The ethics of purchasing music.

[Cythraul]

Nice, and InFlames' response was good too.

I don't really know how to counter this because eventually you just start arguing things that are really impossible to understand. You're arguing that usually personal moral standards derive from some idea of specific universal facts. These facts aren't debatable, and thus you could argue that some moral standards are more sound than others.

Let's look at an example (if you have a better one, or if I'm missing your point, redirect me):

Someone comes up to me and says "killing people is wrong" (I'll play devil's advocate). I say "no, killing people isn't universally wrong; there is no moral standard that says 'killing is wrong.'" Then I ask, "why do you believe that killing people is wrong?"

Here are the facts I'm given:
"It's just wrong" (as InFlames correctly declared that many people would probably say)
"You are inflicting harm on another (and likely, more)"
"You infringe upon another person's inherent liberties"
"You put yourself at risk of prosecution and punishment"

Now, the first two probably deal more directly with moral responsibility. However, I believe that the response of someone who did not believe in absolute morals would reply with "who cares?" "You're inflicting harm on another person." "Who cares?" Basically, someone who sees no moral responsibility will not see any flaw or mistake in harming another person. It doesn't affect the aggressor, so why does it matter?

The second two deal more with logical reasoning. In the society we live in, it would be unwise for someone to kill another person because it really wouldn't benefit him or her in any way (this is why I claimed that it would be stupid of me to buy the record of a band that wants to bomb my city; not because I think they're wrong, but because it would be illogical to do so). The idea of personal liberty is another logical argument. Someone who wants to maintain their own personal liberties would be acting irrationally in killing another person, because they would be potentially harming their own personal liberties.

Bascially, I believe that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally, but it achieves much the same results. People shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of "morals" (they should recognize and understand them and their impact on society, though). Rather, they should consider what is best for themselves (which, coincidentally, is usually best for the community).

Well, you've said a lot here, much of what I'd probably agree with. The first few statements you made indicate that you did understand my point. I'm not sure what to think about everything else you've said. The claim that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally seems pretty intuitive to me. What it is for an action to be rational depends on what ultimate moral ends you accept. This is, of course, assuming that ultimate moral ends aren't up for rational debate.

 

[Cythraul]

The way I took what you said was that just because people have initial, un-thought-out reactions to what they feel is wrong, we want to be careful not to assume that people have an inborn sense of right and wrong (conscience) that may have been placed there by a creator.

That is what I inferred from your statement. I could be wrong but that's the first thing that popped into my wee mind.

That people have initial, un-thought-out reactions to what they feel is wrong is not itself the reason why I think we should be careful here. That's just the data; there are other considerations in play when we decide the right way to interpret it. And what about a creator? I neither said nor suggested anything about a creator.

So is all this discussion aiding you at all in regard to your original questions?

I don't know. I haven't really bothered to put it all together yet. I think it's interesting in its own right though.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wrong. That's you surviving. If your offspring survive to maturity and reproduce, that's your genes surviving.

It's an immediate threat because the responsible thing to do is to have no children, which obviously ends your genes right there. Even if you have one child, there's then a strong risk that that child will not reproduce for some reason (death, homosexuality, infertility in themselves or a partner, etc). The best way to ensure the survival of your genes is to have lots of kids, but obviously that's irresponsible.

This is a good argument, and I'm not really sure what to say. I don't necessarily know how this would translate into actual practice. For the herders on the pasture it's definitely a problem, but in actual practice it seems less likely.

For instance, the idea of community in this country is different from community in the metaphor. In this country, each farmer would possess his own land, his own pasture. There can still be a community of farmers who are friends and who help each other when they need assistance, but the fact that they own their own land changes the situation. When one of them has a bad year, it's feasible for each of the other farmers to offer a little bit of aid. If each of them are all on the same land then it complicates things. But of course we know that, in practice, this isn't the case.

Well, you've said a lot here, much of what I'd probably agree with. The first few statements you made indicate that you did understand my point. I'm not sure what to think about everything else you've said. The claim that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally seems pretty intuitive to me. What it is for an action to be rational depends on what ultimate moral ends you accept. This is, of course, assuming that ultimate moral ends aren't up for rational debate.

Yeah, this is the potential problem. Eventually we just start arguing over where we individually draw the line.

 

[waif]

This is a good argument, and I'm not really sure what to say. I don't necessarily know how this would translate into actual practice. For the herders on the pasture it's definitely a problem, but in actual practice it seems less likely.

For instance, the idea of community in this country is different from community in the metaphor. In this country, each farmer would possess his own land, his own pasture. There can still be a community of farmers who are friends and who help each other when they need assistance, but the fact that they own their own land changes the situation. When one of them has a bad year, it's feasible for each of the other farmers to offer a little bit of aid. If each of them are all on the same land then it complicates things. But of course we know that, in practice, this isn't the case.

Yes, the commons in regard to agricultural is a thing of the past, but you're missing the point, which is that the commons still exists in other things - population, the environment, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

But people own their own private plots in regards to everything. We live in a society in which people own their own house, car, lawn, etc.

 

[waif]

Read the last 3 words of my post.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, okay.

:Smug:

This has gotten me thinking seriously about my previous statements, although I'm not sure I'm ready to rescind them. Still, I'm very uncertain. Nice job InFlames.

I don't see this as a monumentally important problem. I believe that an average-sized American family can in fact consume less and still support themselves. Now most of us may not do that in practice, but I feel that it's perfectly feasible. A working family can support two children on much less than what the average family consumes, in all likelihood. Now, there is still the instinct to prolong one's gene pool. However, I don't see this as such an instinctual urge as it may have once been. I think that many parents are perfectly content with one child and feel no overwhelming desire to have more, despite the lower chances of their line being extended. I think that the survival of genes figures less into individual gain and rationality than it once did.

Issues such as oil stem from different origins, since we chose an avenue that was finite and potentially harmful. Now we're working on harvesting different energy sources, and I feel that this will more likely solve the problem rather than every family decreasing its consumption of oil.

I want to conclude this post with a question: if I decide I was previously incorrect, and that acting rationally doesn't always lead to what's most beneficial for the community, can we truthfully say that acting morally will? And if so, can we then conclude that there are in fact absolute morals?

 

[waif]

Acting rationally won't in this case lead to what's beneficial to the community. Acting morally will, but not enough to stop the problem.

With the population problem, if each couple had one child and then in a few generations (when the population had seriously declined) we went up to two, it would work out. But there's no reason to think that will happen. I don't think this will become a monumentally important problem in our lifetimes because birth rates are decreasing in all the major powers so that while the world population is still growing we (and hopefully our children) will never suffer from overpopulation (although those in less fortunate nations may).

 

[Einherjar86]

Acting rationally won't in this case lead to what's beneficial to the community. Acting morally will, but not enough to stop the problem.

So what would acting morally in that situation be?

 

[no country for old wainds]

i haven't read everything above yet but let me just say that 'acting rationally' just like 'acting morally' is a weighted word contextually defined by the actor's goal, and the only way you can make a model of how humanity should live based on rational grounds is by positing a universal goal or utopia, the nature of which is something that's been furiously debated especially since the enlightenment but inevitably never resolved

 

[Einherjar86]

I think this kind of fizzled out. Good point though. I never expected to get anywhere really; but it is a legitimate topic to debate over.

 

[waif]

So what would acting morally in that situation be?

Trying to remember, we were talking about the population problem, right?

Acting morally would be not having children, since there's no room. The middle ground (the best option imo) is having one child.