Thanks for your comment. Please feel free to reblog the post.

tim

I agree with you. I no longer think it’s helpful to tell people that actions are “right” or “wrong” when people don’t acknowledge what matters is the good and bad they cause for others. I also believe that most people who talk about “morality” have no clear idea of what they’re talking about.

That is, wouldn’t we have a better world if people didn’t harm others, or lie, cheat, and steal, not because those acts are “immoral” or “wrong” in some objective sense, but because they genuinely cared about others? Because they could and did in good faith try to put others’ well being and happiness above their own?

As much as I think ideals are great, I think they can sadly make one delusional. The cold reality, of course, is that this is not the case. People are biologically programmed/wired to be selfish, which is something few people ever overcome, if even fully realize and have a desire to change.

About what you wrote about “morals” and “right and wrong,” nowadays I always find people who call an act immoral to be somewhat naive. I can’t help but wonder whether the individual making that statement has ever wondered whence do morals come?

How does it matter if we say something is ‘wrong’?

I think we say something is wrong as a convenient way of expressing our disapproval of what others do, and of expressing our wish that they’d do something other than what they do.

Without being clear, it’s like expecting everyone to drive 60kph without a sign. Even with signs, people disregard speed limits, so how do you expect them to follow certain actions when you leave the issue to individual judgement?

Speed limits signs express the collective decision of a society about what behavior they will allow. Speed limit signs don’t have anything to do with what’s “right” or “wrong” per se. I don’t argue that speed limit signs are unnecessary, and I don’t argue that it would be better for us to leave it up to individual judgment how fast people drive (although we actually do leave it up to people how fast they drive, we just punish them when they drive faster than what we’ve agreed is the safe limit).

Do you think that the place you live would have the same level of violence – or even less – than it does now, if we did away with all laws?

I believe that most people do not commit violent acts because most people recognize how bad for others violent acts would be. I suspect that the number of laws there are in a society plays little causal role in suppressing violence. In any case, nothing I’ve said leads to the conclusion that we will abolish laws.

After all, why do we need laws telling us something is ‘wrong’?

We don’t need laws telling us something is wrong. Laws are written in order to state what behaviors will be tolerated within a society.

Maybe you consider that the negative effect of harming others is common sense or a ‘self-evident truth.’ If so, why do people have such varying views?

I don’t “consider that the negative effect of harming others is common sense or a self-evident truth”. I’ve argued the opposite. I’ve said that people have varying views because 1) we don’t fully realize how bad for others our actions can be and 2) we don’t always value the lives and well-being of others as much as we value our own.

Presumably you’re not ‘right’ – you’re just presenting your view – one among many – since why would we need anyone telling us what’s ‘wrong’?

No, either I am right or I am wrong – that is, either the account I favor accurately represents the actual state of affairs in the world or it doesn’t. That there aren’t any “moral facts” doesn’t mean that there are no facts at all. Of course, I can’t say that other “should” accept the account I favor – that would depend on them and on what they value.

Alternatively, if harming others is so self-evident, why do we need anyone to tell us about it?

I’ve not argued that it is.

Nowhere am i suggesting things are *just* wrong or wrong *per se*. There are distinct reasons why things are wrong.

If you believe that there are actions that are wrong, in and of themselves, then please explain to me which actions those would be. If instead you think that there is some value in saying that some actions are wrong, perhaps because to say so is a sort of convenient way of saying why we disapprove of some doing what’s bad for others, then I won’t disagree with you, although I would argue that talking about things being “just wrong” or “wrong per se” will lead to unnecessary confusion.

How does it matter if we say something is ‘wrong’? Well, it’s not just that you’re saying it, but saying it does make it clear.

Without being clear, it’s like expecting everyone to drive 60kph without a sign. Even with signs, people disregard speed limits, so how do you expect them to follow certain actions when you leave the issue to individual judgement?

When i said that you’re not *just* saying it, i meant you’re also assigning an action value.

Your scheme says that it doesn’t value anything on the one hand – yet also suggests that harming others is somehow ‘worse’ than not harming them.

In effect, saying you don’t value anything is like saying we don’t need laws, since everyone will do what they consider is ‘beneficial’ – whether that harms others or not. Do you think that the place you live would have the same level of violence – or even less – than it does now, if we did away with all laws?

After all, why do we need laws telling us something is ‘wrong’?

‘If we care about others then we won’t want to see what’s bad for them happen to them. If a person causes what’s bad for others and we have the ability to stop him, if we care enough about others then we will stop him.’

This is true, but you’re not saying that harming others is a bad thing per se, just bad for them. You seem to be vacillating between two poles: on the one hand, there is no such thing as morality; on the other hand you suggest that some things – those which are ‘bad for others’ are somehow worse than other actions.

Maybe you consider that the negative effect of harming others is common sense or a ‘self-evident truth.’ If so, why do people have such varying views? Presumably you’re not ‘right’ – you’re just presenting your view – one among many – since why would we need anyone telling us what’s ‘wrong’? Alternatively, if harming others is so self-evident, why do we need anyone to tell us about it?

I’d be interested to hear what strange implications you suspect the approach I’m talking about would lead to. I see none.

As far as whether fish feel pain, the matter isn’t at all settled by science, despite what the authors and reviewers of some studies may claim. As I read the literature specific to fish and generally with respect to cognition in nonhuman animals, I find it unlikely that fish, insects and many other creatures have any meaningful experiences of themselves in the world.