The Problem of Suicide

Economics Political Theory
41

Just like to say real quick.. I may have taken this thread off topic? Or into a subtopic. I apologize if I am in error to, well, whatever.

If I am coming off as “fact” based or, uh, well, cold or offensive, I apologize.

The thing I am trying to get at, is not everyone is following a universal moral code.

You might say it’s wrong, but it doesn’t prove the fact that it is either objective or absolute.

The mother may, in fact, find it morally justifiable to steal the loaf of bread to feed her starving 3 year old.

What about Christians who say suicide and homosexuality are immoral? I realize we all may not agree with this premise, or the general Christian premise in general. Hell, I am an Atheist, myself.

Different people ascribe to different codes of morality, ethics, or values.

I certainly ascribe myself to a ‘cause and effect’ premise, and what is most beneficial to me.

It might sound cold to determine morals, ethics or values this way, but it’s actually taking into account the lives, feelings, and interactions of others, and coming to a logical conclusion, instead of just randomly assigning value to some specific act because someone else told you to.

42

I believe you get my meaning. I am sorry, I am an amateur in debating… it is something I’ve only recently tried to do, with an open mind. I hope I am not coming off as an ass, to be honest.

43

have you peaked at the Hume thread? its on the topic…

i think you should consider separating out aesthetic-or-personal ‘morality’ in the sense of personal preference and a ‘personal code of conduct’ on the one side from objective moral truth, i.e. what is commensurate with justice. i.e. private-property/liberty. on the other side.

the first set aren’t rationally defensible, they just are, they are arbitrary, like the subjective valuation of goods; they are personal. but the latter are indeed objective. and defensible (they cannot be denied without contradiction)

44

No, I have not. I will go check it out right now.

I believe I shall do so, right now, until I can come to understand the topic better. If this makes sense.

Bother! Speaking for myself has never been my strong point. I wonder if everybody else is like this? Why things are the way they are.. they become complacent and stagnate, so their ideas, their ways of expressing their thoughts become stale and mediocre?

45

No, murder is wrong. It is also illogical.

46

But we can. We know with absolute certainty that there can’t be any such thing as a square circle or a married bachelor, for example. I’ll leave it to you as an exercise to figure out the reason for it.

47

Something can be immoral, yet people will still do it. And people will (and do) conflate aesthetics, etiquette, and decorum with morality. Morality is far different from saying “I don’t like ketchup on eggs” or “belching in a restaurant is rude”.

48

I was trying to clarify what lawsome was saying.

Actually I think I pointed out here that this line of reasoning presupposes that ethics are rational, something that does not follow from ethical definitions.

Philosophically speaking, ethical prepositions don’t have any truth content to them. A priori statements are tautological; that is they are said to be true only by virtue of the definition of whatever symbols comprise a statement. The definitions of ethical words are so weird they cannot be shown to be equivalent to anything else.

49

There’s a difference between subjectively immoral wrongs and objectively immoral wrongs.

I consider prostitution to be immoral but I don’t advocate banning it between two consenting adults because it can’t be demonstrated to be objectively wrong. (ie, violating the NAP)

50

I knew. I was trying to preempt the construction of a straw man.

Agreed.

Morals are the symbols that comprise humanity. They are objective, their valuations among individuals are what is subjective. The moral truth that murder is wrong rears its head every time humans commit murder. The empirical evidence for this resides in the doctrines of all mass murdering societies, The U.S. government is a good example of a successful mass-murder type doctrine, as are all governments in some form or another.

In order for a man to murder he must first de-humanize his intended victim, once this is accomplished (this is a complex process and deserves another thread), he must then justify the killing of a non-human living being. When this happens the moral becomes a subjective value. Morals apply to humans not non-humans. The deconstruction of the moral murder is wrong into the value murder is justified continues the more the murderer murders. Re-construction of the value is easy, it is already the truth, it need only be recognized.

The point being that, since it is necessary to de-humanize and then justify the killing of innocents before committing murder, there must be some metaphysical law that is being subverted. That law is the moral, murder is wrong.

Deconstruct the moral murder is wrong into the value that murder is justified and you get the 20th century, and 3rd century Rome, and 19th century France, and 18th century Britain and 17th century Spain, and of course 21st century America. We could throw in the reformation as well. The intermittent prosperous intervals in human history are the times before the state, and at the beginning of the state. The times of despair are when the state is well established as cut above the masses, and subsequently when it collapses then the cycle begins again. This shows empirically that whenever the moral is confused for the value humans in the aggregate suffer.

Please no strawmen. If I’m missing something here show it to me.

51

What I meant is that objective prepositions were tautological. If you say Murder is immoral you’re claiming that the definitions of the two words make this true. Murder is defined as killing someone in cold blood. Immoral you maybe define as a breach of objective ethics. These two definitions don’t overlap at all and the sentence is meaningless. No truth content at all.

We all get a subjective emotional reaction from it. Just because we all agree on something does not mean that it is objective.

I think this is an instrumental argument for objective ethics? You’re supposed to be showing the intrinsic rather than consequential evil of murder.

52

No. That which is immoral is that which violates the rights of others. Any other usage of the term is invalid, conflating aesthetics and/or etiquette and/or decorum with morality.

53

Yes, that is what it is. It is the empirical part of the answer.

This is what I am claiming. Why is the sentence meaningless?

I explained that, I agree with you. I am saying that murder is wrong in the sense that 2+2=3 is wrong. That equation violates arithmetic law, murder violates metaphysical law.

Not quite, more like Immoral is wrong, just like 2+2=3 is wrong. As an aside, objective ethics are just a set of subjective rules.

54

I thought empirical facts couldn’t confirm or deny objective claims

Because the definitions of the words don’t relate to eachother at all. 2+2 =4 because of the way 2, +, =, and 4 are defined. Murder is Wrong has the aforementioned problems with its definitions. It is something analogous to 2 + banana = blue. It’s a nonsense statement and can not be proven objectively true because the definitions and use of the symbols don’t work that way.

It’s not arithmetic law; like I said, equations are true or false based off the definitions and syntax of their symbols. The same logic applies to moral statements as well.

But you already agreed when I said that ethical symbols are so weird they can’t have any truth content…

55

Understood. Didn’t I define murder so as to make it analogous to the defined terms in the equation?

I still do. Should I define the difference between ethics and morals? I delineate the two.

No it isn’t, but isn’t it a metaphysical law? Where have I failed to define the analogy?

Right they serve for discovery purposes. Whether those discoveries are physical i.e. the first law of thermodynamics, or metaphysical i.e. I am self aware, empirical facts serve as a tool for discovering objective truths both physical and metaphysical. Where is my logic off?

56

Mmm no. Murder is just a physical thing. I suppose this is a restatement of the is-ought problem.

I use the two interchangeably. Sorry for any confusion.

But physics, like math, is just a system with rules. We find it useful in describing the world. This doesn’t mean that it asserts objective truth. Its simply a matter of pragmatism.

I think in relation to this debate you can’t prove a link between an emotional response and objective truth. The two simply share no connection.

57

A human must act in order for murder to be committed. This makes murder metaphysical. The result is physical.

I didn’t think of that. Maybe it is.

As am I.

That doesn’t make the described observations untrue. The same holds for metaphysics; the language employed in communication is pragmatic. Language is pragmatic, the internet is pragmatic, the printing press is also pragmatic. Falsehoods have been spread within all three forums of pragmatic communication. I think we are going in circles, but doesn’t this go back to just because the majority agrees something is truth doesn’t make it so?

If my logic arrives at this conclusion, would you show me where? I am arriving at the same conclusion as you are in relation to the link between emotional response and an objective truth. I’ll try another analogy. Gravity exists I observe it: I exist I observe it.

58

ahhh Murder is only metaphysical in the sense that it has a definition…

It means you can’t call their truth content into question.

What we call falsehoods are either empirically false or rationally false… In the latter case we’re just saying people aren’t obeying rationalist rules.

Kind of. What I would prefer to say is that just because an individual feels something does not make it true. Having feelings means only what having feelings means and nothing more. The majority could be mistaken or something so I don’t want to include them in the analysis.

Hmm i thought that is what you meant when you were talking about ethics as being discoverable in real life through emotions.

Except preps like 2+2 = 4 work because they have clear synonymous definitions. Preps like murder is wrong do not have this tautological form.

I must confess I do not understand this.

59

Snowflake, murder is by definition wrongful killing. The only question is what constitutes “wrongful”.

60

So it just shifts the problem from identifying that murder is wrong to identifying what counts as murder..