"Oh, come on. It's not that hard to understand. Negative feelings are bad because we perceive them that way, but they are not immoral because only actions can be immoral. Actions which cause negative feelings are what are immoral -- they are also bad because immoral things are in the subset of bad things."

Define bad.

"I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. What I'm saying is maintaining the idea of justice holds great utility in the long run."

Now you're going back to "I'm right because I say I'm right". You know that the scenario I put forth passes both your tests, so to avoid acknowledging that killing a hermit to build a mall is morally correct under your system you say "No, we need justice!" You just invented a new "test" on the spot. And what is justice?

"Um, yeah. I mean, it would depend on how clear my case was. But if I could clearly demonstrate that I was right and you were wrong, then I would be justified in using force. This is how our legal system works."

Your a sick person Jess. So, if you convince yourself you're right (not hard to do) and I don't agree with you, you are "morally correct" to use force on me =/

What if I refuse to submit? Are you going to kill me? For not agreeing with you? What if some women gets an abortion 1 month later than you would deem moral and you say she should go to prison for a month or something. Say she refuses because she feels she has the right to her own body and what she makes in it. Are you going to force her into prison? What if she gets a gun and locks herself in her home to defend herself from you? Are you going to kill her? What if the same scenario happened, but the crime was littering? Are you eventually going to kill this person for not submitting to your littering punishment? Just because we do it this way now, doesn't mean its "right". =/

"I guess I would apologize? I don't see why you're going off on this tangent..."

Well, lets say the above happened with me and you (or a cop, w/e) killed me for not agreeing that what I did was "immoral". Now you agree, and you've killed an "innocent" person. Do you now need to go to prison? Just because you view the situation different?

"Inferior people? Who are you referring to? I'm certainly not advocating the use of force against people who live differently -- only against those who are clearly committing evil."

By "inferior" I just meant people who haven't really thought about their morals but are going to act on them anyway.

And who gets to decide what's evil again? Oh, that's right; YOU. Like how people used to burn witches for being "evil" you get to define evil and if a person does something that doesn't meet the requirement you set for them you get to kill them =/.

"Democracy tends to work less bad than other systems of government."

But is is still bad?

"Oh yes it is. We can live our lives with drastically greater levels of morality even with the crudest of estimates. For example, take this assertion: "murder is wrong". This is about as crude a heuristic as one could come up with, but even so, we can use it to guide ourselves toward taking morally correct actions. Let's say you and I stumble across a pot of gold; should I kill you and take all the gold for myself? I could apply my crude heuristic and come up with an answer: no. Would my heuristic lead me toward the morally correct choice in all situations? Obviously not. A more nuanced one would work more frequently, but we can never be 100% sure we're doing the right thing. The point is: crude estimates work fine in most circumstances."

That's exactly why I'm saying a crude estimate is worse than nothing; because it creates more of your "morality", but I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point for now.

"Democracy is not about collective decision making. Democracy is about power sharing."

And what is "power sharing"?

"Of course not. But any real-world system of justice is obviously going to have imperfections."

"I'm gonna ignore the rest of your questions because I'm getting tired of answering them. I bet if you think really hard you can figure out what my answers would be."

When the pressure gets on you just back down? The last few questions were the ones I was most interested in. I really have no idea how you would answer them =/

"No, the things that cause negative feelings are immoral."

First you say the negative feelings are bad, now it's the things that cause negative feelings? Which is it Jess, you're not making sense anymore =/

Besides, what if something makes you feel bad but not me? How can a "thing" be immoral? If seeing a painting of a dead cat gives you negative feelings, is the painting now immoral? What if that painting gives me good feelings? Is it moral and immoral?

"I wasn't referring to the loss of the person's productive capacity, I was referring to the acceptance of murder as the thing that causes harm to society. Upholding a sense of justice has near infinite utility in the long run."

So, it's only immoral if society views it as immoral? Did I hear you say your morality ISN'T arbitrary?

"Well, if you insisted on ignoring logic, I suppose it would come down to force. In a democracy we would put the issue to a vote."

You think I'm wrong, so you are now morally allowed to use force against me? What if later you diced you were wrong? What good is this system when inferior people are able to cast judgment on others just for living their lives a little different? And why put it to a vote? Are more people less likely to make a mistake than one person? But EVERYONE is running on a crude estimate, right? How the hell is that better?

"Yes."

You preach "logic" and yet you're o.k. with this embarrassingly fatal flaw in your system. A crude estimate? That is NOT better than nothing, or is it moral to you to lock up innocent people? You are morally allowed to destroy the life of others based on a crude estimate, not even a complete formula but a CRUDE estimate; but it's immoral for a women to change her mind and abort her baby if she does it later than YOU want her to? Haven't you thought your own moral code through?

You get to cast judgment on what a woman can do with her body AND you cast judgment on the value of another's life based on a crude estimate? You must be the most egotistical s.o.b. to walk this earth if you think that your morals are logical.

What if everyone took up your system today, and started voting on things, but disagreed with you on abortion and punishment and the value of life etc.

Are they wrong? Are you the only moral person? Or will you change your morals so they fit the whim of contemporary society? But, at the same time this system is logical and there can only be one answer... =/

"Well they could make cruder measurements through simple observation. One can tell when another person is happy. Evolution has ingrained in us basic principles that maximize long-run utility (that is, moral behavior)."

Long term utility is more moral than short term utility? Why? Who gets to say?

"Again, it's a question of degree. Basic morality is easy. "Thou shalt not kill." Trickier moral questions require careful thought and reflection."

I'm asking you about when things get complicated, saying "sure, it gets muddy the more complicated you go, but if you dumb it down a notch it works perfectly!" isn't going to convince me of anything. And i am perfectly open to accepting your moral code if you can prove to me it is free of contradictions.

"Lol, the chimp I guess. It's evolutionarily closer to humans and therefore gains my sympathies. I will admit this is a somewhat arbitrary choice. I don't know what the right answer is and I would just be taking a guess. Leaving them both to die would clearly be the worst outcome. Finding a way to save them both would be best."

And what if you find out later that dolphins feel more pain than chimps? Are you now immoral and deserving of punishment?

"negative feelings are what are bad."

And bad things are immoral? Is it immoral to feel sad? Or is sadness immoral?

"Even if you could kill a person without causing them pain it would still be immoral because acceptance of that sort of behavior would cause harm to society."

So, human life only has value is that person contributes enough to society? What if I find some self-reliant hermit living in the forest? What if I shoot him in the back of the head? he feels no pain and society will never miss him. What if I kill him so that he wont be able to protest against the mall I want to build over his property? The mall will create huge utility, so is it moral to kill this person?

"No, because in the long run, the harm that would cause to society is far greater than the pleasure you would get from robbing the bank."

What If I invest that money in an up-and-coming business? If that business becomes the next apple, was it moral to rob the bank?

"What's worse, killing one person or killing a million? Killing a million, obviously. Why? Because killing a million causes far greater harm, both to the individuals and to society as a whole."

What if I kill one million Indians? They are over-populated, they will be much better off with a smaller population, and if I do it painless it meets your criteria for morality. So, should I go shoot one million Indians? It is morally correct after all =/

"Well we would have to reconcile our divergent perspectives through discussion. We could try to find the most basic point where our logic diverges and attempt to fix any logical errors we may have made. There is only one right answer, after all."

Let's say I'm just too damn stubborn to be as lenient as you, then what?

"I believe there is a right answer to this question, but there are far too many variables to give a precise answer. The best we can do given our limited human faculties is come up with a crude estimation."

That's what morality gets chalked up to? A crude estimation? What gives anyone the "right" to cast judgment on anyone else when the best anyone has to offer is a "crude estimation"? Were people 100 years ago incapable of being moral because they couldn't measure the value of different life forms the way we can (assuming there is a way to measure)?

"Logically, yes, it's based on which form of life feels things more strongly."

So, I can't be moral until the pain threshold of every living being is measured? And everyone has to study and memorize this to be moral? Do you consider yourself moral? How can you, you don't know these things. If a chimp and a dolphin are about to be burned to death and you have the choice to save one of them, which one do you choose? (assuming you don't know which would feel more pain).

"Ug. That was a lot of questions."

It gets worse before it gets better, I tried to cut out some of the side issues =/

PHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XD

Pain is only "generally" bad now? What happened to pain being bad? Killing is immoral because pain is bad right? How can killing be immoral if the very thing that you use to define it as immoral is only bad "in general"? Who gets to say when pain is bad or good now?

"Laws provide incentives that help self-discipline win out over temptation."

So, is it the law because it's immoral or is it immoral because it's the law?

"No, I'm not inventing arbitrary qualifications. I'm arguing that those qualifications are what you arrive at when you logically consider what is right and what is wrong."

You're saying that what causes pain (or, at least unnecessary pain) is immoral. Well, what if I say what causes anxiety is immoral? Sure I can can go about making rationalizations for this belief, but it's still ultimately arbitrary. I could connect morallity to literally anything I can think of. What makes pain so special?

Utility is the foundation of morality? So, If it feels good, it's moral? If it feels bad, it's immoral? What if I feel good after robbing a bank? Is robbing a bank now moral?

"It would basically be more immoral the longer you wait. Because the fetus becomes closer and closer to a developed human with time."

How can anything be "more" immoral or "more" moral? Are things not either moral or immoral? Are there morallity points now? What is this point system based on? What if I consider waiting a month for abortion more immoral than you? Who is right? What should the punishment be for doing this "immoral" act anyway? Who gets to say?

"Obviously not. The immorality of late-term abortion comes from destroying human life. Anything that avoids that is morally correct."

Life has different values now? How much is one human life worth? Two chimps? 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sperm? Is it based on what form of life feels more pain? Why is the life of a human worth more than the life of a fetus?

What makes something "right" and "wrong" is arbitrary. Why people create "right" and "wrong" is because they aren't comfortable living a life they can't define. So, they build some moral code to serve as rules for behavior.

The irony is these moral codes people use to define and judge the universe around them has nothing to do with the universe they are trying to define. Morality is constantly evolving and differs from person to person. It's completely imaginary and arbitrary. The only thing all moral codes have in common is that everyone thinks the one they subscribe to is right and free of inconsistencies.

And a perfectly consistent philosophy is impossible because the universe it is built around is itself inconsistent.

You can spend your whole life jumping from moral code to moral code, this is right now, tomorrow it will be immoral. It wont matter. life is just too damn vast to fit into a model. You can't fit the ocean into a cup.

No worries though, life isn't some riddle to be solved; it's a mystery to be lived. =D

There is no objective "right" or "wrong". These things are imaginary. I may be a "psychopath", but at least I'm free of prejudices =D

Pain is obviously bad? Not "we", "you" percieve pain this way. Your not right just because you say so. =/

You assume too much. If we need laws to stop our self-destructive nature, then by our very nature these laws can't be upkept. Is self-destruction is not in our behaviour (which, for all except a select few is true) then what need is there for anti-self-destructive laws? Isn't it understood that if you start killing people you don't agree with then other people will try to kill you back? Is it not understood that if you steal from others people will mistrust you?

"The whole point of my argument was that something should be considered morally correct if it results in greater utility. Early abortion does that, therefore it should be considered morally correct."

So, according to you, what you say is morally correct because is meets the qualifications you set for it. Your right because you say so... =/

What exactly do morals have to do with utility? Nothing. Morallity and utility exist independant of each other. You're connecting them arbitrarily.

how the hell can an abortion at any time be "moral"? early abortion is morally correct? Exactly when is abortion considered early? Who gets to say? And what about everything that isn't early abortion? is it now "immoral" the day after you consider it "early"? What if you don't get pregnant at all? Now you can't get an early abortion, which means your not being morally coreect, right? Or is early abortion beyond morals now? in which case, why conect it to morality at all? =/

Thank god for people angry enough to down vote me, but to cowardly too write a dispute =D

1. No I didn't and it's not a belief.

2. You haven't proven that pain = bad

3. There is no need for revenge against killers. If we are by nature self-destructive then we will destroy ourselves anyway and make room for a less retarded species.

Oh, and abortion isn't "morally correct" just because it meets the qualifications you built for it to meet. That's like saying as long as ice cream is cold, it is morally correct to eat it. =/

It's not.

----------------------------------------------------

So then, it's better to wait for the child to age and become intelligent enough to convince it that it should be killed before killing it? It's more "moral" to kill a consenting 4 year old than a fetus that isn't even capable of caring either way?

There is no love but true love. I don't believe in it because I have the experience. Since I have the experience of love, there is no longer a need for belief.

As far as I'm concerned, If you're willing to live with the sacrifice of any action you make then who the hell am I to say you're not allowed =/

Well, it didn't

but thanks for asking what it meant before you went ahead and assumed anything =D

you damned idiot, you =/

You know I'm not being serious, right =P

Jeez... I even put a smiley at the end =/

-----------------------------------------

Lol!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

They don't have one any more. It offends minorities, remember?

=D

"You're equating marriage to a slow and painful murder?"

Have you never talked to someone who's been married 20 + years? XD

Seriously though, you don't need marriage to spend your life with the person you love. It's literally that simple. I like my friends, I trust my friends, but I'm not going to bind them by law to be my trust-worthy friends, that would be stupid! Why is it different for a spouse?

"If your love is so fickle, I don't think that you, personally, are ready for marriage."

There's nothing fickle about my love. I've loved the same women for almost four years now and never once have I felt the need to marry her. Why would I? I don't need to marry her for sex. I trust her to stay with me, so there's no need to bring the government into our dating. And if one day we decide to go our separate ways, that's o.k. too.

Sometimes love is there, sometimes it isn't; but the reason is always the same.

If you're marrying to compliment your love, then you're obviously don't need to get married. =/

Furthermore, marriage is not a compliment to love. It is an insult! If you love a person, how can you destroy his or her freedom? If you trust a person, you trust her or his freedom too.

In what way is it a compliment to rip a fully blossomed flower out of the ground and put it in a pretty little vase for others to enjoy? Because you want full control over this flower you rip it out. Now all variables are under your control.

Just like in marriage, it is a very uncertain thing. One moment love might be there, the next moment you might not feel like loving. So, you tie yourselves together through law. Now all things are certain; you are legally bound! Whether love is there or not you've snagged your spouse like a snake constricting a mouse. And what happens then? The mouse dies.

Well hey, it has the potential to do all those things. You can't know it wont. Why is a sperm suddenly too precious to let die just because it meets an egg? Especially when any other sperm can do the same damn thing.

Sperm and fetus are the same, the only difference is a fetus is a few steps closer to being birthed. You're older than me, probably a few steps closer to making your own children than I am. Is your life worth more than mine? Surely you must think so. A fetus is closer to being born than a sperm, just as you are closer to creating a fetus than I am. You're one step farther on the chain, so, is it alright for people like me to die en masse as long as you get to live?

And furthermore, I am farther along the chain of life than a fetus. I am much more capable of creating life than a fetus. I have much more potential at this time. Sure, the fetus has the potential to one day be like me, but right now it is not. That means it's worth less right? Is it o.k. to abort millions of un-born children but not o.k. to kill me?

No? But at the same time, you say it is o.k. to let millions of sperm die, but wrong to kill a fetus. Why? Because one is farther down the road of life than the other? Or is the life of a fetus worth more than any other conceivable form of life?

If your in love, you don't need to get married. If you need to get married, it's because your not in love.

I'd get married anyway for the tax breaks and to get nagging family members off my back though =/

"should" be? How could forced rehabilitation possibly work? Furthermore, if a person is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be a drug addict, then what right do you have to take that choice away from them?

Just because it isn't "good" for them? French fries aren't good for me, should you have the right to force me into french fry rehab? Or are french fries o.k. because some drugs are worse for me than fries? Exactly how toxic does the things I put in my body have to be until you have the right to take away my right?

What about it? I have millions of sperm swimming in my testicles right now. Should I remove them and impregnate millions of women to avoid the loss? Or is the loss of life only immoral when it comes to a select few organisms? Where exactly should the line be drawn?