Moral Worth

[sir archely]

Okay, I'm going to assume that not everyone knows what i'm talking about when i say moral worth. This can also be referred to as moral standing, and i'll use the terms as equals. The terms aren't perfect, but any problems you have with the terms should be laid aside, use them as defined here. It's a fundamental topic within ethics. If you have an ethical theory (which i'd say pretty much everyone does) then you have some conception of moral worth. On any given ethic, certain things have moral standing, or 'count' on that ethic. For example, on some ethic, you have you worry about murdering a person, and think that is wrong, but you don't have to worry about murdering a rock. On that view, the person has moral standing, but the rock does not.

Now, it isn't enough to just say what has moral standing, you have to back it up with some reason why that is what has moral standing. I'll give some examples.

Kant believed that human beings are what has moral standing. He believed this because he believed rationality was the appropriate characteristic for determining who had moral standing. He believed thus that we have duties towards humans, and any moral duty to a non-human was indirectly linked to a human if it mattered at all.

Bentham (and later, Singer) believe that all sentient beings are to be counted in the 'moral equation.' Being utilitarians, what mattered was creating the maximum amount of happiness, that being the greatest possible amount of pleasure over pain. Thus, anything that can feel pleasure or pain (sentience) is what matters.

Obviously, both Kant and Bentham can't be correct.

The point of the thread is to discuss what you think. Even if haven't thought about it before, think about your own ethic, and how you would act in different situations. Additionally, if you can't back it up, it doesn't matter. Post what you think, and if the why is that you just think it, then say that. Maybe we can even figure out why if there's some discussion. Or if you aren't sure what you think post anyway. ;)

Also, it's possible that this will have to delve deeper than i've set it up for. It's hard to know right now without seeing the style of reply, but my guess is that it will go deeper, and that's no problem.

[sir archely]

nobody wants to play with me?

~cries~

[Anita Blake]

i want to but i keep on not having much time :( busy week at work and then my bf hogs the comp at home... :rolleyes: as soon as i get some time.... honest!

[dark fuschia]

ok I'll write a bit

I think most things have a moral standing and deserve consideration, but I think there is a hierarchy which leaves me at the top relevant to the rest of the world, like... if I see a spider on the ground outside I will not kill it, but if its on my bed I will try and catch it and throw it outside, and if its too hard to catch, then I will kill it, because I see that as my territory. I guess everyones view on moral standing stems from how they see the world relates to them. In my world people are more important than animals and trees, but that doesn't mean animals and trees don't deserve to be treated well too. I think human beings have souls. I'm not sure about animals, I think perhaps they have somethign like a soul, or perhaps they have a communal soul.. I think anything that suffers definately has a nobility that makes them worthy of respect.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Oh, joy! :D

Here's what I think ...

Purpose is always assumed, in some way or another, in any objective moral system. If one cannot set up a system where mankind's purpose is explained, then his categorization of morality is begging the question. I think that there are absolutes in good and evil, but it's hard to always see them (i.e., truth is hard to always see, but it exists nonetheless). Absolute "good" or "goodness" I believe flows naturally for God's character. "Evil" or the departure of that which is good, is just that, a departure from God's character. This framework assumes a few things (i.e., that God exists, He is knowable/interacting with humanity). But in my discussions on morality, I've found it to "hold it's own" so to speak.

So I think that God gives purpose to humanity, and humanity's purpose is to reflect the truth of God (i.e., worship/give Him glory). This can only be accomplished aligning us with His character. This again assumes many things (i.e., why 'this' as purpose and not 'that'? and how is reflecting truth of God the same as worship or giving glory? and why is truth even important?). I'm not an expert in the slightest, but maybe in the following responses we can dig deeper. :)

[Anita Blake]

well, the thing with truth is this: what is truth? is it truth as seen by person A, truth as seen by person B, person C, so on and so on, or is it something existing outside of human perception altogether, ie, we see what we percieve to be the truth, but the actual truth is not seen at all, since seeing puts it into a perspective, making it a subjective matter.

:umm: i shouldn't try to write this this early in the morning.

well, i guess if we take my version of 'truth' being some outside force existing on it's own, and not the subjective truth as seen by humans, then i would have to say that the truth isn't important at all, as we cannot access it or fully understand it anyway. It's a complex thing, the truth is, since for any given situation, there are a multitude of perspectives and distances to look at it from, so the 'truth' would be kind of like the culmination of all possible perspectives (impossible to discover, as there are a nearly infinite amount of perspectives and distances)

of course, there's then the truth as we know it, which is important, since it's all we can know, and affects our daily lives, in such cases as crime, where we need to know who has committed a crime in order to send that person to justice.

and i no longer have any idea of what i'm talking about. *sigh* need coffee. please feel free to continue what i'm saying if you can decipher it. :dozey:

[QuirkyTemplate]

I guess you're right, before we deal with objective moral systems we have to at least agree about how "truth" ties into all this.


well, the thing with truth is this: what is truth? is it truth as seen by person A, truth as seen by person B, person C, so on and so on, or is it something existing outside of human perception altogether, ie, we see what we percieve to be the truth, but the actual truth is not seen at all, since seeing puts it into a perspective, making it a subjective matter.

Well ah ... I don't think it's possible for truth to be always all subjective. I mean, as soon as someone disagrees with that statement they're making their own truth statement. i.e., "truth is not objective" (objective = equally applying/existing for everyone) is saying that it is true for everyone that "truth is not objective". So I think that this also runs into the same problem with the attempt to deny the existance of truth.

"He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know"
- Lao Tzu (p.s., you better have wrote that quote to yourself Lao Tzu :) )




well, i guess if we take my version of 'truth' being some outside force existing on it's own, and not the subjective truth as seen by humans, then i would have to say that the truth isn't important at all, as we cannot access it or fully understand it anyway. It's a complex thing, the truth is, since for any given situation, there are a multitude of perspectives and distances to look at it from, so the 'truth' would be kind of like the culmination of all possible perspectives (impossible to discover, as there are a nearly infinite amount of perspectives and distances)

That's one way to look at it, that because truth is so complex and oftentimes unknowable, we can in effect treat it as if it is “untenable” so to speak. Sometimes I'd agree with that statement, such as something like speculating about the existence of jellybeans that can bend space/time with their good taste, or other things in which we have an utter lack of evidence or logic to base our evidence off of. So yeah, at times the truth could be anything and may as well be nothing, but in my experience complexity doesn't necessarily warrant unimportance. Our ignorance of certain aspects of truth on subject B may have little or nothing to do with the aspects of truth on subject A. I'm tending to say that our lack of omnipotence is not specifically correlated with the importance of all truth.

Also, I'm not so sure that I'd agree that truth is a culmination of all possible perspectives. It seems to me that there are some perspectives on ideas/matters that are correct, but not everyone always has the complete "perspective" as it were. But sometimes people do if the truth statement is simple enough, or maybe of the person (or being) deriving it were sufficiently intelligent (i.e., is truth still to be treated the same if God exists, or a God-like creature interacts with us?)


of course, there's then the truth as we know it, which is important, since it's all we can know, and affects our daily lives, in such cases as crime, where we need to know who has committed a crime in order to send that person to justice.



>finger wave<

here here! I think this last one is the most accurate, making the others seem like tangents on how truth and the diversity of people can yield a diversity of perspectives on truth.

It has logical consistency (i.e., isn't inherently contradictory), empirical adequacy (it seems to correlate with the way reality exists, and laws in our physical universe), and experiential relevance (it is relevant to my experience of reality). So it passes the QuirkerTruthTest(TM) :D

>wanders off<

[dark fuschia]

oooh I enjoyed reading all this stuff alot *sits down in the corner quietly to listen more*

[Jonboy]

All right, my take on moral worth.....
my views are strage maybe, but hey, i can have my views...
all right, for someone or some thing to have moral worth to me, i must have it from them. Mutual respect. if some one was going to kill me, i would hopefully have no guilt killing them... thats only theory though....

[dark fuschia]

All right, my take on moral worth.....
my views are strage maybe, but hey, i can have my views...
all right, for someone or some thing to have moral worth to me, i must have it from them. Mutual respect. if some one was going to kill me, i would hopefully have no guilt killing them... thats only theory though....

but someone has to have the respect first then. Hmmm *thinks about this until her head spins in circles*

[Jonboy]

everyone starts with all the respect i have. it is up to you to destroy that trust, then i will think of you as nothing.........that hardly ever happens though....im pretty easy to get along with

[dark fuschia]

everyone starts with all the respect i have. it is up to you to destroy that trust, then i will think of you as nothing.........that hardly ever happens though....im pretty easy to get along with


ahh well that makes more sense now. Hey are you a cancer? Thats a very cancerian viepoint.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

~eyes wendy suspicously~

~is a Cancer~

hehe, prepare this thread to be hijacked into astrology.

~looks around~

Or maybe not...

~resists the urge to flee and wanders off~

-Malcor "Not running" Sylverwood

[Abraxas77]

hmm, I'm not fully in the mindset to make a lengthly explantion here, but...I would like to make one small point, one that is pretty much opposite what jonboy says. If one loses my respect, they do not lose they're moral worth. For example, I had my wallet stollen once, an act that surely rid the guilty two of any respect I held for them. Yet, they still retain moral worth...I wish no ill deeds upon them...only that they find their way (in the light) and refrain from stealing in the future.

I actually saw these people a few months later, and all sorts of emotions ran through my head, as I stared at them evilly. But the only action I took was a word of warning to a guy who seemed to be another target for the thieving duo. I simply tolded him in passing to, "watch your wallet".

[night faerie]

"...watch your wallet
and your clothes
and if they can
they'll take your soul..."

k this is completely out of context from a poem I wrote but I just couldnt help myself it seemed so fitting. :)

[sir archely]

Hmm...well, i suppose it's time i came back to this thread. A few things.

First, QT, in your first post where you present your thoughts, why do you say, "If one cannot set up a system where mankind's purpose is explained, then his categorization of morality is begging the question." This statement is sort of ambiguous to me. I'm not quite sure what you mean by purpose, or why it would be begging the question to have otherwise. I think i know what you're saying, but i just want to make sure. Also, you brought it up yourself, very rightly, but why your purpose? Even if i allow you your assumptions (god's existence, interaction) i'm not seeing how it follows from that. Are there any other hidden assumptions i'm missing? I guess plainly, i'm seeing your statements, as you present them as seemingly brute fact, (which is fine) but now i do want to go deeper.

Also, to jonboy, (and to some extent abraxas) you've only really defined your thoughts in terms of other human beings, as it seems to me. Sure, i think it's maybe possible for you two to come back and say, 'well, look, i have respect for animals too, and they could lose it. (or not)' but it's the language you're using that's leading me to believe in both cases you had strictly other human beings in your minds when considering this. Jonboy says "some thing" as well, but how exactly is a plant going to destroy your trust? Or how would you even define a plant as having "respect" for you? Further, can animals have respect for you? Perhaps some can, but only in very specific cases. Do you have respect for all people everywhere until they lose it? Or do you have to know them at all? Let me see if i can phrase this better.

If i say, "who has moral worth?" and you say, "anything that both has respect for me, and i have respect for. additionally, everything has my respect until they lose it."
It's unclear how you deal with: A) Things that really can't be said to have respect for you in a cognitive sense. Or if you don't want it to be in a cognitive sense, where do you draw the line? (a rock "respects" your spatial location and doesn't encroach upon it. B)Things you don't know and haven't interacted with.

well, i took entirely too long a time to say that awkwardly, but there it is.

[Amos]

respect is earned. respect that is not earned is actually fear or admiration. an animal can respect a person but it's more likely to fear one, and it can't respect a whole race, just individuals, but it can fear a species in general. people who respect plants and rocks etc. are possibly mistaking their respect for admiration, though people are insane so maybe we can respect anything. that's all. :)

[QuirkyTemplate]

Hmm...well, i suppose it's time i came back to this thread. A few things.

First, QT, in your first post where you present your thoughts, why do you say, "If one cannot set up a system where mankind's purpose is explained, then his categorization of morality is begging the question." This statement is sort of ambiguous to me. I'm not quite sure what you mean by purpose, or why it would be begging the question to have otherwise. I think i know what you're saying, but i just want to make sure. Also, you brought it up yourself, very rightly, but why your purpose? Even if i allow you your assumptions (god's existence, interaction) i'm not seeing how it follows from that. Are there any other hidden assumptions i'm missing? I guess plainly, i'm seeing your statements, as you present them as seemingly brute fact, (which is fine) but now i do want to go deeper.


Well, I think that leaving purpose out of an objective system is begging the question because all objective systems in some way assume purpose. Purpose being a reason for existence, the 'why am I here?' or 'why is there something rather than nothing'.

If one were to create the system of "Maximize pleasure, minimize pain" (in a liberal definition of these terms), they would be forced to answer why? Why is it that we should maximize pleasure rather than pain? The statement assumes that mankind has a purpose, and intrinsic in this purpose is the idea that we are to minimize pain, and maximize pleasure.

One could argue that we don't need purpose, and that it simply is the case that pleasure is to be maximized and pain minimized, but this seems arbitrary and could therefore lead one to equally think that the purpose just is that we should maximize pain and minimize pleasure.

So assuming God exists and then assuming that God gives us purpose when he created us, I think it has more explanatory power than other views on purpose. So when the question comes up, "why this purpose and not that purpose", I'd like to ask how any other purpose apart from a God-given purpose is possible? And if God-given purpose is the only viable option for purpose (apart from nihilism or self-defined purpose, which digresses into subjectivism anyway, and is therefore not useful for this talk), then we talk about reflecting the truth of God (admitting to ourselves what God really is, and what does this mean), and how that forms into a moral view in its own way.

Peace! :)