Convince me my morality is wrong

Great Debates
1

Basically, I have arrived at a morality using nothing but what I consider as close to axiomatic. I suppose more accurately, I have used nothing other than what I deemed “observably true”.

Premise 1) I exist, I am a sentient, thinking being.
Namely, that as far as I can observe, and thus (to my mind) what I must accept as truth is that I am in control of deciding which courses of action to take, and those actions take place in a real physical world. This can be challenged philisophically, I suppose (reference the free will debate) but as far as my ability to observe, it is true, therefore logic (and Occam’s Razor) suggests I should accept it as the correct conclusion

Premise 2) Within the given frame of my life, I have goals and objectives that I wish to achieve.
That is, in my observable world, there are certain things that I set out to do. These are mutable, and highly personal goals, but they are intrinsically my drives and my reason for living. For example, I have the goal of being materially wealthy and emotionally satisfied. I have median goals to achieve this (eg. reform the way retail business is done, find love).

Premise 3) Other people exist, they are sentient, thinking beings.
I offer this as a reasonable premise because they appear via medical, observational, and behavioral reasons to act in a very similar manner to me, with variation. Again, this can be philisophically challenged but all observable evidence leads me to conclude this as a given premise

Premise 4) Other people have goals and objectives that they wish to achieve
This follows from Premise 3, since they exist, and I know how I act, I can reasonably assume via interaction, and observation, that they work under similar principles to me. Since I have goals and objectives I wish to achieve, I can extrapolate that to others, and conversations and history (again, observable evidence) seems to indicate that it is true

Conclusion) The only moral imperative is to live your life in order to achieve your goals, and to allow those around you to do the same.

and following from that a definition of “sin” or evil
the only immoral action is to maliciously damage your fellow beings ability to attempt to achieve their goals.

and a corollary, if you engage in acts which MIGHT result in harm to fellow beings, you must be willing to accept the consequences
As a final note (i know, long post, but I’m interested to see how everybody here in an intelligent forum will react): I have not alluded to or discounted the existence of a God. I have not inherently denied any religious beliefs (if your goals involve following the teachings of Jesus Christ, that’s great, but if you intend on using legal and cultural means to opress other people’s free expressions in favor of your stricter moral standard, you are in fact immoral by my definition)

2

Your conclusion needs to be elaborated on a bit more to avoid being contradictory. Allowing others to fulfil their goals can prevent you from fulfilling yours, depending on your goals; I don’t think you can reasonably say that your definition of sin follows only from what you’ve said.

3

I can think of an example to illustrate your point, even
“I want to be the only person to climb mountain X”

now if 2 people have this goal…
But they haven’t acted immorally if they are not maliciously preventing the other from reaching their goal. Competition performed in a moral manner (both attempting to better, rather than attempting to force the other to do worse) still creates a situation of striving for an ideal.

4

Well, that was fast. So, with that clarification, are you OK?

5

I think this definition is too narrow. If I, say, randomly call you an ugly piece of shit on the subway, or shove you roughly while passing you on a staircase, that wouldn’t damage your ability to achieve your goals, but I’d say those are immoral actions. They’re not on the level of crippling you for life with a rusty hatchet, but they’re still immoral.

6

It would damage your life goal to be respected, appreciated, and treated fairly.

7

My life goal is to be hated. Is it still immoral to hate me?

8

I’m not convinced that all goals are equally worth achieving, or even worth achieving at all.

9

no, if you felt fufilled and believed that it was a worthy goal in your life. On the other hand, it would be immoral to gain said hatred by committing immoral acts. If you’re not interested in being moral under this system, then you’ve not really answering the question as posed

10

Should’ve previewed. That’s fine, as long as you don’t interfere with other people who do believe they are worth achieving for example, the idea of somebody who believes they can only achieve heaven by following the bible (assuming, as I said above, that they do so in a personal way) isn’t worth achieving to many people, but it is said person’s goal, and I have no more right to interfere in what they believe to be correct provided they don’t prevent me from believing what I believe to be correct.

11

To elaborate:

Some goals are vague, at best (eg. To be happy).

Some are commendable, but perhaps overambitious or unobtainable (eg. to cure cancer; to bring about world peace).

Some are frivolous.

Some are simply impossible.

Some are morally reprehensible (eg. Hitlerian goals like conquering Europe, exterminating the Jews, etc.).

Some people have goals that, even if they were attained, wouldn’t do themselves or anyone else any real good (eg. They become famous or make a billion dollars or marry [insert famous sexy person here], only to remain fundamentally unhappy).

Some people are so unambitious, or so preoccupied, or so focused on the present moment, that they cannot be said to have goals at all, and so would be “invisible” in such a system of morality.

Thus, I think that a system of morality based on allowing people to achieve their goals is flawed. While there may be something of interest or value in it, it’s of less validity than other systems that have been proposed throughout history.

12

you’re using an assumed value set though.

Put it this way, assume for the sake of argument that my viewpoint were the dominant moral structure people lived by: Everybody has been brought up in a system where personal ambition, achieving ideals, and living life for life. To fulfill yourself and your goals as a measure of personal worth is the ideal.

Now imagine my OP said "God told me that this rather lengthy book of verse shows us exactly how to worship, when and how to pray, and what personal goals and “temptations” we should deny ourselves. Furthermore, everybody who doesn’t do this will be eternally punished, you must convert! Somebody would undoubtedly have posted that praying several times a day or going to church, or following a specific set of self-denying laws is inane. and conclude “I think a system of morality based on reward for following a specific set of prayers is of less value than any other system that’s been proposed”.

and again in particular regards to the idea of “frivolous goals”: what may be frivolous to you might just be of great import to somebody. Even at that, somebody accepting my system of morality and making “marry a celebrity” their goal, and (for argument’s sake) having achieved that goal and found it to be unfulfilling could easily do some soul-searching and really make an effort to find out what truly makes them happy.

Of course not everybody is going to inherently have the best goals, but that’s what, say, somebody who is fulfilled by helping others is for. For example, a counselor can help people identify that which fulfills them, in fact, that’s exactly what they try to do now.
Saying that it’s not as good because it won’t work for everybody is IMO a flawed argument because obviously Christianity, Islam, or any other moral system hasn’t worked for everybody either.
The reason I think my suggestion has more value is because (obviously, IMO) it allows and encourages maximum growth within an acceptable personal framework.

13

:rolleyes: need to read sometimes

was more intended to speak to people who were lost in finding a goal, or couldn’t immediately identify a direction to go in, rather than to place a value on a particular goal.

14

Provided those are one’s goals.

It seems to me that you have to interview everyone you interact with to find out their goals, to make sure you don’t act immorally.

15

Not really, provided that upon correction you provide appropriate recompense. If you ran in to me, for example, I wouldn’t really care, It doesn’t damage my self-worth, but if somebody felt disrespected and asked for an apology, and you gave it, you’ve morally redeemed yourself.

16

Actually, I wasn’t comparing your suggestion to an organized religion, but to an axiomatic/philosophical system of morality, like Utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, the Golden Rule, or the “Wiccan Rede.”

I still don’t see why people’s “goals and objectives” makes for any better a basis for a moral system than people’s happiness or freedom or well-being. It makes it sound like you’ve been listening to too many motivational speakers.

17

Reading the OP, it seems to me that what you have constructed is essentially a libertarian position, i.e., that the only valid function of government is to prevent me from causing harm to another. Taking a few examples from the linked article, please expound on your position.

  1. Taxation. Is it appropriate for the state to take money from its citizens to fund the government? If so, for which purposes? In particular, is it appropriate to levy taxes to fund welfare? Notice that my success is not causing, directly or indirectly, the suffering sought to be ameliorated.

  2. Antidiscrimination laws. Is it appropriate to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race? Notice that racism in this context does not inflict harm, but rather only withholds benefit (e.g., a job or admission to a club). On what basis in your system can prohibiting this be justified?

  3. Drug laws and gun control. One justification for such laws is that, while no actual injury to another occurs, the behaviors regulated create conditions which tend to lead to such injuries. In your system, are these valid or invalid regulations? How much depends on whether the premise is correct?

18

The idea is that by allowing, and encouraging people to spread their goals, they become happy. It’s a more individualistic (yes, libertarian, I’ll address that momentarily) type of philosophy than, say utilitarianism.

Short answer, yes, I’m a libertarian. In particular, originally influenced by Ayn Rand, but as pointed out the article I would say that Objectivism is in particular highly unrealistic, uncompromising, and soulless. In particular, I take issue with her obsession with monetary recompense and total rejection of the idea of the concept of altruism. In particular, the idea that there is no justifiable reason to help somebody without expectation of a monetary or materialistic reward

  1. Yes, I would put myself in the minarchism: to put a personal spin on it, the government’s job is national defense, rights protection (police), and expanding the strict libertarian sense of government, to provide services (in particular transportation infrastructure and education) that private endeavors would not sufficiently cover or have no profitable interest in. (Namely, the support of free primary education). To the particular welfare question, due to the nature of reality, welfare programs seem to be a necessary evil. However, I would advocate an overhaul of the program to specifically provide welfare-to-work programs as the primary if not sole drive of the program, and a limited time frame for benefits. Ideally, I’d like to see a reduction in disabled benefits in deference to private organizations; if taxes can be reduced sufficiently, private altruistic citizens can pick up the support of many of the current government programs.

  2. Ideally, we wouldn’t NEED anti-discrimination laws. Theoretically, given a pure moral standard, nobody would be discriminating. As it happens, i think arguably the withholding of benefits is tantamount to “harming” the pursuit of an immediate goal (say, an immediate goal of going to club A to dance) maliciously, since the rejection is active and intentional. Thus I can support anti-discrimination laws to limit the power of people who are actively intending to be immoral

  3. I’m anti-gun-control, but my views on exactly what drug laws should be applicable is somewhat up in the air. On the one hand, yes, drugs (in particular “hard” drugs like crack, and heroin) create situations (people being on uncontrolled trips, for example) that create naturally dangerous situations. So does speeding. My view at the moment, due to the non-ideal nature of the world, is relaxed posession and consumption laws similar to those of alcohol. Something I can liken this to is a speed-limit law. Theoretically, I can go as fast as I want as long as I’m willing to accept the consequences should I kill or injure somebody. Most people, even without speed limits, would still travel at reasonably safe speeds in most situations, but some people are unreasonable. At what point should I admit to the reality of the people actively putting me in danger and step in to prevent it? Well, I’m not sure, it’s very subjective to decide WHEN an activity is dangerous to the point where it almost certainly will result in negative consequences. Due to conflict between ideal and real nature and the inherent subjectivity of that, I’m unwilling, as a non-expert in, say, the relation between speed and crashes on a particular road. Drugs, I would suggest as a subjective yet reasonably enforcable rule something along the lines of Clear and Present danger. The same rule already basically applies to alcohol, with public drunkenness, and I think it’s a reasonable balance to strike.

19

Your premises are fine. Your conclusion may well constitute a true statement. But I can’t really see how the conclusion is supposed to follow from (or even have much importantly to do with) the premises.

Can you elaborate? Or do I need to elaborate on my observation here?

-FrL-

On edit: See next post for elaborations

20

You would need at least the following additional premises:

–From every goal, an imperative can be derived like so (…)
–Every imperative is universal in scope, in other words, governs all individuals

Good luck justifying that second premise, but I haven’t seen an alternative you could use to get your argument going.

Also, you’d need to justify the use of “moral” in your conclusion. How do you get, not just an imperative, but a moral imperative? To that end, probably a definition is best:

–An imperative is moral if and/or only if: (…)

Then it would need to be shown that the set of imperatives referred to in your conclusion fit this definition.

-FrL-