NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm bored.

Here's the contest: you state the premises of your morality. I ask you a series of questions. If you can't answer a question, your morality has no logical basis.

Let the fun begin.

The premise of my morality is my own self-preservation and the preservation/improvement of my quality of life.

The premise of my morality is my own self-preservation and improvement.

Ok, why should you improve and preserve yourself?

The "logic" behind your challenge has no weight.

You must be bored.

Ok, why should you improve and preserve yourself?

Because I derive a sense of personal satisfaction from it.

I just do what the pamphlet says, I never question it so I don't know it's basis.

Because I derive a sense of personal satisfaction from it.

Why should you pursue personal satisfaction?

Why should you pursue personal satisfaction?

Because I feel the impulse to do so.

The "logic" behind your challenge has no weight.

You must be bored.

What do I need logic for? :D

But seriously, am I making a logical claim?

Because I feel the impulse to do so.

Why should you follow your impulses?

This is already getting boring and repeative.
Why do you X?
Because of Y.
Why do you Y?
Because of Z.
Why do you Z?
It's pointless unless you can come up with more original questions.

This is already getting boring and repeative.
Why do you X?
Because of Y.
Why do you Y?
Because of Z.
Why do you Z?
It's pointless unless you can come up with more original questions.

It's turning out like this mostly because Vetalia's morality is so simple. Once you get to the tail end of a morality it connects through what are basically synonyms until the moralist runs out. More complex moralities have more complex questions. Perhaps you would like to post one?

The premise of my morality is the most dedicate pursuit of my own happiness and well-being I can achieve without causing harm to others.

The premise of my morality is the most dedicate pursuit of my own happiness and well-being I can achieve without causing harm to others.

I'll do a different tack with this one: Why is harm to others bad?

From my moral standpoint, harming others is bad because I find the suffering of others to decrease my own happiness.

From my moral standpoint, harming others is bad because I find the suffering of others to decrease my own happiness.

Ok. Unless you want me to start again with a more interesting question, you are now on the same track as Vetalia. Would you answer any of his questions differently?

Well, I don't know if you're going to answer me, but here's mine:

The basis of my morality is to try and make myself happy (or fulfilled, or satisfied, or something of that nature) without literally or metaphorically hurting someone else to do it, insomuch as that is possible anyway.

Lots of implied caveats in there, I suppose, but that means you'll have a field day with it.

Well, I don't know if you're going to answer me, but here's mine:

The basis of my morality is to try and make myself happy (or fulfilled, or satisfied, or something of that nature) without literally or metaphorically hurting someone else to do it, insomuch as that is possible anyway.

Lots of implied caveats in there, I suppose, but that means you'll have a field day with it.

Sounds like that of Oppressiontopia. Would you answer any of his questions differently?

Sounds like that of Oppressiontopia. Would you answer any of his questions differently?

Well, I see he only answered one question, and the fact that our statements are so similar is sort of interesting...but I'm not going to get into that right now.

Yes, I probably would answer differently, and at greater length. Having majored in cultural anthropology, I could get quite technical. I don't suppose that's as good as philosophy for your purposes, but it has some surprising applications.

Now, go ahead and ask me a question - I don't want to start with a secondhand one.

I'm bored.

Here's the contest: you state the premises of your morality. I ask you a series of questions. If you can't answer a question, your morality has no logical basis.

Let the fun begin.

Judaism.

So far, i have yet to see anyone refute Judaism.

You do that, and i'll become a Deist.

Well, I see he only answered one question, and the fact that our statements are so similar is sort of interesting...but I'm not going to get into that right now.

Yes, I probably would answer differently, and at greater length. Having majored in cultural anthropology, I could get quite technical. I don't suppose that's as good as philosophy for your purposes, but it has some surprising applications.

Now, go ahead and ask me a question - I don't want to start with a secondhand one.

Hmm...Lets start basic. Why should you avoid harming others?

Judaism.

So far, i have yet to see anyone refute Judaism.

You do that, and i'll become a Deist.

Ok. Why should one follow the tenets of Judaism?

Well, I see he only answered one question, and the fact that our statements are so similar is sort of interesting...but I'm not going to get into that right now.

Yes, I probably would answer differently, and at greater length. Having majored in cultural anthropology, I could get quite technical. I don't suppose that's as good as philosophy for your purposes, but it has some surprising applications.

Now, go ahead and ask me a question - I don't want to start with a secondhand one.

Like other people have noted, it's going to go something like this:

-Why do you want to be happy?
-Why is hurting other people wrong?

These kind of questions can really go on forever with no meaningful insight gained. This is sometimes an argument used by people who glean their morality from one text or another. Eventually, humanists are supposed to run out of reasons for why they do things, at which point religious people can say "Well, I have a reason to do what I do. My god told me so."

Like other people have noted, it's going to go something like this:

-Why do you want to be happy?
-Why is hurting other people wrong?

These kind of questions can really go on forever with no meaningful insight gained. This is sometimes an argument used by people who glean their morality from one text or another. Eventually, humanists are supposed to run out of reasons for why they do things, at which point religious people can say "Well, I have a reason to do what I do. My god told me so."

Thing is, I can (and have)(and am doing here) the same thing with gods. Anyway, I could try from another direction, if you like. Give me a morality, I'll ask something that isn't "Why do what you want?" or "Why do what others want?"

Ok. Why should one follow the tenets of Judaism?

You don't have to. Judaism could care less what you think.

But what they do want, is for people at the very least to be considered a righteous person to follow the 7 Noahide laws.

You don't have to. Judaism could care less what you think.

But what they do want, is for people at the very least to be considered a righteous person to follow the 7 Noahide laws.

Ok, why should one follow the 7 Noahide laws?

Or, if you want me to go from a different tack, why should jews follow the tenets of Judaism?

Thing is, I can (and have)(and am doing here) the same thing with gods. Anyway, I could try from another direction, if you like. Give me a morality, I'll ask something that isn't "Why do what you want?" or "Why do what others want?"

In the immortal words of Master Shake:

Why is anything anything?!?!

Seriously, you'll get to a point where people are going to say: because my god said so, so shut it. Either that, or "because that is what I think is right, so shut it."

I'm all for examining beliefs and morality, but this discussion could go on forever with very little point to it.

Hmm...Lets start basic. Why should you avoid harming others?
To facilitate and maintain cooperation; in the hope of reciprocity, because it facilitates social cohesion (or minimises social fragmentation), because I have been socialised to find pain in others unpleasant,...stuff along those lines.

In the immortal words of Master Shake:

Why is anything anything?!?!

Seriously, you'll get to a point where people are going to say: because my god said so, so shut it. Either that, or "because that is what I think is right, so shut it."

I'm all for examining beliefs and morality, but this discussion could go on forever with very little point to it.

Personally, I'm waiting till the point people run out of synonyms and I can pounce on them with an accusation of circular logic.

As for those two examples, I can get further than them if people answer my questions.

To facilitate and maintain cooperation; in the hope of reciprocity, because it facilitates social cohesion (or minimises social fragmentation), because I have been socialised to find pain in others unpleasant,...stuff along those lines.

Ah, but why is cooperation good? Why should you believe what you have been socialised to believe?

Hmm...Lets start basic. Why should you avoid harming others?

Well, in brief, because it can come back to bite you in the ass later. Although it's slightly more complicated than that.

I have been taught - you might say conditioned - to believe that physically harming another person is, in most circumstances, inappropriate. I may have smacked a few people during my school years and beat up on my brothers, but at this point in my life I think it would take a lot to make me resort to physical violence, even in self-defense (although I'm not sure of that, I've never been in that kind of situation before). The possible consequences of such an action, not just legal or social, also enter into my consideration. If I do something that doesn't actually qualify as criminal, but is physically harmful to someone, I might get sued, or people will think I'm loopy and avoid me. So it's really not worth hitting someone just to feel better.

As for hurting in the emotional or other sense...well, again, that's part of my upbringing. But I think it's really because I was teased a lot growing up, and I really didn't like it. I've teased people myself (mostly during middle school years) and feel really bad about it now, because I should have known better. I also think that if you're nasty to people without a good reason, you'll get the same back from them in one form or another.

Going to a wider perspective: I see the consequences of unmitigated self-interest and callousness all around me. If people don't care who they hurt to get what they want, and don't even feel the slightest twinge of regret at sacrificing someone else's well-being for their own ends, they leave a wake of misery behind them. And it spreads. I think that a lack of basic consideration for others, more than the blind forces of nature or anything like that, is responsible for most of humanity's problems. And I really don't want to be part of the problem.

To facilitate and maintain cooperation; in the hope of reciprocity, because it facilitates social cohesion (or minimises social fragmentation), because I have been socialised to find pain in others unpleasant,...stuff along those lines.

That was someone else's question, but we can start yours here.

Why should one cooperate?
Why should one pursue reciprocity?
Why should one avoid fragmentation?
Why should one avoid the unpleasant?

Well, in brief, because it can come back to bite you in the ass later. Although it's slightly more complicated than that.

I have been taught - you might say <i>conditioned</i> - to believe that physically harming another person is, in most circumstances, inappropriate. I may have smacked a few people during my school years and beat up on my brothers, but at this point in my life I think it would take a lot to make me resort to physical violence, even in self-defense (although I'm not sure of that, I've never been in that kind of situation before). The possible consequences of such an action, not just legal or social, also enter into my consideration. If I do something that doesn't actually qualify as criminal, but is physically harmful to someone, I might get sued, or people will think I'm loopy and avoid me. So it's really not worth hitting someone just to feel better.

As for hurting in the emotional or other sense...well, again, that's part of my upbringing. But I think it's really because I was teased a lot growing up, and I really didn't like it. I've teased people myself (mostly during middle school years) and feel really bad about it now, because I should have known better. I also think that if you're nasty to people without a good reason, you'll get the same back from them in one form or another.

Going to a wider perspective: I see the consequences of unmitigated self-interest and callousness all around me. If people <i>don't</i> care who they hurt to get what they want, and don't even feel the slightest twinge of regret at sacrificing someone else's well-being for their own ends, they leave a wake of misery behind them. And it spreads. I think that a lack of basic consideration for others, more than the blind forces of nature or anything like that, is responsible for most of humanity's problems. And I really don't want to be part of the problem.

Now we've got something!

Here are your questions:
Why should you avoid difficult acts?
Why should one avoid said legal/social consequences?
Why is it bad to do something to others that they have done to you?
Why shouldn't one spread misery?
What is "the problem" and why is it a problem?

Ok, why should one follow the 7 Noahide laws?

Or, if you want me to go from a different tack, why should jews follow the tenets of Judaism?

1. Because according to our religion, it makes you a righteous person.

2. Because it's their religion.

This is boring. =\ This is just psychological questions....

If anyone else wants to take my place, they can....blah.

Ah, but why is cooperation good?
Good? What the heck does that mean? In a discussion about the basis of morality, good is the very point in question, (as opposed to being a necessary standard by which to measure the answer).

Why should you believe what you have been socialised to believe?What has belief got to do with it? I didnt claim to believe that pain (in others) was anything, rather I claimed that I find it unpleasant - it's a claim about 'emotional response' not about belief.


Why should one cooperate?
Because one is human and cooperation is something that humans do.
We are a social animal.

Why should one pursue reciprocity?
In order to attain certain benefits for oneself, such as possible security from harms caused by others.

Why should one avoid fragmentation?
Because human beings are a social animal, being human involves being in relationships with other human beings and social fragmentation interfers with optimal relations.

Why should one avoid the unpleasant?
That is the function of unpleasantness, to cause avoidance.

1. Because according to our religion, it makes you a righteous person.

2. Because it's their religion.

This is boring. =\ This is just psychological questions....

If anyone else wants to take my place, they can....blah.

I'll take your place.

VR: Why?
Someone: Because.
VR: But why?
S: Because...
VR: Why?
S: Because!
VR: Why is that?
S: BECAUSE, DAMNIT!
VR: Now, why would you say that?
*mass suicides ensue*

Good? What the heck does that mean? In a discussion about the basis of morality, good is the very point in question, (as opposed to being a necessary standard by which to measure the answer).

What has belief got to do with it? I didnt claim to believe that pain (in others) was anything, rather I claimed that I find it unpleasant - it's a claim about 'emotional response' not about belief.



Because one is human and cooperation is something that humans do.
We are a social animal.


In order to attain certain benefits for oneself, such some security from harms caused by others.


Because human beings are a social animal, being human involved being in relationships with other human beings and social fragmentation interfers with optimal relations.


That is the function of unpleasantness, to cause avoidance.

Zagat, don't worry about it. I was just helping him out. Asking the same question dozens of times in a row probably gets pretty tiring. :D

Zagat, don't worry about it. I was just helping him out. Asking the same question dozens of times in a row probably gets pretty tiring. :D
I'm not worried...well at least not about the contents of this thread anyhow... ;) :p

Good? What the heck does that mean? In a discussion about the basis of morality, good is the very point in question, (as opposed to being a necessary standard by which to measure the answer).

What has belief got to do with it? I didnt claim to believe that pain (in others) was anything, rather I claimed that I find it unpleasant - it's a claim about 'emotional response' not about belief.



Because one is human and cooperation is something that humans do.
We are a social animal.


In order to attain certain benefits for oneself, such as possible security from harms caused by others.


Because human beings are a social animal, being human involves being in relationships with other human beings and social fragmentation interfers with optimal relations.


That is the function of unpleasantness, to cause avoidance.

Why should one follow the lead of one's species?
Why should one pursue security?
What are "optimal relations" and why should one pursue them?
Why should one allow unpleasantness to fullfill its function?

I'm bored.

Here's the contest: you state the premises of your morality. I ask you a series of questions. If you can't answer a question, your morality has no logical basis.

Let the fun begin.

Why should we let the fun begin?

1. Because according to our religion, it makes you a righteous person.

2. Because it's their religion.

This is boring. =\ This is just psychological questions....

If anyone else wants to take my place, they can....blah.

The psychology is just on the shallow level.

If you're still here, or someone else wants to support Judaism:
1. Why is righteousness desirable?
2. Why should they continue in their religion?

Anyway, I'm out. Continent boy seems ready to take the job of questioner on until I get back, if he gets stupid about it you can shoot him or something.

Now we've got something!

Here are your questions:
Why should you avoid difficult acts?
Why should one avoid said legal/social consequences?
Why is it bad to do something to others that they have done to you?
Why shouldn't one spread misery?
What is "the problem" and why is it a problem?

1. I don't know where you got this out of. Define "difficult."

2. Humans are social creatures. You'd be surprised at how much power social conditioning and the fear of societal disapproval have on someone. If you are socially unacceptable, people do not associate with you, and then you're terribly lonely, and for humans, that's very painful. As for legal consequences...well, social consequences are part of that too. Also, I have my whole life ahead of me. I'm in a good situation and if I get arrested it will mess everything up for me, especially if it's not for a good cause like civil disobedience or something.

3. If you are a sympathetic person (which most people are, to one degree or another, because it is part of what makes a sane, socially functional human), and you have experienced bad treatment, you are disinclined to treat others in the same way. Sometimes this disinclination is not strong enough to overpower the urge to do bad things to other people. In me, it is quite strong. It's also sort of a learned reflex: if I do this, people will not like me and I will pobably regret it later, and if I don't do it, things will be fine.

4. This is a difficult question to answer. It's part of my personal beliefs and I'm not exactly sure where it came from. But generally I don't like people who cause misery, and I'm not sure whether it's worse to do so intentionally or unintentionally. I've been hurt by people like that and I know others who have, too. I don't want to become what I don't like, or add to the things that I don't like in the world.

5. "The problem" is a lot of problems, like prejudice, crime, pollution, poverty...pretty much every kind of massive-scale screw-up that humans have caused. If you think about it, a lot of these problems are caused by relatively few powerful people who pursue their own ends without any sympathy for others. And those who are less powerful and cause problems probably just don't realize that they can change themselves or their surroundings, much less the whole system. I may not be able to fix these problems, but at least I can try not to add to them unnecessarily, and maybe being good will have a "ripple effect" that will cause others to be good too, down the line.

Why should one follow the lead of one's species?
What lead? I'm a human being and necessarily function in accordance with human functioning.

Why should one pursue security?
In order to avoid possible harms.

What are "optimal relations" and why should one pursue them?
The best possible relations that can exist; because it is beneficial to do so.

Why should one allow unpleasantness to fullfill its function?
Because not allowing it to do so is unpleasant and therefore something that one is motivated to avoid due to the nature of unpleasantness.

the basis of my morality is that you can ask questions i dont have to answer ;)

like many others, the premise of my morality is my own preservation, and to maximize my own happiness/comfort/well-being/whatever you want to call it, while minimizing negitive effects on such of others.

Question away, although you will reach a point when the answers will be something simple, and basic, and impossible to really deny or question, tho I'm sure you'll try.

A: Why do you respond to stimuli?
B: Because it is biologically neccessary to do so.
A: Why?
B: Study evolution, A. If I don't, I go extinct, and therefore no future generations don't respond to stimuli; all future generations will be those who inherit the social or physical aspects that cause them to respond to stimuli. I do, because I do, because I do, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
A: Why?
B: Why "why"?
A: Why, "why, "why""?
B: Why, "why, "why "why"""?
...
B: Why, "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why why""?

A: *snore*
B: Woo. I win.

A: Why do you respond to stimuli?
B: Because it is biologically neccessary to do so.
A: Why?
B: Study evolution, A. If I don't, I go extinct, and therefore no future generations don't respond to stimuli; all future generations will be those who inherit the social or physical aspects that cause them to respond to stimuli. I do, because I do, because I do, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
A: Why?
B: Why "why"?
A: Why, "why, "why""?
B: Why, "why, "why "why"""?
...
B: Why, "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why, why "why why""?

A: *snore*
B: Woo. I win.

Yeah, that's basically how it would have gone, except he went to bed.

A: Why do you respond to stimuli?
B: Because it is biologically neccessary to do so.
A: Why?
B: Study evolution, A. If I don't, I go extinct, and therefore no future generations don't respond to stimuli; all future generations will be those who inherit the social or physical aspects that cause them to respond to stimuli. I do, because I do, because I do, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
A: Why?
B: Why "why"?
A: Why, "why, "why""?
B: Why, "why, "why "why"""?
...
A: *snore*
B: Woo. I win.
Only problem... what if A doesn't believe in evolution, and denies it vehemently? :confused:

Only problem... what if A doesn't believe in evolution, and denies it vehemently? :confused:
Then A should start listening to B instead.

Hmmm... methinks VR had little idea as to the magnitude of the train wreck he just caused with this. Generally, I'm all over these kinds of threads like flies on shit, but I think I'll sit this one out.

Only problem... what if A doesn't believe in evolution, and denies it vehemently? :confused:

Then that is A's problem. B believes in it, so it makes sense for him. Same argument can be used for a morality based on the belief in a deity - though there one can ask for arguments to show the deity actually is giving good guidance (as in internally consistent rules that serve to do what the deity promises - like e.g. a happy life).

I've decided that there need not be a logical basis for morality. Just for fun, here is mine:

Anything that negatively affects another living creature without their consent is generally at least somewhat wrong.

Anything that positively affects another living creature with their consent is generally at least somewhat right.

Anything else is a grey area which should be analyzed closely and individually as it appears before me.

Morality doesn't and shouldn't have a logical basis. Logic should be used to point out incoherent moralities, but right and wrong is simply a matter of adding up and taking away.

Morality is a subjective concept. Morals are assumptions from which we derive logical conclusion or recognise that our moral assumptions are wrong; they are not in themselves the result of logical deduction.

A blank page lends no conclusions.

hmm, not shure where to start.
nothing differs based on point of view. there's one universal trueth, but it is impossible to be entirely shure of it. therefore there is no good or bad, and things are simply as they are. if there is a soldier about to hit a criminal, then that criminal is likely to think that it is a bad thing, but it's no different from the situation for the soldier, so it shouldn't be treated as good or bad. (i'm the linguist of the country project i've told you people about before that i'm in(even though i'm not a very good linguist, i'm just the best we've got, heheh) and i'm specifically removing words pertaining to good or bad from the language because of this.).
and i can't think of anything else to write... but there's allot more.
oh! individual doesn't matter in relation to the whole, that's a very big thing.

Morality doesn't and shouldn't have a logical basis. Logic should be used to point out incoherent moralities, but right and wrong is simply a matter of adding up and taking away.

Morality is a subjective concept. Morals are assumptions from which we derive logical conclusion or recognise that our moral assumptions are wrong; they are not in themselves the result of logical deduction.

A blank page lends no conclusions.
a blank page leads to many conclusions, the page is blank, the page does not have visible writting on it, the page isn't multicoloured(within our range of vision). the page is a page, what type of material the page is of, and so on.

a blank page leads to many conclusions, the page is blank, the page does not have visible writting on it, the page isn't multicoloured(within our range of vision). the page is a page, what type of material the page is of, and so on.

Sounds more like the concept of sunyata, the idea that a void does not contain "nothing" but is instead "filled with infinite possibilities".

a blank page leads to many conclusions, the page is blank, the page does not have visible writting on it, the page isn't multicoloured(within our range of vision). the page is a page, what type of material the page is of, and so on.

Even here all conclusions are derived from assumptions; in this case the assumptions being the essence of the page (as opposed to literal assumptions).