Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    The guy in India is no more magic than David Blain.
    He's not magic, nor are people who fast for long periods of time for whatever reason.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #22
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,727
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    I think I'll try to keep my involvement in this thread pretty light, but allow me to ask two quick questions.

    1) Why should we accept the reduction in suffering as a valid definition of a moral action?

    2) If you OP is true, then is there any moral ground for calling the Newtown shooter's actions objectively immoral?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #23
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: All Actions are Objectively Immoral

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    There are exceptions:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyk7KDsNDCA

    Prahlad Jani, also known as "Mataji", (born Chunriwala Mataji, 13 August 1929) is an Indian sadhu. He claims to have lived without food and water since 1940, From 22 April until 6 May 2010..

    In 2003, Sudhir Shah and other physicians at Sterling Hospitals, Ahmedabad, India observed Jani for 10 days. He stayed in a sealed room and was given only 100 millilitres of water to use as mouthwash each day. Doctors say that he passed no urine or stool during the observation, but that urine appeared to form in the bladder. A hospital spokesperson said that Jani was physically normal, but noted that a hole in the palate was an abnormal condition.

    Prahlad Jani was again observed and tested by Sudhir Shah and a team of 35 researchers from the Indian Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), as well as other organizations.

    The director of DIPAS said that the results of the observations could "tremendously benefit mankind", as well as "soldiers, victims of calamities and astronauts", all of whom may have to survive without food or water for long spells.[12] The tests were again conducted at Sterling Hospitals.[13] Professor Anil Gupta of SRISTI,[14] involved in monitoring the tests, described the team as being "intrigued" by Jani's kriyas apparently allowing him to control his body's physiological functions.[15]

    The team studied Jani with daily clinical examinations, blood tests, and scans. Round-the-clock surveillance was reportedly followed using multiple CCTV cameras and personal observation. The researchers say that Jani was taken out of the sealed room for tests and exposure to sun under continuous video recording.[16] According to the researchers, Jani's only contact with any form of fluid was said to be during gargling and occasional bathing starting from the 5th day of observation, and the toilet in Jani's room was sealed to test his claim that he did not need to urinate or defecate.[2]

    After fifteen days of observation during which he reportedly did not eat, drink or go to the toilet, all medical tests on Jani were reported as normal[16] and researchers described him as being in better health than someone half his age.[2] The doctors reported that although the amount of liquid in Jani's bladder fluctuated and that Jani appeared "able to generate urine in his bladder",[15] he did not pass urine. Based on Jani's reported levels of leptin and ghrelin, two appetite-related hormones, DRDO researchers posited that Jani may be demonstrating an extreme form of adaptation to starvation and water restriction.[17] DIPAS stated in 2010 that further studies were planned,[18][19] including investigations into how metabolic waste material is eliminated from Jani's body, from where he gets his energy for sustenance, and how he maintains his hydration status.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani
    Please tell me you don't actually believe that someone can survive for 70 years without food or water.

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: All Actions are Objectively Immoral

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Please tell me you don't actually believe that someone can survive for 70 years without food or water.
    70 years is a stretch .... Boy, would that save on food shopping expenses.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    70 years is a stretch .... Boy, would that save on food shopping expenses.
    But funeral costs would sky rocket
    To serve man.

  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But funeral costs would sky rocket
    I would assume very few people would ever attempt that.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  7. #27
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    I have several objections to your OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Objective Morality: the reduction of suffering.
    Like Squatch, I see no reason why we should accept this as a valid definition of "objective morality." It requires the presumption that all suffering is bad and that all things which reduce suffering, on balance, are good. I reject these premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    That which causes suffering changes based upon a beings physiology. Therefore, no act can be called objectively moral. Only the principle of "the reduction of suffering" can be called objectively moral.
    There are several problems with this: 1) I see no reason to directly correlate suffering with "physiology," which you do not adequately define anyway. People with perfectly healthy and normal physiology can be sad, and people with grave and terrible illnesses which cause great pain and disfiguring distortions of physiology can be very happy.
    2) Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Even if we accept the premise that suffering is the result of a certain physical state, this does not necessarily yield the conclusion that "no act can be called objectively moral."

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide
    Good: that which reduces suffering of the majority of a group. Majority being defined by physiology and not verbal agreement.
    What about actions that reduce the suffering of 50.1% of a group but greatly increase the suffering of 49.9& of the group? Does the almost half of the group which is now suffering more no longer count in the moral calculus? How can you simply ignore such a large group of people when considering the morality? In your argument, the Holocaust would be a moral action, because it reduced the suffering of millions of Germans, at the mere cost of about 6 million Jews (and a few million others). On balance, the suffering was less overall, when averaged out over the entire country.

    What if the proportion is, instead, 49% reduced, 2% unaffected, 49% increased? How is the morality determined, then?



    In short, because the premises of your argument are inherently flawed and neither form a cogent line of argument nor arrive at a logically valid conclusion, the challenge is meaningless when taken in context with your argument.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. Likes Squatch347, eye4magic liked this post
  9. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I would assume very few people would ever attempt that.
    No, I didn't mean that in a population cost(though that is true as well), I mean as far as personal budgeting goes. If you save money on food, then your funeral costs are going to sky rocket.

    Sort of like me saying that I learned to speed read and I can now read 10,000 words per minute.
    But my Comprehension plummeted.

    Your economic point is a give and take. (Though you made the point in Jest I thought).
    To serve man.

  10. #29
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I have several objections to your OP:

    Like Squatch, I see no reason why we should accept this as a valid definition of "objective morality." It requires the presumption that all suffering is bad and that all things which reduce suffering, on balance, are good. I reject these premises.

    There are several problems with this: 1) I see no reason to directly correlate suffering with "physiology," which you do not adequately define anyway. People with perfectly healthy and normal physiology can be sad, and people with grave and terrible illnesses which cause great pain and disfiguring distortions of physiology can be very happy.
    2) Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Even if we accept the premise that suffering is the result of a certain physical state, this does not necessarily yield the conclusion that "no act can be called objectively moral."
    Up to here I'm right with you. But then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    What about actions that reduce the suffering of 50.1% of a group but greatly increase the suffering of 49.9& of the group? Does the almost half of the group which is now suffering more no longer count in the moral calculus?
    To me this needs much more specificity, so I'm going to have a crack at it below.

    Say we define a unit of suffering as 1/total amount of man-made suffering in the world from it's beginning to it's end, and call this a "uos". And say we do the same thing for benefits, and define a unit of benefit as 1/total amount of man-made benefits...etc...and call this a "uob". Then it would follow, I think, that any action causing more uobs than uoses, would qualify as a "moral" act, and any action causing more uoses than uobs, would qualify as an immoral act.

    My question is, then, in trying to make your above "moral calculus" more specific, did I substantially change it?

    ---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    70 years is a stretch .... Boy, would that save on food shopping expenses.
    If then you don't believe your own source, what was it's point?
    Last edited by cstamford; March 11th, 2014 at 11:59 PM.

  11. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    If then you don't believe your own source, what was it's point?
    I was pointing to an observational study of a man who was not eating or drinking for about two weeks who wasn't suffering. What he did before that I guess is up to belief and opinion.

    However, if we're talking about people not eating, people have fasted longer then two weeks before without suffering.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  12. #31
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I was pointing to an observational study...
    And made a subsequent remark indicating you didn't believe it. So again, why would you use it as a source for your point that people can fast and not suffer?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic
    However, if we're talking about people not eating, people have fasted longer then two weeks before without suffering.
    And if you want to provide a supporting source for that claim (I don't need it, because I accept your point at face value, but apparently you thought someone did in this thread, because they didn't), you still need to do that, which was my original point.

  13. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    And made a subsequent remark indicating you didn't believe it. So again, why would you use it as a source for your point that people can fast and not suffer?
    I believe the observational study of this man was valid. How he lived his life before the study is a personal claim he made, that I don’t necessarily believe. Doctors didn’t observe his life for 70 years. They observed and video-taped him fasting for about 14 days. I haven’t seen any support that indicates the 40 doctors involved in the study were fraudulent. They could be, but I haven't seen such evidence. So I have no reason to believe that what they observed and video taped was not valid-- a man fasting for about two weeks, who was not suffering.

    And if you want to provide a supporting source for that claim
    Many people go on long fasts CSM. Some do it to lose weight; some do it for religious reasons; some do it for health reasons to name just a few reasons. Water and juice fasts are the most common. Usually the first few days of a long fast can be tough while the body gets use to not eating solid food, but then it seems to become easier for most people who undertake long food fasts As far as support, below are just a few testimonies from people who have fasted. There are hundreds if not thousands more. In fact, there are entire websites online dedicated to fasting.

    40 day fasting
    I was genuinely concerned about my health but never doing anything about it. I thought at some stage I would get into shape again and everything would be fine. What a dumb way of thinking! It’s never just going to happen.

    And so we started a fasting diet. I experienced headaches only on the first two days. The first week was quite tough in terms of hunger pangs, I even dreamt about eating. The 40 days would have to be completed by God’s grace alone. After the first week the hunger pangs subsided but I sometimes had severe cravings for salty foods.I honestly don’t believe that in our Western way of life we can complete a 40 day fast without God’s grace. Our paradigms and our ingrained habits are very strong.

    One of the biggest revelations for me during the fasting diet was how little we actually need. Our bodies just don’t need that much to live healthy lives. Juice for forty days, and I felt terrific for most of the time. I was more tired at night than usual but I got up earlier in the morning, bursting with energy…and I never used to feel that way even after the second cup of coffee. I’m studying part-time and I must say I didn’t always manage to stay up as late at night as I used to. I felt more tired at night and often went to bed at 9pm instead of midnight – 1 am, sometimes even before 8pm. I could put in a solid day’s work though as well as start with an exercise routine. My sleeping patterns were restored I a great night’s sleep every single night, after the first few nights of dreaming of food.
    http://keith101.wordpress.com/fastin...ing-testimony/
    _____________________________

    What were some of the challenges you faced during the 92 days?

    Not turning to food for emotional numbing or relief when stressors from work or my personal life arose. What I did instead, was watch a lot of foodie videos on YouTube while drinking my juice. Yes, I’m talking food porn! (lol).

    When I first told people that, they immediately thought that that would NEVER work for them. Before I experienced it myself, I would have absolutely agreed. BUT, now I know differently! Food has always been my drug of choice. When I had done other fasts, trying to stay away from food, photos of food, aromas, etc. made me instead, think about it ALL the time, feel terribly deprived and eventually end the fast.

    THIS time, I did the opposite and indulged my eyes and ears and, lo and behold, all feelings of deprivation subsided! Perhaps it had something to do with tricking my belly into thinking it was full from the food on the video I just watched instead of the juice I just drank.

    What I really learned about myself from this fast, was that my food cravings were all happening in my head, not my body. I could watch Guy Fieri eat a cheeseburger while I sat drinking green juice, and when we both were finished, I felt great. Crazy! But I swear, it worked!
    http://juicing-for-health.com/92-day...interview.html

    _____________________________

    "Hi, Dennis. Today is Fasting Day 77--my next-to-last juice-fasting day. I've accomplished all goals I'd set, exceeding my weight-loss goal, currently down 70 lbs. I still have 20-25 lbs. to lose, based on how my body looks, and expect a year on an all-vegetarian diet will bring me close to my ideal weight. I'm off my blood-pressure meds completely and hope, based on the blood test I'm taking in two weeks, I'll be taken off my cholesterol-management meds, as well.

    "Best of all, I gained an incredible calmness--a wonderful feeling of being well-centered. The clarity of thinking I achieved is truly wonderful! For example, I've been struggling for the past year between Choice A and Choice B, which left me in an almost unsolvable dilemma. Two days ago, I clearly saw, felt and knew the answer, AND acted on, which will have a profound effect on my life going forward. For that, I am humbly grateful.

    "Your assistance and support have, once again, been extra-ordinary. For that, I thank you more deeply than I can express. 'Thank you' hardly seems adequate, but it truly means what it says. Thank you, Dennis. Most sincerely, Malcolm

    "P.S. Since I knew what to expect along the way, from having done my previous 77-day Program with you a decade earlier, I was not surprised by anything which happened this time around. In truth, I got so much more this time, and I didn't have a single 'bad' day during the entire process."
    http://www.fasting.com/testimonials.html

    ______________________________

    30-Day water fast
    It was really cool to feel my body healing itself during the fast with the pains in my lower back from my kidneys cleansing, to my gums bleeding while cleansing and my bowels moving old material. I also did a lot of Reiki healing on myself and so I felt like my body, for the first time, was getting the attention it needed from my mind.

    Once I started to refeed, I felt more in-touch with my digestion, hunger and when I am satisfied. Loren’s daily talks helped me to also realize that most of us are choosing food everyday from our minds, from all the books that come up with so many different theories of what is good and what is bad for different types, and not really listening to what our own body wants. Now I can differentiate when I think I feel hunger from rumbles in my tummy (not hunger, usually it’s the stomach repairing or digesting) and when it’s time to eat and check with my body about what it wants, not what I think it needs. When I am eating I know when I’m satisfied and stop before I am full. I am also eating without distractions, making each meal and bite sacred with gratitude.
    http://www.thedetoxadvisor.com/about...day-water-fast
    ______________________________

    40 day water fast, weight loss, spiritual benefits
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWM5ZL8YC-8

    _____________________________

    Fasting Diets
    Most religions use periods of fasting as a means of demonstrating faith or penitence, and an opportunity for spiritual reflection. Fasting has also historically been a means to express political views and a form of protest.

    Though it may not be the most practical -- or safest -- diet, some people use fasting as a way to lose weight or to cleanse the body of toxins, although some experts say our bodies are perfectly equipped with organs that already do the job. How fasting is used for weight loss varies by diet. Some fasting diets involve drinking nothing but water or eating only raw foods for a period of one or more days, while others restrict food on alternate days. Certain fasting diets only allow liquids like water, juice, or tea, while others dramatically cut calories but do not eliminate food altogether.

    Studies of fasting in both rodents and humans appear to indicate a connection between calorie restriction and longevity. In one study of overweight men and women, a calorie-restricted diet improved markers of aging, such as insulin level and body temperature.

    Fasting might also improve longevity by delaying the onset of age-related diseases including Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes. One study showed that skipping meals once a month, as members of the Mormon religious group do, reduces the risk of clogged arteries (the build-up of plaque that can lead to heart attacks and strokes). However, it is not clear from this research whether fasting alone or the Mormons' generally healthier lifestyle (they also abstain from coffee, alcohol, and smoking) is responsible for the improved heart health.
    http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/fasting
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  14. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How does that counter what I have said?
    Have I not pointed to an action that meets the challenge of the OP?
    You have pointed to the physical manifestation of the principle "the reduction of suffering". The OP is asking for an action other than that one.

    All you have done is redefine it from a religious perspective. That's cheating

    ---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) Why should we accept the reduction in suffering as a valid definition of a moral action?
    For a morality to be objective it must be universal. The only characteristic that is universal to all moral dilemmas is suffering.

    2) If you OP is true, then is there any moral ground for calling the Newtown shooter's actions objectively immoral?
    No. However, his actions are most certainly subjectively immoral.

    Given the definition of good in the OP his actions are also evil.
    abc

  15. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,727
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    For a morality to be objective it must be universal. The only characteristic that is universal to all moral dilemmas is suffering.
    A couple of issues with that statement. Universality does not imply objectivity. It could be that all human beings prefer chocolate to vanilla, that does not make chocolate objectively better than vanilla.

    Rather, objectivity is only established if the truth value of the statement is independent of human beings.

    1+1=2 is objectively true, even if every single person on the planet believes 1+1=3.

    Also while many moral dilemmas concern suffering, it is by no means clear that all do. Many concern which option of two good options is morally preferable.

    Additionally, it isn't clear that in those scenarios that the reduction in suffering is always the morally correct answer, that assumption can lead to problematic results as defined earlier.

    So to summarize:

    1) Universal acceptance =/= objective truth.
    2) Even if it did, it isn't clear that suffering is the common denominator.

    Quote Originally Posted by myX
    No...
    I just want to be clear here, given the importance of the question. If your OP is true, in that moral view the actions of the Newtown shooter are not objectively immoral?

    Please correct me if I misunderstood.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A couple of issues with that statement. Universality does not imply objectivity. It could be that all human beings prefer chocolate to vanilla, that does not make chocolate objectively better than vanilla.
    What if all matter in the universe agrees that chocolate is better than vanilla, would that make it objectively true?

    Rather, objectivity is only established if the truth value of the statement is independent of human beings.

    1+1=2 is objectively true, even if every single person on the planet believes 1+1=3.
    How is the statement 1+1=2 independent of human beings?

    Also while many moral dilemmas concern suffering, it is by no means clear that all do. Many concern which option of two good options is morally preferable.
    The reduction of suffering and the maximization of happiness are just different ends of the same continuum. All moral dilemmas deal with the reduction of suffering or the maximization of happiness. Can you name one that doesn't?

    Additionally, it isn't clear that in those scenarios that the reduction in suffering is always the morally correct answer, that assumption can lead to problematic results as defined earlier.
    That is true. However, there are other factors than morality to consider when making a decision.

    So to summarize:

    1) Universal acceptance =/= objective truth.
    True. But universality = objectivity. 1+1=2 is universally true (it is something to be discovered not created) and thus by extension objectively true.

    2) Even if it did, it isn't clear that suffering is the common denominator.
    Suffering/happiness is the common denominator of moral dilemmas.

    I just want to be clear here, given the importance of the question. If your OP is true, in that moral view the actions of the Newtown shooter are not objectively immoral?

    Please correct me if I misunderstood.
    For something to be objectively immoral it must increase overall suffering / decrease overall happiness. There is no way for me to know whether or not his actions are objectively immoral. I can only say that they are subjectively immoral.

    The killing of students increases suffering / decreases happiness, in all but a few extreme cases, irregardless of where in the universe the students are or what species they are from. It is because of these few extreme cases that we cannot call his actions objectively moral or objectively immoral.
    abc

  17. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    He's not magic, nor are people who fast for long periods of time for whatever reason.
    Ok so then his body does need food, and with out it he will starve and suffer. How long that takes is less relevant than that it will happen.

  18. #37
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    To me this needs much more specificity, so I'm going to have a crack at it below.

    Say we define a unit of suffering as 1/total amount of man-made suffering in the world from it's beginning to it's end, and call this a "uos". And say we do the same thing for benefits, and define a unit of benefit as 1/total amount of man-made benefits...etc...and call this a "uob". Then it would follow, I think, that any action causing more uobs than uoses, would qualify as a "moral" act, and any action causing more uoses than uobs, would qualify as an immoral act.

    My question is, then, in trying to make your above "moral calculus" more specific, did I substantially change it?
    Not really. The reason is simple. The premise that so long as UOB > UOS for any action makes it moral totally negates the moral value of the suffering, especially where said suffering is intense or affects a great many people. Again, by the measure you propose, the Holocaust may have been a moral action if it caused enough benefit to the people of Germany. Certainly the ones who benefited from plundering the homes and businesses of wealthy Jews were happier. Were there more of them than the Jews they killed? Were their lives made sufficiently better that they generated more UOB than the Jews generated UOS? If so - and this seems a distinct possibility - then the Holocaust, by that standard, is considered a moral action when it seems apparent on its face that the slaughter of over 6 million innocent men, women, and children is abjectly immoral.

    Essentially, the formula proposed suggests that "the ends justify the means." Whatever is necessary to generate the most benefit to the greatest number of people is OK, so long as their happiness outweighs the suffering they inflict upon others. By this measure, it seems reasonable to assume that slavery was also moral, since the entire economy of the South - and, for that matter, the North and anybody else who benefited from the Southern products made less expensive by slave labor - experienced great benefit... enough to make the amount of suffering experienced by a few slaves a trivial matter, when you look at the overall good. I think it should be apparent why the utilitarian argument that "the ends justify the means" is morally reprehensible.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  19. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Ok so then his body does need food, and with out it he will starve and suffer.
    Not necessarily. If he or anyone for that matter becomes very ill and is not on life support or feeding tubes, starvation to a sick and dying body does not necessarily cause suffering:

    Ceasing Food and Fluid Can Be Painless

    After suffering through cancer, the middle-aged woman decided her illness was too much to bear. Everything she ate, she painfully vomited back up. The prospect of surgery and a colostomy bag held no appeal.

    And so, against the advice of her doctors, the patient decided to stop eating and drinking.

    Over the next 40 days in 1993, Dr. Robert Sullivan of Duke University Medical Center observed the woman's gradual decline, providing one of the most detailed clinical accounts of starvation and dehydration...

    But doctors say that going without food and water in the last weeks of life is not traumatic, and that the body is equipped to adjust to such conditions.

    In fact, eating and drinking during severe illness can be painful because of the demands it places on weakened organs.

    "What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it -- in fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric," said Dr. Perry G. Fine, vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Arlington, Va. "It's a very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go....."


    "The word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded," Fine said. "People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap."

    Though people may fear death by starvation, it is the norm in nature -- and the body is prepared for it.

    "The cessation of eating and drinking is the dominant way that mammals die," said Dr. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire. "It is a very gentle way that nature has provided for animals to leave this life."

    In a 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 102 hospice nurses caring for terminally ill patients who refused food and drink described their patients' final days as peaceful, with less pain than those who elected to die through physician-assisted suicide.

    The average rating given by the nurses for the patients' quality of death was eight on a scale in which nine represented a "very good death" and zero was a "very bad death."

    The process of dying is usually gradual. Patients deprived of food and water will die of dehydration rather than starvation -- if they don't succumb to their underlying illness first.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar...schiavodeath23
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  20. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by MY
    You have pointed to the physical manifestation of the principle "the reduction of suffering". The OP is asking for an action other than that one.

    All you have done is redefine it from a religious perspective. That's cheating
    No, I'm pointing out the self defeating nature of the OP, that is a valid point.
    You don't get an "except for" if your first statement is NONE.

    The "physical manifestation" is an action.. thus the op is wrong in it's absolute statement.
    To serve man.

  21. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: No Actions are Objectively Moral

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    For something to be objectively immoral it must increase overall suffering / decrease overall happiness.
    Why? You have yet to address Post 27.

    The killing of students increases suffering / decreases happiness, in all but a few extreme cases, irregardless of where in the universe the students are or what species they are from. It is because of these few extreme cases that we cannot call his actions objectively moral or objectively immoral.
    What?
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 16th, 2014 at 06:29 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. holding those accountable for group actions
    By gsp rep in forum Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 27th, 2011, 12:42 PM
  2. Objectively Judging Debates
    By LiberalTruth in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 16th, 2009, 10:05 AM
  3. Murder is not objectively wrong
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: June 8th, 2009, 06:23 PM
  4. The Power of Words Over Actions
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: September 6th, 2007, 02:10 PM
  5. Adult actions.
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum General Debate
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2007, 01:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •