What Is Morality?

Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural.

Nope, simply claiming that you have identified it as "fallacious reasoning" without demonstrating why, is not an argument as to why it can't be considered a positive moral goal. If you intend to substantiate your argument please do, if you do not, tell me so we can move on to something else.

Again I point out that the Wikipedia link I provided earlier only asserts that the naturalistic fallacy is an alleged logical fallacy, and you have certainly made no case here whatsoever to substantiate your allegations.

Nope the problem lies with needless argumentation of semantics. I suggest if you are unclear on my meaning you simply ask for clarification, that way you can minimize counterproductive argumentation of semantics.

joefromchicago wrote:

What more information do you need?

Let's start with my very first sentence of my very first post thusly:

Chumly wrote:

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

The problem with your scenario is your overt vagueness (i.e. lack of data as I have said numerous times). For starters:

1) You have not identified how the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question is hobbled. I would expect a reasonable explanation here.

2) You have not identified by how much the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question is hobbled. I would expect a reasonable explanation here.

3) You have not identified if such hobbling is statistically relevant. I would expect a reasonable explanation here.

4) You have not identified what your definition of relevance is in this context. I would expect a reasonable explanation here. Is man's survival dependant on it for example? Where is the argument, logic and evidence to make this so-called determination?

5) You have not identified explicitly why the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question is hobbled. To say "genetic diseases" is again an overt vagueness. Do you mean a horribly deadly, fast spreading major early childhood killer with absolute no known cure, that definitively puts the long term survival of the species at serious risk? What exactly do you mean here, I am not uneducated in the sciences. I would expect a reasonable explanation here.

6) You have not identified any measure whatsoever as to the efficacy of the determination itself. I would expect a reasonable explanation here.

7) You have not identified by any measure whatsoever as to the negative results that will come from the "understandably reluctant" vis-a-vis the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question. I would expect a reasonable explanation here. For example what are the socioeconomic negatives of the reactions by the "understandably reluctant", and how do these socioeconomic negatives sourced from the reactions of the "understandably reluctant" play a part in decreasing the long term survival of the species?

8) Where is the research to demonstrate that your so-called "genetic diseases" will not have an evolutionary advantage at some future or even present point?

9) Where is the research to demonstrate that these so-called "genetic diseases" once removed from the gene pool. will not have a negative effect on the human gene pool going forward, if the time should come in which these so-called "genetic diseases" have survival value?

Are you asking if survivalist morality judges Mayan or Buddhist morals at all times in all ways? If so, we have been through this many times already as per the three states, (four if you include the also as discussed "too high" caveat) And don't start again that "too high" does not make sense under the umbrella of the survivalist morality as I never said it fit under that umbrella.

joefromchicago wrote:

I didn't confirm that you answered my question because you didn't answer my question (and you still haven't).

Untrue, I did indeed answer your first question and I am disappointed that you refuse to acknowledge it and respond in kind.

Please see above as to what I would need to help make the right decision in the case at hand. Further please explain how you got the impression I "seemed to have enough when I first presented it" and what thought processes you used to arrive at the conclusion that I "seemed to have enough when I first presented it". I unfortunately find your reasoning here wholly oblique.

joefromchicago wrote:

Why is that "unsubstantiated?" Apart from your bare ipse dixit, what would prevent a system of morality from being universal?

I challenge you on two counts:

1) I challenge you to demonstrate to me that my text in the context of the whole represents a so-called "bare ipse dixit".

2) I challenge you to demonstrate to me a "system of morality" that is all encompassing.

You have not met my challenge in any way whatsoever I said thusly:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to show me a moral system that covers all of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology.

You appear to be claiming that Buddhism covers Islam or that Scientology covers Mayan which is not only a highly dubious and wholly unsubstantiated claim, but is a far cry from the challenge I gave in response to your original unsubstantiated claim. Respond to my challenge as written above, but do include as a sidebar how Buddhism covers Islam and how Scientology covers Mayan.

As per my challenges written above and the ones below, given that Mayan consider human sacrifice moral, Scientologists consider "Tech" moral, Buddhism considers desiring immortality immoral, Islamic sexual morality differs from JuJuism's sexual morality etc. etc., you have the quite the substantive burden of proof to demonstrate.

Further, I note for reasons unidentified, you have skipped over a number of my important challenges I made to you. In the interests of in kind consideration, I ask that you respond to them. I understand some have a level of similarity, and if so let me know which you feel are essentially the same; for example where is your argument that simply because a moral system claims it "covers all of those situations" that in fact I should put any credence whatsoever into that claim thusly:

joefromchicago wrote:

Most moral systems at least attempt to do just that.

Chumly wrote:

Be that as it may "attempt" is not actuality, thus I challenge you to show me a moral system that covers all of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology.

Ok then, I challenge you to show me your logic demonstrating that a moral system can cover every situation within the context of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology. Further why are you limiting yourself to "every situation in which people act"? If you have such a broad and consequential moral system surely it will not only cover Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology but it will cover the Earth's' Ecosystem as mine aptly does. Understand Joe that no ecosystem = no Mankind (unless of until the space program develops more fully that is).

Ok then, I challenge you to show that your inferred moral systems succeed within the context of Mayan, Buddhism, Jujuism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Witch Craft & Scientology thus making the survivalist morality "unique" in it's so-called "failing".

I am only saying that I have never seen a moral system that "can cover all bases" so I'll stick to the facts unless or until demonstrated otherwise.

Moral = that which is good by the yardstick considered apropos. I do also aver that the effects of meteors or viruses can have an impact on survivalist morality. Further in my viewpoint I would place survivalist morality above an immediate individual aspect to morality. All that said however I stand by my quotes thusly:

Chumly wrote:

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

"Too high" is not a rule of survivalist morality, I only pointed it out as a caveat because I know the way people think/act sometimes. It does not matter how you wish to theorize it, I can guarantee you some people will act in this way. I never claimed it was reasonable, rational or logical.

joefromchicago wrote:

And, according to you, blowing up the world would be "wrong?"

Let's go back again and look at my very first sentence of my very first post

Chumly wrote:

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question.

So I'll give you two scenarios one in which "blowing up the world" is wrong and one in which "blowing up the world" is good. To simplify let's leave the ecosystem out of the equation for now (not that we can't bring it back later). Note I used the term "nuclear holocaust" which has a completely different meaning than your "blowing up the world" (to me) and thus might have a different moral outcome depending on the scenario. "blowing up the world" would mean the earth was actually disintegrated. I assume you mean "nuclear holocaust"?

Wrong:
If a nuclear holocaust ruined the long term survival of our species (very likely at this very early stage of man's growth)

Right:
If a nuclear holocaust ensured the long term survival of our species (possible if we were well settled extraterrestrialy and a major earth bound threat to man's future could be eliminated by a nuclear holocaust

I appreciate your input and expect a full reply in kind to all of the above. All the best and I look forward to reading your responses.

Also please address the following, I am curious thusly:

joefromchicago wrote:

I assure you that I am not engaged in these discussions with you or with real life as a means to amuse myself.

Chumly wrote:

If you would like to tell me what your intentions and motivations are please do. For me it's the fun of the challenge, the structure of the dialogue, and the learning of new things. It sounds like you might have some presumed higher purpose?

I am back, but given that you have declined to respond to some of my prior text, and further have leveraged this thread to meet a set of criteria you have as of yet not amplified on (as requested), I do wonder what might be done at this point.

Nonetheless here I am, and I hope your holidays were fun.

It's true, things generally work best when both parties act in a free and open manner, but do not shrug off the other's points or queries.

Without belaboring the point I present as examples a) your unsubstantiated needless critique that there is no word "irrelative" b) your needless critique of other valid word selections...

...c) your consistent shrugging off when I repeatedly requested the particulars of your genetic disease scenario...

...c) other of my queries and points you deemed as not wanting to answer.

I'm not overly inclined to go back and scout out all my shrugged off points and queries in detail, so on that reciprocity basis I am pleased to move forward if you have something new to add.

Other points aside, I have no motivation to input unless or until you expand on my repeated requests for the particulars of your genetic disease scenario.

Other points aside, if you wish to maintain the claim that you have provided all the answers to all the questions I have asked in reference to your genetic disease scenario then you do so at your expense not mine.

For example if one does not support the space program and thus man is more likely to stay wholly dependant on this earth for our entire future that's immoral due to increased risks from dangerous solar activity, meteor impact, geological catastrophe, unrecoverable man made ecological damage, etc.

I made no explicit reference to as relating to either goals or morality

Morality is the goal of maximizing the long term survival of the species (or ecosystem) in question

why can't a moral value judgment be placed on the "goal to maximizing the species' survival." as amplified below?

Chumly,

You stated that morality is a goal, but I disagree because morality refers to an objective right and wrong.

In your space program argument, I think that you fail to realize that intentions and direct causes are big parts on whether a person's action is right or wrong morally.

By your logic, if you drop a penny and by some freak accident a person slips on your penny and breaks his or her back, then the action of dropping a penny is immoral. This doesn't make sense. It is not the drop of the penny that is bad, it is the person slipping on it and breaking his or her back. You cannot be said to be at fault morally for you do not intend to break his or her back.

looked up both the word "goal" and the word "objective" which you, (I would assume) believe are not interchangeable:

aim, object, objective, target:
the goal intended to be attained…….
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/objective

sounds pretty interchangeable to me, thus your distinction is lost on me!

I can see no reason why a given application of a given morality (I'll limit this example to supporting the space program is moral because it helps man to more likely survive) cannot be perceived as a moral goal (or a moral objective).

I see no parallel between your randomized event example, and the planning (or lack thereof) for mankind's survival vis-a-vis the space program from my moral position. And yes I do suggest that if we do not act to support the space program and thus 1) and 2) have deathly negative implications, not only was there foreknowledge and thus no consequential merited argument for randomization, but that through inaction there can be immorality.

To (hopefully) illuminate things a bit, I'll provide a definition of morality applicable to my context.

Morality:
concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/morality