The morality of Offensiveness

[shard2323]

I apologize for not arguing conventionally. I feel though, as if what I'm saying is not being understood in the spirit in which I mean it. . . as if our brains are wired differently.

They are .

Imagine, if you would, the perfect universal moral code. This code exists as an ideal. . . as an abstract. Obviously, this code is not designed to fit a culture, because then it would cease being universally applicable. When I mean universally applicable, I mean exactly that: Universally applicable.

Just to point out, there is no evidence that such a code exists nor logic to support it. But for the sake of a hypothetical situation...

As in, if we found humans on mars, whose culture, in no way, resembled our own. . . that this perfect universal moral code would apply to them in the same respect that it applies to us. I'm not saying that they would agree with the code. That's not what I mean by applicability.

Okay.

This code also is not something that exists within humans (as in, it is not an organic emotional reaction). It exists only in potential, in abstract, and it often violates our natural reaction. That is what I mean when I say the pursuit of morality is an intellectual one.

For such a code to exist, it must exist in two forms: Biologically, or spiritually (This includes via the hand of a god). Biologically speaking, morality is an adaptive feature, but morals themselves are not set. In short, humans are primed from birth to absorb moral concepts, but not to have those moral concepts set in stone. Consequently, no universal moral code seems to exist. After all, if you can give no logical support for god (Don't try, people better than us have tried and failed), and you believe that it is not biological, than you have a tooth-fairy of an objective moral code. In short, you have no way to prove it, define it, justify it, or show it to be worthwhile. You don't even know if it exists. It is merely something you wold have come up with off the top of you head. Tell me, how do you get around this inherent error? I ask not for the sake of a literary, rhetorical question, but because I am honestly curios. You seem dead-set in your views, and I would like to why, since it does contradict logic at turns.

I was born with a yearning for this code stamped into my subconscious, a desire to find objective morality a perfect moral standard. I am not claiming, by any means, that I hold such a code. . . only that I am in hot and constant pursuit of it.

A human such as yourself should be amoral and licentious Best way to pass the time. Though jokes aside, my personal code is a sort of hedonism kept in check via the doctrines of negative utilitarianism. To wit, I—myself and myself only—hold that it is moral to search for pleasure so long as it does not cause harm to others; that causing harm is in of itself immoral (Though personally justifiable). Not because I need something to keep my hedonism in check. Merely because I view it as more pleasurable to not harm people; ergo, negative utilitarianism fits into my personal brand of hedonism. This is the closest I can come to a moral code, and I assert it because of two things: One: It is clearly only applicable to me, and Two: I don't assume others should, or will follow it. Dido for any moral code in my view.

My knee-jerk reaction is to answer "Considering the subjective nature of offensiveness any conceivable act, no matter how harmless or even how beneficial could be potentially be viewed as offensive. Therefore, an objective moral code would not assign blameworthiness to the evocation of offense in another unless it is in direct violation of a higher moral imperative (through causal relationship)."

However, I would most likely conceed that "intentionally evoking offense in the pursuit of maliciousness" would probably fall under the evil of maleficence and under the objective framework be considered blameworthy.

You could create, at most, an objective standard for morality. By this I mean that, if everyone grew up and was raised knowing what moral and immoral actions were, you could use that as an objective standard. Sort of in the same vein as how a certain length of measurement is kept universal by two notches on a certain platinum bar in a certain French bank. However in the case of morality, an objective standard does not mean an objective nature. Morality isn't objective. It is opinion influenced by sociological structure.

 

[Btmangan]

Q

Btw, Descartes should shoot himself in the penis for the Ontological argument for God. It's terrible.

My argument is different from his in one major way. He is saying that the idea of God is perfect and therefore God exists. I am saying that objective morality can, and ought to exist.

Just to point out, there is no evidence that such a code exists nor logic to support it. But for the sake of a hypothetical situation...

As I said, it exists in the abstract. It's not in our genetic code, it's an intellectual idea. As a idea, it exists just like the idea of a square exists, even though a perfect square has never been, and probably never will be drawn.

By the criteria of what you have been saying, squares don't exist.

For such a code to exist, it must exist in two forms: Biologically, or spiritually (This includes via the hand of a god).

What about intellectually? I keep explaining to you all that this concept is not biological. It is not hardwired into mankind. It is not the invisible hand of God. . . it doesn't exist somewhere in the clouds like Plato's ideal form. It's a concept, an ideal to be striven for.

Tell me, how do you get around this inherent error? I ask not for the sake of a literary, rhetorical question, but because I am honestly curios. You seem dead-set in your views, and I would like to why, since it does contradict logic at turns.

How can the pursuit of an abstract ideal be an error?

This is how I've seen the world since I could remember. I was having ethical debates with my parents from an early age. They believed in rules like "wear your dress clothes" and "go to church" and I was always asking "What is the core morality within those rules?" I was always striving for an objective understanding.

When I thought something was wrong, I made an objective claim. "Your behavior is objectively wrong and I will explain why." That' just how I've always been.

A human such as yourself should be amoral and licentious Best way to pass the time. Though jokes aside, my personal code is a sort of hedonism kept in check via the doctrines of negative utilitarianism. To wit, I—myself and myself only—hold that it is moral to search for pleasure so long as it does not cause harm to others; that causing harm is in of itself immoral (Though personally justifiable). Not because I need something to keep my hedonism in check. Merely because I view it as more pleasurable to not harm people; ergo, negative utilitarianism fits into my personal brand of hedonism. This is the closest I can come to a moral code, and I assert it because of two things: One: It is clearly only applicable to me, and Two: I don't assume others should, or will follow it. Dido for any moral code in my view.

The way I judge the world is a mix of Rawlsian Contractualism, Virtue Ethics, and Rule Utilitarianism. (From most influential to least influential)

You could create, at most, an objective standard for morality. By this I mean that, if everyone grew up and was raised knowing what moral and immoral actions were, you could use that as an objective standard. Sort of in the same vein as how a certain length of measurement is kept universal by two notches on a certain platinum bar in a certain French bank. However in the case of morality, an objective standard does not mean an objective nature. Morality isn't objective. It is opinion influenced by sociological structure.

This is why you do not understand what I am saying.

I am talking about another morality, a potential morality.

I emailed my professor. He is the leading ethical philosophy professor at our University. . . and we began to discuss the objective morality of this topic, but when I tried to explain the moral criteria by which I wished to evaluate the topic he never emailed me back.

 

[shard2323]

Btw, Descartes should shoot himself in the penis for the Ontological argument for God. It's terrible.

Much agreed. Then again, he should be shot in the balls for everything after his first meditation anyway.

My argument is different from his in one major way. He is saying that the idea of God is perfect and therefore God exists. I am saying that objective morality can, and ought to exist.

I said I couldn’t quite pin down the similarities; that you simply shared something in the way of common rhetoric. But yes: you don’t use a bullshit linguistic-trap to justify yourself. And for that, I am grateful.

As I said, it exists in the abstract. It's not in our genetic code, it's an intellectual idea. As a idea, it exists just like the idea of a square exists, even though a perfect square has never been, and probably never will be drawn.

Okay.

By the criteria of what you have been saying, squares don't exist.

Do squares have to anything with objectivity of a human concept? You are talking about a geometrical shape and making a logical analogy to something that it shouldn’t be compared to. Likewise, your logic is weak.

We can use sensory evidence to support the existence of a square; we can examine it mathematically and deduce what its form must be logically. Now how on Earth, is this similar to an “intellectual abstract” such as morality; something that has no form; something that cannot be studied empirically or logically/mathematically? Rhetorical questions are rhetorical, but think about it. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Don’t expect me to few your logic as valid.

For what’s worth, you could make the argument that you are talking about a perfect square. However, we can still deduce what form a perfect square will have. Not so much with morality. What form must a universal code have? How could you justify it logically or empirically? How can you even assert that such a code exists? ßdo answer this last question

What about intellectually? I keep explaining to you all that this concept is not biological. It is not hardwired into mankind. It is not the invisible hand of God. . . it doesn't exist somewhere in the clouds like Plato's ideal form. It's a concept, an ideal to be striven for.

Ideals are only hardwired through sensory experience. As a child, you have no concept of geometric, mathematical, or logical ideals. They just don’t exist to the young mind. Saying that they do, and that they exist without an objective hand to guide them is rather silly. The concept of right and wrong don’t even exist in children for crying out loud! I don’t mean to sound angry at you, I’m not, Imma bit flustered at the situation is all ._.

How can the pursuit of an abstract ideal be an error?

When you don’t even know if the ideal exists. How can you say there is an ideal without even being able to define it or support its logical existence? What are you even defining ideal as? I see your usage as more inclined towards the “best of a set of instances” sort of “ideal”. If you don’t mean this, perhaps you should enlighten me :3

This is how I've seen the world since I could remember. I was having ethical debates with my parents from an early age. They believed in rules like "wear your dress clothes" and "go to church" and I was always asking "What is the core morality within those rules?" I was always striving for an objective understanding.

Fair enough.

When I thought something was wrong, I made an objective claim. "Your behavior is objectively wrong and I will explain why." That' just how I've always been.

How can, say, not going to church be objectively wrong or right? Objective as in, say, 1+1=2. Something universal due to it being knowledge not dependent on sensory information and a logically inescapable fact; how can morality possibly be this?

Lemme elaborate. You tell your friend that beating up on his girlfriend is “…objectively wrong.” And you tell him why. Any explanation will do. Now he counters this by pointing out why he did it. Who is right? What standard can either of you base the measure of “Wrong-ness” or “Right-ness” on? None! They don’t exist. They are human created notions to aid in the cohesion of social units and thus such a standard can’t exist.

The way I judge the world is a mix of Rawlsian Contractualism, Virtue Ethics, and Rule Utilitarianism. (From most influential to least influential)

Aha, I see. :3

This is why you do not understand what I am saying.

I am talking about another morality, a potential morality.

Well, first off all: You should have opened up with the fact that you are talking about another sense of morality than what you defined for Kazey. I don’t demand it. However, it would have been nice.

Moving on, you said morality is “What we ought to do.” Defining we as “…all of humanity”…to paraphrase. Obviously by the act of stating that this objective morality you are hunting for is “potential”, you are admitting that it does not exist hitherto in the human mind (Or at the macro-scale at least). Therefore, logically speaking, you are referencing what we ought to do—that is to say, morality—as something that does not yet exist. Thus it must be created. Thus it must have an objective basis to justify its creation as objective. No?...I am confuzzled @.@

I emailed my professor. He is the leading ethical philosophy professor at our University. . . and we began to discuss the objective morality of this topic, but when I tried to explain the moral criteria by which I wished to evaluate the topic he never emailed me back.

Lol, well, don’t think badly. Either he thinks you’re crazy or he has a lot of work on his plate. ;~; I know the feeling of being called crazy, it is quite *$^@#!%ing ._. So…just find his address and a good sharp axe~ The rest shall fall into place >]

 

[Kaze Araki]

Well, first off all: You should have opened up with the fact that you are talking about another sense of morality than what you defined for Kazey. I don’t demand it. However, it would have been nice.

Moving on, you said morality is “What we ought to do.” Defining we as “…all of humanity”…to paraphrase. Obviously by the act of stating that this objective morality you are hunting for is “potential”, you are admitting that it does not exist hitherto in the human mind (Or at the macro-scale at least). Therefore, logically speaking, you are referencing what we ought to do—that is to say, morality—as something that does not yet exist. Thus it must be created. Thus it must have an objective basis to justify its creation as objective. No?...I am confuzzled @.@

You should at least credit my Wittgensteinian approach in handling the issue.
Although unfortunately, my further inquiries were not replied - thus preventing me from continuing my scrutiny.