Faith and Science - CAP Chaplain Video

[ReCAP]

The dictionary defines morality as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"

You decide to define it as what "improves the changes of survival of society" in some type of Moral Darwinism.  How do you know survival of society is "right"?   Perhaps only your personal survival matters, or maybe total extinction is really "best"? 

Call it social norms, custom, whim, whatever you please but not "morality."   

[Eclipse]

This is why CAP needs to stay out of these discussions.

Organized religions, philosophers, street corner preachers and those nice fellows from the future that have
started popping up at the coffee shop on open mic night have spent hundreds of years not coming to a
conclusion on the subjects, and for most of the above that is their stated mission and purpose in life.

The only thing that happens when these matters are brought to the front in CAP, is someone is frustrated,
alienated, infuriated, or put to sleep, none of which serves the charter.

[lordmonar]

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

[Eclipse]

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

Spock Logic The Needs of the Many

[lordmonar]

Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

[JeffDG]

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

[lordmonar]

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

Another point......you make for me....there are no false dichotomies.  This is where point of view comes.
We honor those who give their lives up for other.....but it is not "wrong" for an individual to say "no...not gonna do it".   

It all depend on how you answer the "life boat dilemma".   

You also point out another value laden subject.....you specifically say "child" as if they intrinsically have more "value" then an adult.  Not judging you....just point out that this is all part of moral relativism.   

[Eclipse]

Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

[Eclipse]

and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

You also point out another value laden subject.....you specifically say "child" as if they intrinsically have more "value" then an adult.  Not judging you....just point out that this is all part of moral relativism.

Yep.

Who lives?  Baby Adolf or Adult Mother Teresa?

Makes for a great coffee-house argument, does not belong at a unit meeting after the Safety brief and before PT.
It might not be the best way, but it's definitely in the top 5 of getting people to quit CAP, especially cadets when
their parents get wind of it.

[lordmonar]

Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

Until you personally have made a questionable moral choice and then are subject to punishment by your society.  Which is the Other side of morality that is often not discussed in character development classes. 

[ReCAP]

See how it all gets very confusing if you deny the possibility of an authority?  Of course you're free to do so, but I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable on a life raft with some of you folks. 

By the way, don't confuse the fact that moral decisions vary depending on the exact circumstances for the idea that there is no right answer for a particular situation. 

Ferinstance, the "kill a baby to save a village" example:

Kill a baby to satisfy the demands of a terrorist who threatens to nuke a city: Immoral

Drop a bomb on a terrorist who is threatening to nuke a city, knowing that a baby will also be killed: Permitted under "double effect" 

[Eclipse]

Yep the choice of personal survival over group survival. But had he chose to save himself.  That would have been morally correct as well.

The decision is made all the easier when you can park your Katra in someone else's head with some
assurance it'll rattle out somewhere else down the road.

In all seriousness, though, the problem is that the whole situation is opinion, informed or otherwise, and not
something really open to "argument".

Until you personally have made a questionable moral choice and then are subject to punishment by your society.  Which is the Other side of morality that is often not discussed in character development classes.

Agreed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Now you are applying a value term to the definition.  Define "right" and "wrong".
Survival is always "right" in my personal moral code. All other things follow from there.

I would disagree.  I can think of plenty of situations where I would consider it to be a greater moral "right" to promote the survival of another at the expense of my own.  I would lay down my life for my daughter in a heartbeat for example, and I would consider someone who sacrificed a child to ensure their own survival to be morally ambiguous at a minimum, if not objectively repugnant.

But we see it in nature all the time. Rabbits kill their young and destroy nests when they fear a predator is nearby. They then escape and live to breed again. So are we just trying to prove that we are better than the animals we are? That we don't have instincts? What about the "right to die" debate? If your child was to die horribly at the hands of aggressors, starvation, or disease, would it be immoral to ease their suffering earlier? A rabbit would. 

[Storm Chaser]

Why is this topic still being discussed in the 'Cadet Programs Management & Activities' forum? Can a moderator please move this thread to the 'Lobby' or another appropriate forum?

[Майор Хаткевич]

I put it here because the video talked about teaching AE to cadets...

[lordmonar]

See how it all gets very confusing if you deny the possibility of an authority?  Of course you're free to do so, but I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable on a life raft with some of you folks. 

By the way, don't confuse the fact that moral decisions vary depending on the exact circumstances for the idea that there is no right answer for a particular situation. 

Ferinstance, the "kill a baby to save a village" example:

Kill a baby to satisfy the demands of a terrorist who threatens to nuke a city: Immoral

Drop a bomb on a terrorist who is threatening to nuke a city, knowing that a baby will also be killed: Permitted under "double effect"

I don't think anyone has denied the possibility of an authority....."society" is an an authority.   With out the context of society morality is a null term.  We have been denying that some super-natural authority is required to have morality.

Second....kill a baby to save a city is not immoral.  Neither is nuking a city and killing all those babies immoral....it depends on the context.  which is what I have been saying all along.

[LSThiker]

yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.

I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Morality is distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.  This is what (not who) sets the standard.  I think we agree on this.

In your case, what you describe is moral objectivism, not moral relativism.  You are objectively looking at the scenario independent of what the society or an individual thinks and deciding that it is more moral to kill the child because it benefits the society as a whole.  However, murder in general does not benefit society.  The decision is independent of human opinion.

Moral relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks.  This is divided into two groups:  subjectivism and conventionalism.  Subjectivism is what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, while conventionalism is what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks.

Moral objectivism does not depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong, but rather 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. 

[Eclipse]

There is always an "authority", whether by consent of the people, by coercion, or simply internal compass.

[Storm Chaser]

I put it here because the video talked about teaching AE to cadets...

Yes, but the discussion stopped being relevant to Cadet Programs after Reply #32.

[lordmonar]

yes I do because I assume there are no moral truths. If I could save a whole village by killing a baby then maybe that is the moral thing to do.

Objective morality assumes an outside standard.   Who sets the standard.

I start at morality by defining what it is.  My definition of morality is the set of standard a society sets to improve the chances of survival of that society.   

Relativism comes into play as the society changes. Or the survival situation changes.

Morality is distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.  This is what (not who) sets the standard.  I think we agree on this.

Almost there...."positively...negatively" affects conscious beings.  You are trading "right and wrong" for "positive and negative" with out really defining anything.  Also why go out of your way to say "conscious beings".  It is the members of the society.  "others" don't fall into the society.   Having said that....we can and do expand our definition of society all the time.

In your case, what you describe is moral objectivism, not moral relativism.  You are objectively looking at the scenario independent of what the society or an individual thinks and deciding that it is more moral to kill the child because it benefits the society as a whole.  However, murder in general does not benefit society.  The decision is independent of human opinion.

Maybe...I'm not all up on the "proper" terminology used in philosophical discussions.   I say relative.....because the moral value on an action is relative to the situation, society, and circumstances.

An objective standard...is moral or immoral in all circumstances and all societies.

Moral relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks.  This is divided into two groups:  subjectivity and conventionalism.  Subjectivity is what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, while conventionalism is what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks.

Moral objectivism does not depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong, but rather 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

Then objectivism is a complete waste of time and has null value.   A man alone on an island is neither moral nor immoral.  With out society moral questions are null.  I guess then I am a Conventional Relativist.   By my definition of what morals are....they are the codes set up by society that improve their changes to survive.