When should immoral behaviors be illegal?

[PyramidHead]

I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. I said nothing about punishment, "criminal" as a property, or growing weed. I actually share most of your views.

Earlier, you said:

Why should the government have any interest in what people do?

In your reply to my reply, you seem to concede that the government should be very interested in what people do:

Now you have a proper ground for a government and society to act upon: Keep harm away from society.

That would suggest that the prevention of harm is a good justification for making behaviors that harm society illegal, at least in some cases.

You also appear to conflate any action-centered system of morality with religious thinking, which I reject. Just about every secular moral philosophy in existence is interested in actions, because people can't affect other people without doing something. It has nothing to do with monotheism nor Confucius. As I said before, it is impossible to come up with a compelling reason to protect society from harm, or shield the weak from the strong, without reference to some sort of consequentialist ethics.

 

[fromderinside]

We could rerun this whole scenario with, "Officer, my pen has been stolen." Unless my pen was a Princess Grace Mont Blanc(retail price $895), the policeman is likely to say it's my problem and he can't help me.

Here is what it comes down to. Both are immoral acts of theft, but a stolen ballpoint pen is insignificant. It works the same way with other immoral acts. It's always a maybe.

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

 

[Bronzeage]

We could rerun this whole scenario with, "Officer, my pen has been stolen." Unless my pen was a Princess Grace Mont Blanc(retail price $895), the policeman is likely to say it's my problem and he can't help me.

Here is what it comes down to. Both are immoral acts of theft, but a stolen ballpoint pen is insignificant. It works the same way with other immoral acts. It's always a maybe.

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

It's a matter of resources. We have a finite amount and must use them wisely.

The root of your disappointment lies with the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Neither of these has anything to do with morality, even though that is the veneer glued to every moral code. Morality is not about right, it is about the right expected behavior and what to do when someone engages in the wrong expected behavior.

There is nothing right or wrong with stealing. I might pull an apple from a tree and eat it. If it's a wild tree, growing in an untended forest, no one cares. If it is an apple orchard, waiting to be harvested, I have committed theft. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

It's fairly simple. I consult my moral code, which defines property and property rights. My society has decide to let some people claim dirt and the trees which grow in it, to be theirs and allow them to restrict other people's access. It doesn't really make any sense that a human could own a tree, something which appears from no where and grows to be huge, with no assistance from the human. It's a crazy idea, on the face of it.

However, I like living with and around people. If I want to stay, I have to understand all these crazy rules, or suffer for it. That's what morality is all about. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

 

[arkirk]

I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. I said nothing about punishment, "criminal" as a property, or growing weed. I actually share most of your views.

Earlier, you said:



In your reply to my reply, you seem to concede that the government should be very interested in what people do:

Now you have a proper ground for a government and society to act upon: Keep harm away from society.

That would suggest that the prevention of harm is a good justification for making behaviors that harm society illegal, at least in some cases.

You also appear to conflate any action-centered system of morality with religious thinking, which I reject. Just about every secular moral philosophy in existence is interested in actions, because people can't affect other people without doing something. It has nothing to do with monotheism nor Confucius. As I said before, it is impossible to come up with a compelling reason to protect society from harm, or shield the weak from the strong, without reference to some sort of consequentialist ethics.

So because you call something "consequentialist" does that make it wrong? That is what secular ethics is all about. If you persist in doing things that hurt society and know the consequences of your actions will be harm, that would make you immoral in my eyes. Gawd! We are all a bit immoral aren't we. The bad part is that we can't seem to stop being immoral.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

It's a matter of resources. We have a finite amount and must use them wisely.

The root of your disappointment lies with the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Neither of these has anything to do with morality, even though that is the veneer glued to every moral code. Morality is not about right, it is about the right expected behavior and what to do when someone engages in the wrong expected behavior.

There is nothing right or wrong with stealing. I might pull an apple from a tree and eat it. If it's a wild tree, growing in an untended forest, no one cares. If it is an apple orchard, waiting to be harvested, I have committed theft. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

It's fairly simple. I consult my moral code, which defines property and property rights. My society has decide to let some people claim dirt and the trees which grow in it, to be theirs and allow them to restrict other people's access. It doesn't really make any sense that a human could own a tree, something which appears from no where and grows to be huge, with no assistance from the human. It's a crazy idea, on the face of it.

However, I like living with and around people. If I want to stay, I have to understand all these crazy rules, or suffer for it. That's what morality is all about. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Did I actually indicate right and wrong were involved? I haven't checked. But my presentation was all to the relative merits in a given social group at a given social level. Not very much right or wrong there.

Seems to me that we agree..

 

[WAB]

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

It's a matter of resources. We have a finite amount and must use them wisely.

The root of your disappointment lies with the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Neither of these has anything to do with morality, even though that is the veneer glued to every moral code. Morality is not about right, it is about the right expected behavior and what to do when someone engages in the wrong expected behavior.

There is nothing right or wrong with stealing. I might pull an apple from a tree and eat it. If it's a wild tree, growing in an untended forest, no one cares. If it is an apple orchard, waiting to be harvested, I have committed theft. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

It's fairly simple. I consult my moral code, which defines property and property rights. My society has decide to let some people claim dirt and the trees which grow in it, to be theirs and allow them to restrict other people's access. It doesn't really make any sense that a human could own a tree, something which appears from no where and grows to be huge, with no assistance from the human. It's a crazy idea, on the face of it.

However, I like living with and around people. If I want to stay, I have to understand all these crazy rules, or suffer for it. That's what morality is all about. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

How different are 'right' and 'right expected behavior'? I think this reasoning is leading you down a rabbit hole. Right and wrong has everything to do with morality. You can't discuss morality without discussing our concepts of right and wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a matter of resources. We have a finite amount and must use them wisely.

The root of your disappointment lies with the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Neither of these has anything to do with morality, even though that is the veneer glued to every moral code. Morality is not about right, it is about the right expected behavior and what to do when someone engages in the wrong expected behavior.

There is nothing right or wrong with stealing. I might pull an apple from a tree and eat it. If it's a wild tree, growing in an untended forest, no one cares. If it is an apple orchard, waiting to be harvested, I have committed theft. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

It's fairly simple. I consult my moral code, which defines property and property rights. My society has decide to let some people claim dirt and the trees which grow in it, to be theirs and allow them to restrict other people's access. It doesn't really make any sense that a human could own a tree, something which appears from no where and grows to be huge, with no assistance from the human. It's a crazy idea, on the face of it.

However, I like living with and around people. If I want to stay, I have to understand all these crazy rules, or suffer for it. That's what morality is all about. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

How different are 'right' and 'right expected behavior'? I think this reasoning is leading you down a rabbit hole. Right and wrong has everything to do with morality. You can't discuss morality without discussing our concepts of right and wrong.

There's no rabbits down here and there's no right or wrong, either. "Right" is what we want people to do. We don't want people to kill each other, most of the time. We do want a police sharpshooter to kill the man who is strolling the mall and shooting random shoppers.

Our concepts of right and wrong are based on what makes life easier and safer for people who live in close proximity. This depends upon a lot of things, including the environment and population density. Killing and stealing are wrong, most of the time. We always find a time when it's not only "not wrong," but the expected thing to do.

 

[WAB]

How different are 'right' and 'right expected behavior'? I think this reasoning is leading you down a rabbit hole. Right and wrong has everything to do with morality. You can't discuss morality without discussing our concepts of right and wrong.

There's no rabbits down here and there's no right or wrong, either. "Right" is what we want people to do. We don't want people to kill each other, most of the time. We do want a police sharpshooter to kill the man who is strolling the mall and shooting random shoppers.

Our concepts of right and wrong are based on what makes life easier and safer for people who live in close proximity. This depends upon a lot of things, including the environment and population density. Killing and stealing are wrong, most of the time. We always find a time when it's not only "not wrong," but the expected thing to do.

I think you're dead wrong. There is no rational discussion of morality without considering what are good, or right actions, and what are bad, or harmful actions. You make an assertion that doesn't make any sense on examination.

But have fun down that hole!

 

[WAB]

What you mean is we judge right and wrong according to context. But we still judge right or wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

What you mean is we judge right and wrong according to context. But we still judge right or wrong.

Can you tell me whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another person?

 

[WAB]

Depends on the context. (See my prior post.)

It's sometimes perfectly justifiable to kill; other times it isn't. ie: sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.

Note: I'm not arguing for some kind of Platonic absolute for 'right' and 'wrong'. My argument is that our concept of what is moral is tied to our concepts of right and wrong.

This could be a great discussion, but I have to go back to work in about fifteen minutes.

**gotta go. Will check back in about four or five hours.

 

[Bronzeage]

Depends on the context. (See my prior post.)

It's sometimes perfectly justifiable to kill; other times it isn't. ie: sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.

Note: I'm not arguing for some kind of Platonic absolute for 'right' and 'wrong'. My argument is that our concept of what is moral is tied to our concepts of right and wrong.

This could be a great discussion, but I have to go back to work in about fifteen minutes.

**gotta go. Will check back in about four or five hours.

This comes very close to a tautology.

Morality is the code of human behavior. The driving force of this code is the need for humans to live in close quarters. When this is combined with our strange desire to collect things which don't have immediate use, we need some kind of guidelines. The two basic guidelines are first, our behavior must make those around us safer and second, predictable. It just so happens that killing people does not make them safer and stealing their stuff makes them unpredictable. Thus, the core of all moral codes involve killing and stealing. It's not that life is so precious or sacred, it's that life is miserable when we have to worry about getting killed or losing all our stuff, so we won't tolerate it.

As you said, sometimes it is perfectly moral to kill someone. A good moral code makes it clear who, when, and why someone can be killed. Right and wrong are just shorthand for the possible consequences, but no action is intrinsically right or wrong. It is the moral code which determines right and wrong. Right and wrong are the product of morals, not producer.

 

[WAB]

Depends on the context. (See my prior post.)

It's sometimes perfectly justifiable to kill; other times it isn't. ie: sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.

Note: I'm not arguing for some kind of Platonic absolute for 'right' and 'wrong'. My argument is that our concept of what is moral is tied to our concepts of right and wrong.

This could be a great discussion, but I have to go back to work in about fifteen minutes.

**gotta go. Will check back in about four or five hours.

This comes very close to a tautology.

Morality is the code of human behavior. The driving force of this code is the need for humans to live in close quarters. When this is combined with our strange desire to collect things which don't have immediate use, we need some kind of guidelines. The two basic guidelines are first, our behavior must make those around us safer and second, predictable. It just so happens that killing people does not make them safer and stealing their stuff makes them unpredictable. Thus, the core of all moral codes involve killing and stealing. It's not that life is so precious or sacred, it's that life is miserable when we have to worry about getting killed or losing all our stuff, so we won't tolerate it.

As you said, sometimes it is perfectly moral to kill someone. A good moral code makes it clear who, when, and why someone can be killed. Right and wrong are just shorthand for the possible consequences, but no action is intrinsically right or wrong. It is the moral code which determines right and wrong. Right and wrong are the product of morals, not producer.

Like I said, I wasn't suggesting that any action was intrinsically right or wrong, only that any discussion of morality is inextricably tied to our notions of right or wrong. Naturally, what behaviors are right or wrong, moral or immoral, are different across various epochs and cultures, and are dynamic, in a permanent state of change and progression (or one would hope).

I don't think a moral code determines right or wrong. I think it's the other way around: Human ideas of right or wrong have produced moral codes, over time. You can't make a moral code without first determining what right and wrong behaviors are. Again, lest I'm misunderstood: what's right or wrong will be slightly different from person to person, let alone group to group. As an example, I think it's wrong to keep alcohol legal and other drugs illegal, but many people disagree. That's just one example among many.

On reflection, I don't know anyone who consults a moral code when going about their lives. Most of us are good and decent, and have intelligence and sympathy enough to avoid doing unnecessary harm to others. I don't think a good person needs a moral code. It's basically not-so-good people whom laws and moral codes are written for. I once ran a poll (on FRDB) asking for the primary reason people did not commit sexual assault. The far greater majority selected the right answer: because they were not tempted to do so; but there were a few rogues who admitted that they abstained from sexual assault primarily out of fear of repercussions (incarceration/social stigma). The moral codes we live by are mainly written for those latter people, not the former. I suppose this could be argued.

As for whether life is precious: again, this is different from person to person. I would say that in nature, life is not precious; in fact nature appears quite hostile to me, hence my gratitude for being born in a relatively safe place, in a relatively safe time period, and at the top of the food chain no less! Better that than a thousand alternatives that may have happened. I have no problem saying that I regard life as a supreme value. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me if they'd rather not.

 

[Bronzeage]

This comes very close to a tautology.

Morality is the code of human behavior. The driving force of this code is the need for humans to live in close quarters. When this is combined with our strange desire to collect things which don't have immediate use, we need some kind of guidelines. The two basic guidelines are first, our behavior must make those around us safer and second, predictable. It just so happens that killing people does not make them safer and stealing their stuff makes them unpredictable. Thus, the core of all moral codes involve killing and stealing. It's not that life is so precious or sacred, it's that life is miserable when we have to worry about getting killed or losing all our stuff, so we won't tolerate it.

As you said, sometimes it is perfectly moral to kill someone. A good moral code makes it clear who, when, and why someone can be killed. Right and wrong are just shorthand for the possible consequences, but no action is intrinsically right or wrong. It is the moral code which determines right and wrong. Right and wrong are the product of morals, not producer.

Like I said, I wasn't suggesting that any action was intrinsically right or wrong, only that any discussion of morality is inextricably tied to our notions of right or wrong. Naturally, what behaviors are right or wrong, moral or immoral, are different across various epochs and cultures, and are dynamic, in a permanent state of change and progression (or one would hope).

I don't think a moral code determines right or wrong. I think it's the other way around: Human ideas of right or wrong have produced moral codes, over time. You can't make a moral code without first determining what right and wrong behaviors are. Again, lest I'm misunderstood: what's right or wrong will be slightly different from person to person, let alone group to group. As an example, I think it's wrong to keep alcohol legal and other drugs illegal, but many people disagree. That's just one example among many.

On reflection, I don't know anyone who consults a moral code when going about their lives. Most of us are good and decent, and have intelligence and sympathy enough to avoid doing unnecessary harm to others. I don't think a good person needs a moral code. It's basically not-so-good people whom laws and moral codes are written for. I once ran a poll (on FRDB) asking for the primary reason people did not commit sexual assault. The far greater majority selected the right answer: because they were not tempted to do so; but there were a few rogues who admitted that they abstained from sexual assault primarily out of fear of repercussions (incarceration/social stigma). The moral codes we live by are mainly written for those latter people, not the former. I suppose this could be argued.

As for whether life is precious: again, this is different from person to person. I would say that in nature, life is not precious; in fact nature appears quite hostile to me, hence my gratitude for being born in a relatively safe place, in a relatively safe time period, and at the top of the food chain no less! Better that than a thousand alternatives that may have happened. I have no problem saying that I regard life as a supreme value. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me if they'd rather not.

There are no human ideas of right and wrong and the last thing one can trust a human to do is understand why they do or not do a particular thing.

As I said earlier, moral codes are the social strictures which allow humans to live close to each other without tearing each other to shreds. It's really as simple as that. We dress them up, ascribe their authorship to Gods, try to figure ways around them when we want something, but it always comes down to the same problem. How can a species like a human, who needs the support of a social group in order to survive in every environment on this planet maintain safety and order within the group? That is the source of every moral code, no matter who or where. It was much simpler when we were hunter gatherers and a person's property was limited to what one could carry. Once we decided we could own stuff, this immediately led to disputes and fights. It was unsafe and disorderly. We went from a simple, "Don't kill members of our group," to "and don't take other people's stuff, either."

The rest of it involves defining who is in the group and what to do with group members who violate the rules.

 

[WAB]

Ok, Bronzeage, I believe I understand your position, but I don't agree with it.

This statement:

There are no human ideas of right and wrong and the last thing one can trust a human to do is understand why they do or not do a particular thing.

Doesn't ring true to me. In fact, I believe it's false. Naturally, there are people who are mentally unsound, to whom your statement could apply, but it isn't true with respect to all people.

Are you saying that you don't understand why you do anything that you do?

Does a brain surgeon not understand why she is operating on a patient?

Not to belabor the issue, but to say there are no human ideas of right or wrong is proved false by virtue of this conversation. Here we are, sharing ideas about right and wrong. Whether those ideas are valid or not is open to debate, but that we have such ideas isn't.

 

[Bronzeage]

Ok, Bronzeage, I believe I understand your position, but I don't agree with it.

This statement:

There are no human ideas of right and wrong and the last thing one can trust a human to do is understand why they do or not do a particular thing.

Doesn't ring true to me. In fact, I believe it's false. Naturally, there are people who are mentally unsound, to whom your statement could apply, but it isn't true with respect to all people.

Are you saying that you don't understand why you do anything that you do?

Does a brain surgeon not understand why she is operating on a patient?

Not to belabor the issue, but to say there are no human ideas of right or wrong is proved false by virtue of this conversation. Here we are, sharing ideas about right and wrong. Whether those ideas are valid or not is open to debate, but that we have such ideas isn't.

What I said is we can't trust a human to know why they do something. This does not mean they don't think they know and certainly anyone can present a reason for their actions. A brain surgeon can go on about the miracle of preserving life, but his/her real motivation is the ego boosting adoration he receives, or just the money. His says his reasons are altruism, but could be vanity or greed. We don't actually care, as long as the patient recovers. An incompetent, but morally straight brain surgeon will not be tolerated.

As for right and wrong, you have yet to present any human action which is wrong, without regard to the circumstances. These circumstances dictate whether or not the action is the correct thing to do.

 

[Emily Lake]

We could rerun this whole scenario with, "Officer, my pen has been stolen." Unless my pen was a Princess Grace Mont Blanc(retail price $895), the policeman is likely to say it's my problem and he can't help me.

Here is what it comes down to. Both are immoral acts of theft, but a stolen ballpoint pen is insignificant. It works the same way with other immoral acts. It's always a maybe.

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

Substitute the more generic "value" for "price" and you're closer. It's marginal value of the item stole relative to the "cost" of trying to reclaim it that comes in to play. It's all about utility. If someone steals my completely generic and easily replaceable #2 pencil... I might be irritated at the principle - theft is still theft after all. But the cost to me to take action about that theft is higher than the value of that pencil; chances are I'd have given it to the guy free if he'd just asked so why bother stealing it in the first place? But if he'd stolen something of high value to me personally - say the painting that my dead granny made in the last year of her life (that's worth absolutely zilch on the open market, but worth a lot to me in terms of sentiment), then I might consider that the cost to me in terms of time and hassle needed to take action to try to reclaim that stolen good is absolutely worth it.

It's always about trade-offs.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm disappointed you chose to put a price on whether it is a crime. If it is the only pen in the community it is a crime worth significant sanction. The point is what is the relative social motive, not just the economic motive. As far as immorality if it is a lump it level act it isn't considered immoral. It is forgotten almost immediately.

Substitute the more generic "value" for "price" and you're closer. It's marginal value of the item stole relative to the "cost" of trying to reclaim it that comes in to play. It's all about utility. If someone steals my completely generic and easily replaceable #2 pencil... I might be irritated at the principle - theft is still theft after all. But the cost to me to take action about that theft is higher than the value of that pencil; chances are I'd have given it to the guy free if he'd just asked so why bother stealing it in the first place? But if he'd stolen something of high value to me personally - say the painting that my dead granny made in the last year of her life (that's worth absolutely zilch on the open market, but worth a lot to me in terms of sentiment), then I might consider that the cost to me in terms of time and hassle needed to take action to try to reclaim that stolen good is absolutely worth it.

It's always about trade-offs.

Consider this question: why is it moral to own property? Why can you possess something you don't use or need, but can prevent me from taking it, or using it?

 

[WAB]

Ok, Bronzeage, I believe I understand your position, but I don't agree with it.

This statement:



Doesn't ring true to me. In fact, I believe it's false. Naturally, there are people who are mentally unsound, to whom your statement could apply, but it isn't true with respect to all people.

Are you saying that you don't understand why you do anything that you do?

Does a brain surgeon not understand why she is operating on a patient?

Not to belabor the issue, but to say there are no human ideas of right or wrong is proved false by virtue of this conversation. Here we are, sharing ideas about right and wrong. Whether those ideas are valid or not is open to debate, but that we have such ideas isn't.

What I said is we can't trust a human to know why they do something. This does not mean they don't think they know and certainly anyone can present a reason for their actions. A brain surgeon can go on about the miracle of preserving life, but his/her real motivation is the ego boosting adoration he receives, or just the money. His says his reasons are altruism, but could be vanity or greed. We don't actually care, as long as the patient recovers. An incompetent, but morally straight brain surgeon will not be tolerated.

As for right and wrong, you have yet to present any human action which is wrong, without regard to the circumstances. These circumstances dictate whether or not the action is the correct thing to do.

What you say about surgeons probably applies to a lot of them, but does not apply to others. As you know.

I didn't realize I was supposed to 'present any human action which is wrong, without regard to the circumstances' ? Did you ask me to? Perhaps you did and I missed it.

BUT: please note, I have already stated twice that 'right or wrong' actions depend on context, in other words: on the circumstances. Perhaps you didn't catch that? Could be.

These circumstances dictate whether or not the action is the correct thing to do.

No kidding? I've been saying the same thing all along.

 

[WAB]

Substitute the more generic "value" for "price" and you're closer. It's marginal value of the item stole relative to the "cost" of trying to reclaim it that comes in to play. It's all about utility. If someone steals my completely generic and easily replaceable #2 pencil... I might be irritated at the principle - theft is still theft after all. But the cost to me to take action about that theft is higher than the value of that pencil; chances are I'd have given it to the guy free if he'd just asked so why bother stealing it in the first place? But if he'd stolen something of high value to me personally - say the painting that my dead granny made in the last year of her life (that's worth absolutely zilch on the open market, but worth a lot to me in terms of sentiment), then I might consider that the cost to me in terms of time and hassle needed to take action to try to reclaim that stolen good is absolutely worth it.

It's always about trade-offs.

Consider this question: why is it moral to own property? Why can you possess something you don't use or need, but can prevent me from taking it, or using it?

That's an excellent question. But it raises another: is there a workable alternative? Can society function with no concept of personal property? Examining that question might help to answer the first question: 'why is it moral to own property?'