are of one mind on the underlying concepts.

Thanks for discussing it with me.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:
In the quote above, what exactly are you considering to be "the premises of morality?"

That all beings whose acts are governed by morality are equally bound to observe its dictates. For example, if morality holds that lying is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone to whom morality applies.

By "to whom morality applies" do you mean "for everyone who is bound to observe the dictates of morality"?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think that the assumption that there is an absolute right or wrong is a very good assumption at all if it contradicts with other assumptions.

I would agree, if it contradicted with other assumptions that I am actually assuming, rather than some hypothetical assumption that you are assuming.

maxdancona wrote:

Obviously if there is a deity involved, then the problem of where an absolute morality comes from is easy. If there is a God who says what is right and wrong than so bit it (although believing a God who places such a value on human life created a world so callous about human life is a bit of a stretch).

I am not assuming a deity.
Even if I were assuming one, however, this does not make the problem of 'where absolute morality comes from' an easy one. How does it establish that what God says regarding right and wrong is actually the absolute morality? Could the god not be lying? Or mistaken? Or simply stating that he wishes us to behave immorally?
I don't think that getting a "deity involved" necessarily places a value on human life. Perhaps the deity has no interest in human life, or at least not in the sense that he/she/it values human life.

maxdancona wrote:

But if we are one result of a large set of chemical processes devevolving through a haphazard system of evolution, then an absolute system of right or wrong makes no sense.

I disagree.

maxdancona wrote:

Why would humans have such a system that doesn't apply to every other result of evolution (i.e. ants or chimpanzees)?

I happen to think that we should have a system that applies at least to animals. This is because I take suffering to be a universal bad. Animals (at least most) are capable of suffering.

maxdancona wrote:

It is also clear that this morality, had it been applied through the history of Human Beings, would have led to our extinction.

It's not clear to me.
What morality are you referring to that would have led to our extinction?

maxdancona wrote:

Even as an assumption the idea of an absolute morality contradicts with other assumptions.

I think what you are actually saying is that the assumption of absolute morality conflicts with your assumptions.

I contend that an assumption of absolute morality does not conflict with my assumptions.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

By "to whom morality applies" do you mean "for everyone who is bound to observe the dictates of morality"?

No, and I admit that was somewhat inartfully put. Morality applies to everyone in the class of those capable of morality. Thus, moral obligations apply even to those members of the class who are themselves incapable of acting morally (e.g. infants, the insane, the comatose, etc.). Those who are bound to observe the dictates of morality, on the other hand, are those who are capable of conforming their actions to the dictates of morality. Since morality is concerned principally with conduct, only those who are capable of purposeful conduct are those whose acts are governed by morality. I apologize for any confusion.

2 Replies

Boy, I cannot wait until we get to the part where Joe explains what class of people determine who is qualified to determine "the class of those capable of morality."

That ought to be really interesting.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thanks I appreciate your restatement Very Happy

Quote:

Morality applies to everyone in the class of those capable of morality. Thus, moral obligations apply even to those members of the class who are themselves incapable of acting morally (e.g. infants, the insane, the comatose, etc.). Those who are bound to observe the dictates of morality, on the other hand, are those who are capable of conforming their actions to the dictates of morality. Since morality is concerned principally with conduct, only those who are capable of purposeful conduct are those whose acts are governed by morality.

I am still having some problems though with the way "apply" is used throughout the statement. This is because I can't find a way to tell who has the obligations, and who is the "benefactor of those obligations".
Or to restate this in an explicit question to you:
When 'those who are bound to observe the dictates of morality' are behaving morally, who's interests are they bound to consider?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Boy, I cannot wait until we get to the part where Joe explains what class of people determine who is qualified to determine "the class of those capable of morality."
That ought to be really interesting.

That's what we call a "patronizing" and "sarcastic" remark.
(This previous sentence by me to you is patronizing but not sarcastic.)

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

This is what I have gathered so far about your position.
(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

perhaps wrote:

Those obligated to behave ethically (moral agents) are those who are capable of behaving ethically.
These moral agents are capable of purposeful conduct.
These moral agents do not include for example: infants, the insane, and the comatose.

Whose interests (if any) must be considered for a moral agent to make an ethical decision?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251079)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Boy, I cannot wait until we get to the part where Joe explains what class of people determine who is qualified to determine "the class of those capable of morality."
That ought to be really interesting.

That's what we call a "patronizing" and "sarcastic" remark.
(This previous sentence by me to you is patronizing but not sarcastic.)

You seem to have a problem with remarks that you consider both "patronizing" and "sarcastic."

You mentioned that your response was patronizing, but not sarcastic.

May I assume from that you have no problem with remarks that are patronizing but not sarcastic...or is it just that you have no problem with remarks that are patronizing, but not sarcastic if they originate with you.

Just want to be sure.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You seem to have a problem with remarks that you consider both "patronizing" and "sarcastic."
You mentioned that your response was patronizing, but not sarcastic.
May I assume from that you have no problem with remarks that are patronizing but not sarcastic...or is it just that you have no problem with remarks that are patronizing, but not sarcastic if they originate with you.
Just want to be sure.

You, of course, may assume anything that you so desire.
I generally have a problem with remarks that are either patronizing or sarcastic and also remarks that are both patronizing and sarcastic. I almost exclusively have a problem with such remarks when I perceive that their intent is nothing more than to belittle someone else, and not to further a discussion.
I realize that perhaps your intent is to be funny.
My comment was intended to "give you a taste of your own medicine".

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Lighten up a bit, Matt. You're sounding way too stiff.

Anyway, my remark was meant to call attention to the fact that Joe, who often pontificates rather than shares opinions, is missing a facet of the process he claims determines who are the proper subjects of moral considerations.

Who determines was meets the qualifications he specifies?

Sorry you didn't get it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OK.
I'll lighten up, but just a bit. Wink

From previous experiences I understood you to be blunt when it suits your purposes.
I am wondering since (your explanation here) was the message you were trying to convey, would your purposes in this case have been better served by stating that message more explicitly the first time around?

1 Reply

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know