09-07-2005 13:31									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

So, morals trump customs, in some cases.

	09-07-2005 13:32									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Oh. So you admit there can be a moral wrong where the society practicing such customs sees none.

I made that clear about twenty posts ago when I stated that I was not a moral relativist.

	09-07-2005 13:33									#63
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither So, morals trump customs, in some cases.

Of course. Customs have no inherent value. Human beings have emotional attachments to customs, and I avoid violating custom where possible (I don't do it just to be a dick).

But if custom was for every guest to kill a child at the beginning of a feast held by the local chieftain, then I would not abide by the custom.

	09-07-2005 13:36									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So then, you will abandon this

quote: The flag is just a piece of cloth. If there is no harm intended then there should be no harm taken. If there is harm intended, then that is what I would take offence to, not the actual act.

Cannibals intend no offence for eating your aunt Edna.

	09-07-2005 13:41									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

What?

You've lost it again, NYE.

The maple leaf is not a moral object. It's a piece of cloth. If somebody intends no offence (and, in fact, is ignorant that it might cause offence) when they blow their nose with it then I will take none. The act of blowing your nose with the red and white is amoral when the person doing it does not understand the custom surrounding the flag.

The act of eating my dear, departed auntie Edna is also amoral. Again, with the same restrictions as before (if you understand that it will cause me distress then you shouldn't do it)

The act of killing my auntie Edna in order to consume her is immoral. Murder is murder is murder.

	09-07-2005 13:43									#66
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It's very simple, NYE.

	09-07-2005 13:47									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

To you, perhaps.

But perhaps some people place more importance on pieces of cloth than you do.

Telling me that God has inspired my morals by my preferring a state where flags of various people are respected over one where they are used as asswipe is hardly a demonstration of a profound understanding of morality.

	09-07-2005 13:51									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither But, I think the fish is stuck up about frozen chickens.

I certainly wouldn't trust someone who sticks it up a frozen chicken on a regular basis to cook me a roast dinner. I would also have serious concerns about their general mental health, but that's just me.

None of the issues were moral concerns, but to be honest in the quiz I had to say that something was not right. ****ing chickens ain't right.

	09-07-2005 13:55									#69
	Increase Your PM Length

No, it's a demonstration of the fact that you're having difficulty disaggregating custom and morality.

I understand that some people feel an emotional attachment to that piece of cloth. I myself have at least some emotional attachment to it. But:

Take Canada. Our national symbol (at least one of them) is the maple leaf. Now, hypothesise that instead of only turning the stylised representation of a maple leaf into a sacred object, we also revered real maple leaves. All of them. And say there was another country where people used maple leaves to wipe their asses (maple leaves being very plentiful and having a nice, quilted texture). Are you going to tell me that it's immoral for them to do so? Especially if they haven't a clue that what they're doing is considered taboo in canuckistan?

The reason they're telling you that your morals are inspired by God is that you're taking a situation in which actions which are wholly innocent, and which (until the day you visited) had never caused distress to a single person and claiming it as a moral wrong.

	09-07-2005 13:58									#70
	Support Apolyton

The immorality in violating customs does not lie in the violation itself, but in the distress it causes others. If a nation has no understanding of the fact that Canadians revere their flag then no wrong is being done by its use as a mop in that nation.

	09-07-2005 14:00									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

KH and NYE: your discussion on the importance of intent in establishing the ethical value of an action, and the discussion on the borders of the dominance of personal preference and custom in judging the ethical value of personal actions are very interesting.

	09-07-2005 14:00									#72
	Got spare money?

And the cannibals had never caused distress to a single person. After all, they did not consider their dinner to be a person.

	09-07-2005 14:01									#73
	Suffering from ads?

And they are wrong. Because that is a moral issue, and is to be judged in absolute terms.

	09-07-2005 14:02									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why, because it is a hairless ape?

	09-07-2005 14:05									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ripping apart flags is not an absolute moral wrong. It is a moral wrong when it offends a person. Flags are not moral objects. Dead bodies are not moral objects. Menstrual blood is not a moral object. Cows are not moral objects. The Atlantic Ocean is not a moral object. Living, breathing, people are moral objects. They are, in fact, the only element of the set of moral objects. They are also the only element of the set of moral agents. Only human beings are capable of doing wrong, and only human beings are capable of having wrong done to them.

	09-07-2005 14:07									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Why, because it is a hairless ape?

No, because it thinks and feels. At least, I think and feel, and others certainly seem to do the same. And that's the unprovable assertion in my moral theory. The axiom in my formal system.

Axiom 1: Living human beings have inherent value. All of them.

I proceed from there.

	09-07-2005 14:07									#77
	Remove this text

Why are they moral objects, but the objects they place importance in are not?

Only human beings are capable of having wrong done to them?

The RSPCA will be relieved that they can all go home now, since they have nothing to look out for.

	09-07-2005 14:09									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse No, because it thinks and feels. At least, I think and feel, and others certainly seem to do the same. And that's the unprovable assertion in my moral theory. The axiom in my formal system. Axiom 1: Living human beings have inherent value. All of them. I proceed from there.

So, people in a vegatative state are game for dinner?

	09-07-2005 14:09									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

KH: there is a certain amount of negative utility in the act of a person tearing up a flag of another person in front of the other person's eyes. The fact that the first person meant no disrespect is irrelevant, since the other person feels somewhat offended anyway, without being given any larger context on this action ( using flag as a bandage, etc. )

	09-07-2005 14:16									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Why are they moral objects, but the objects they place importance in are not?

No, they are not. If a tribe buries a relic in a tomb which is never to be violated, and I steal it in the middle of the night and they never find out about it then I have done no wrong. If I burn a cross in my basement then I have done no wrong. If I wipe my ass with the Canadian flag in the privacy of my bathroom then I have done no wrong.

quote: The RSPCA will be relieved that they can all go home now, since they have nothing to look out for.

See, now you're managing to get somewhere. This is the first difficult question you've managed to ask

Animals are not moral objects. Animals cannot be victims. Hurting an animal is not an absolute moral wrong. Needlessly hurting animals is against custom, and for good reason. Cruelty to animals is intensely psychologically linked to cruelty to people. People who become desensitised to animal suffering are also desensitised to human suffering. It is for that reason that this is a smart custom to uphold. As well, the spectacle of animal suffering hits anybody who might view it emotionally. If I was going to be unaffected psychologically by it (and this is a silly if), then slowly torturing a dog to death in my basement is not wrong.

	09-07-2005 14:17									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Az KH: there is a certain amount of negative utility in the act of a person tearing up a flag of another person in front of the other person's eyes. The fact that the first person meant no disrespect is irrelevant, since the other person feels somewhat offended anyway, without being given any larger context on this action ( using flag as a bandage, etc. )

Yes, and that is why I said that once the other person understands the custom he should avoid doing bad things to the flag in front of somebody who might take offence..

Already covered a page and a half ago.

	09-07-2005 14:20									#82
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither So, people in a vegatative state are game for dinner?

Nope. I draw the lines more broadly than might be strictly necessary in order to not mistakenly commit a grave moral wrong.

I will say this, though: if there are 5 people starving to death in a room (which they will escape in 2 months' time, but unfortunately they will starve to death before then) and one of them is in a permanent vegetative state then I know which one should be fileted...

	09-07-2005 14:24									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yes, but we aren't talking about this - we are talking about whether in the moment of ignorance. My line of reasoning here is: Tearing up flag hurts person B -> hurting person B is bad -> Tearing up flag is bad. The fact that person A doesn't know that they do something bad doesn't mean it's bad.

It is quite possible that the attachement that B feels for the flag is illogical, yet it's not harmful in any way, and it's a fact. there is no positive utility in tearing up the flag... well perhaps other than being useful in cleaning the toilet. But it's somewhat hard for me to decide on the relative weight of these two concept so I'll ignore the toilet cleaning utility for now - unless, of course, it was part of your original argument.

	09-07-2005 14:25									#84
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Flags are not moral objects. Flags cannot be victims. Burning a flag is not an absolute moral wrong. Needlessly burning flags is against custom, and for good reason. Burning of flags is intensely psychologically linked to cruelty to people. People who become desensitised to burning flags are also desensitised to human suffering. It is for that reason that this is a smart custom to uphold. As well, the spectacle of burning flags hits anybody who might view it emotionally. If I was going to be unaffected psychologically by it (and this is a silly if), then slowly burning a flag in my basement is not wrong.

What's the difference between spot and some guy's flag?

	09-07-2005 14:27									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Nope. I draw the lines more broadly than might be strictly necessary in order to not mistakenly commit a grave moral wrong. I will say this, though: if there are 5 people starving to death in a room (which they will escape in 2 months' time, but unfortunately they will starve to death before then) and one of them is in a permanent vegetative state then I know which one should be fileted...

So then, it is OK to eat people from time to time. Like when you get stuck late at night after delivery is shut down and you have a really bad case of the munchies.

	09-07-2005 14:31									#86
	Put an end to popups!

NYE: It's ok to eat people under certain conditions, yes, just like KH said. But these conditions are rather peculiar and severe. I think it's a fair point.

	09-07-2005 14:37									#87
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Az Yes, but we aren't talking about this - we are talking about whether in the moment of ignorance. My line of reasoning here is: Tearing up flag hurts person B -> hurting person B is bad -> Tearing up flag is bad. The fact that person A doesn't know that they do something bad doesn't mean it's bad

If somebody's linked my ignition to a bomb sitting in a room full of schoolchildren and I start my car, then obviously the consequences are bad. I, however, have done no moral wrong in starting my car.

It is not ignorance of the morality of blowing up little children which excuses me (since I am not ignorant of this), but ignorance of the harm my actions might cause (through no fault of my own).

Now, to proceed from absolute harm to harm caused by a person's reaction to an otherwise amoral act:

Say I enjoyed eating a steak every friday. Say also that I had a roommate who is a vegetarian, and who finds the sight of the consumption of meat repugnant. It would be reasonable for him to request that I avoid eating meat in his presence. It would be unreasonable for him to ask that I avoid eating meat entirely.

The first time it arose (he comes home to find me grilling a steak) it is unreasonable for him to be offended by my actions. Though he might have a negative emotional reaction (as I might when watching somebody innocently torch my flag on a cold winter's night) there is no rational basis for offence; offence is properly the reaction to another's deliberate disrespect of your wishes, when such disrespect is avoidable.

	09-07-2005 14:40									#88
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither So then, it is OK to eat people from time to time. Like when you get stuck late at night after delivery is shut down and you have a really bad case of the munchies.

I have never yet been stuck in a situation where killing a human being and eating them would not have been immoral.

I've been in many situations where eating the flesh of an already deceased person would not have been immoral. Like when I get hungry at work.

A body is just a slab of meat. If nobody will ever find out, then robbing a couple of graves for snacks is not immoral.

EDIT: changed "was not" to "would not have been" in order to make clear the fact that I've never engaged in cannibalism

	09-07-2005 14:41									#89
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What's the difference between spot and some guy's flag?

That burning a flag is not strongly correlated to homicidal psychopathy?

	09-07-2005 14:47									#90
	Tired of ads?

It's been fun.

Night.