Are there any moral tenants that are true no matter what?

[Surlethe]

I guess it depends on your definition of moral; to me, threats and inevitability cannot make an immoral act moral. I believe it is my right to kill to defend myself and others - however I do not believe it is my right to kill 'innocents' to protect myself or others. I might do it, but I would not attempt to sell it as moral.

How do you define "moral", then?

[haard]

I guess it depends on your definition of moral; to me, threats and inevitability cannot make an immoral act moral. I believe it is my right to kill to defend myself and others - however I do not believe it is my right to kill 'innocents' to protect myself or others. I might do it, but I would not attempt to sell it as moral.

How do you define "moral", then?

Well,

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character...

has got it about right, I think. And I do not think that a bad action can be made a good one; it can at most be made the lesser of two evils.

I do not believe that killing in self defence is a good action; but I do belive that the harmful intent of the assiliant gives me the right to meet violence with violence, if necessary(sp?), thus making the use of violence in self defence morally acceptable.

[Simplicius]

Regarding "the human race must survive" ...why? From all apparent observations, that is impossible, not only is the majority of the universe hostile to human habitation for the forseeable future, but eventually the entire universe will be intrinsically uninhabitable.

Obviously, natural circumstances can be neither moral nor immoral. So the sun burning out and the universe becoming uninhabitable don't fall under the umbrella of morality. Human survival is a precondition for morality when human action can increase or decrease the ability of the species to survive.

The human race surviving permanently, then would seem to be a less sound moral ideal than increased quality of life as we go extinct.

Increased quality of life is arguably beneficial to the surivival of the species, and is therefore moral. Permanent survival is physically impossible, and therefore doesn't fall under any sort of moral guideline.

If it was somehow possible to escape the effects of the sun's death or survive the end of the universe's habitability, preventing people from doing so would be immoral.

To borrow someone else's posted example, last 2 humans alive... the human race can exist beyond the present generation, and undoubtedly a few more after that. However, we also know it's futile, and that the quality of life will get worse for the survivors. Why bother, then? Why not just give the species a clean break?

The example of the California condors also posted earlier suggests that it is not necessarily futile to reproduce from extremely small numbers. I see no reason to automatically conclude that these two people will sit back and decide either to not try to survive (going against the imperative of individual survival) or deciding not to reproduce (going against ingrained sex drives and the larger imperative of species survival). They may not be able to do so, but that does not mean that they will not make the attempt.

Why not give the species a clean break? Well, if Mr. and Ms. Omega can muster the willpower to consciously do so, more power to them. But I expect the task would be more difficult than they can imagine, simply because a species that has thus far survived does so by virtue of a built in need to continue to survive.

[AMX]

I'd still say rape is immoral; I do not believe that something such as the survival of the human race makes it moral.

And how about "If you don't rape that one woman, tentacle monsters from dimension XXX will rape every single woman on the planet"?
Damn near impossible scenario, but the OP said "no matter what".

I guess it depends on your definition of moral; to me, threats and inevitability cannot make an immoral act moral. I believe it is my right to kill to defend myself and others - however I do not believe it is my right to kill 'innocents' to protect myself or others. I might do it, but I would not attempt to sell it as moral.

Just because an act is immoral doesn't mean it's unacceptable, provided all possible alternatives are even worse.

[NecronLord]

Rape Thought Experiment: You all suck at this. Let me have a go:

A demonstratably truth-speaking and knowledgable being tells you that the human race will be destroyed if Jane and John do not naturally conceive a child. This child will have some characteristic which will mean that they are able to figure out a way to prevent (and only they can do it) a massive asteroid hitting the earth and killing everyone. The thing is, they don't want to do it. Do you force them to fuck like jackrabbits until Jane is pregnant, or let the entire planet die?

---

Anyway, no. Good is ultimately subjective. There is no way to objectively determine what is good without ultimately predicating your argument on some tenet that is 'self-evident' or 'just is.' I would say that freedom and survial and so on are good, but I don't delude myself into thinking that I can ever express that as a logical argument. My judgement is a product of the culture and virtues I have been exposed to, and not abstract.

There is no way I can argue that "life should be preserved" is an objectively true statement in the same way I can express a mathematic proof or show a scientific theory to be untrue. These first predicates cannot (unlike arguments following from them) be disproven, as they are ultimately not rational.

If I think Captain Kirk is 'better' than Darth Vader, (which, incidentally, I do) this is a matter of taste, not (unlike 'who's more dangerous in a fight') of reason. In the same way, wanting humans to survive is not something that can be disproven, it's a matter of 'taste.'

[Simplicius]

There is no way I can argue that "life should be preserved" is an objectively true statement in the same way I can express a mathematic proof or show a scientific theory to be untrue. These first predicates cannot (unlike arguments following from them) be disproven, as they are ultimately not rational.

The problem comes from the use of the world 'should'. It implies that there is a reason for, as opposed to against or neutral, a certain outcome. When applied to a morally neutral thing like existence, it's inapplicable.

If you take the statement "the end of life is perpetuation" as a given (which seems to be acceptable considering that life without the end of perpetuation ceases to be in short order), you needn't apply 'should', which avoids that dilemma and allows you to make rational arguments from it.

[NecronLord]

If you take the statement "the end of life is perpetuation" as a given (which seems to be acceptable considering that life without the end of perpetuation ceases to be in short order), you needn't apply 'should', which avoids that dilemma and allows you to make rational arguments from it.

Few people accept that as the basis of a morality though. Most people would balk at the idea of doing whatever is most efficient to ensure the continuation of [human] life without regard to other factors. They tend to value things that are neutral to that end, such as freedom, love, respect, and so on.

EDIT: Also, labelling that end as 'good' or 'bad' is again, subjective. While the apparent purpouse of un-designed organic life is to replicate and survive, any judgement on whether this goal is laudable is, as all else, ultimately a subjective decision. 'Purpouse' does not equate with 'goodness.'

[Base Delta Zero]

The human race must survive.

The human race is morally relevent only relative to its members. Wiping out the human race would be bad, but if the only way to save it was to wipe out, say, trillions of other sentients... yeah.

Also, Rape is universally unacceptable? I don't buy that. We view it as unacceptable, but it was a common practice for thousands of years in wartime. The conquerors would kill all the adult males and rape the women to breed out a populace. Hell, it's even in the bible I believe.

War atrocities are suddenly acceptable just because they're war atrocities? (And in the Bible no less?) Frak you.

I think the rape issue is good too, if there were enough women left to repopulate the earth after a catastrophe, and enough men, but none of the women could be reasoned with to be impregnated, would rape, sex slavery or forceful insemination be the morally right thing to do over just dying out?

No.

What if every subsequent generation was going to be the same, and would require the same brutal methods to get offspring, why would we be worth saving?

No. You would be worth BDZ'ing.

To borrow someone else's posted example, last 2 humans alive... the human race can exist beyond the present generation, and undoubtedly a few more after that. However, we also know it's futile, and that the quality of life will get worse for the survivors. Why bother, then? Why not just give the species a clean break?

Why bother? You shouldn't. "If humanity is to die, let it be buried on sacred ground."

If some sicko puts you in a situation where you either rape someone or many other people die, would rape then not be acceptable?

You would have no moral responsibly, seeing as how you're forced to do it.

I believe that very early in Roman history the city of rome was grosly underpopulated by women, so the roman army went out, abducted and raped neighbouring women and raised the children as romans.

Not nice but justifiable to the romans who were doing it for the survival of their civilisation.

Justifiable to the Romans perhaps, but still irredeemably evil.

A demonstratably truth-speaking and knowledgable being tells you that the human race will be destroyed if Jane and John do not naturally conceive a child. This child will have some characteristic which will mean that they are able to figure out a way to prevent (and only they can do it) a massive asteroid hitting the earth and killing everyone. The thing is, they don't want to do it. Do you force them to fuck like jackrabbits until Jane is pregnant, or let the entire planet die?

Yeah... billions dying is bad.

There is no way to objectively determine what is good without ultimately predicating your argument on some tenet that is 'self-evident' or 'just is.'

So? Any action that harms people is evil. Any action that helps people is good. It just is.

Doing any harm to someone else is ultimately immoral, even, perhaps, killing in self defence. Doing something bad in order to prevent bad things from happening is necessary, if not always moral. Killing someone in self defence (or defense of others) is not as bad as murder because it is a response to someone's evil act. A murderer wants to kill someone. Someone who kills in defense wants to stop them from doing whatever they were going to do - intention is a factor. Obviously, not all immoral acts are worth killing to prevent.

[NecronLord]

So? Any action that harms people is evil. Any action that helps people is good. It just is.

Quite. 'It just is' - these things must be simply accepted as initial predicates. They are not like 1+1=2, you can't prove them, you must simply accept them. To compare to mathematics, it's more akin to the assumption that all readers will take the numeral 1 to mean 'a single unit.' Such tenets are agreed views, 'self-evident' is a fantastic phrasing for them, but they are not objectively true. You can't disprove them, merely disagree with them.

Doing any harm to someone else is ultimately immoral,

I take it you won't be having any vaccinations in the near future? That is harm. It is harm done in order to gain a greater potential benefit of course.

In the same way, I take it anyone who ever spanks a (willing) partner is also immoral? What about someone preforming voluntary euthanasia? Can people not consent to have harm done to them for whatever reason?

[NecronLord]

So? Any action that harms people is evil. Any action that helps people is good. It just is.

In fact, to make another comparison, let's say we're having a debate on morality with Dr. Who's Sutekh "Your evil is my good" the Destroyer.

He says, "Any action that harms people is good. Any action that helps people is evil. It just is."

How do we disprove his statement? We could try saying that his view is deviant, but that would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. We are no more objectively correct than he is, repellant though he may be.

[Rye]

So? Any action that harms people is evil. Any action that helps people is good. It just is.

In fact, to make another comparison, let's say we're having a debate on morality with Dr. Who's Sutekh "Your evil is my good" the Destroyer.

He says, "Any action that harms people is good. Any action that helps people is evil. It just is."

How do we disprove his statement? We could try saying that his view is deviant, but that would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. We are no more objectively correct than he is, repellant though he may be.

How about, "because morality is an evolved aspect of behaviour that benefits us due to our mutual survival, sharing of resources, etc, if you are actively trying to counteract that, you are obviously not going be be moral by our definitions." You'd have to equivocate otherwise.

[NecronLord]

How about, "because morality is an evolved aspect of behaviour that benefits us due to our mutual survival, sharing of resources, etc, if you are actively trying to counteract that, you are obviously not going be be moral by our definitions." You'd have to equivocate otherwise.

Bingo. Appeal to Popularity. We think like that because of our enviroment. Without bringing in 'the masses say it's wrong, therefore it is' there's no way to disprove any system of ethics.

[Base Delta Zero]

I take it you won't be having any vaccinations in the near future? That is harm. It is harm done in order to gain a greater potential benefit of course.

In the same way, I take it anyone who ever spanks a (willing) partner is also immoral? What about someone preforming voluntary euthanasia? Can people not consent to have harm done to them for whatever reason?

Sorry I didn't clarify this. If someone wants something to be done to them, then it isn't harmful, because harm is essentially denying freedom to chose what they want (as long it doesn't harm anyone else)

Quite. 'It just is' - these things must be simply accepted as initial predicates. They are not like 1+1=2, you can't prove them, you must simply accept them. To compare to mathematics, it's more akin to the assumption that all readers will take the numeral 1 to mean 'a single unit.' Such tenets are agreed views, 'self-evident' is a fantastic phrasing for them, but they are not objectively true. You can't disprove them, merely disagree with them.

That is exactly what I was saying. It's one of those things that seems (at least to me) so blindingly obvious that I really don't think about justifying it, and I can't think of any real objective reason it would be true... although I suppose that, seeing as how morality is a construct of sentient beings, it basically comes to allowing them to excersize their wishes is a good things... but yeah, but my point was that there isn't any absolute logical basis for morality, and I really don't care.

[NecronLord]

Indeed not. There's no iron hard logical basis for it, but it is so tremendously useful and fulfilling to have a scheme of ethics to chart one's way by, that doing without morality is pretty much impossible and not worthwhile anyway.

[Rye]

Regarding "the human race must survive" ...why? From all apparent observations, that is impossible, not only is the majority of the universe hostile to human habitation for the forseeable future, but eventually the entire universe will be intrinsically uninhabitable.

Obviously, natural circumstances can be neither moral nor immoral. So the sun burning out and the universe becoming uninhabitable don't fall under the umbrella of morality. Human survival is a precondition for morality when human action can increase or decrease the ability of the species to survive.

Well duh, the point was that indefinate human survival is impossible, and there will come a time when it is better to go out pleasantly than to continue surviving.

Increased quality of life is arguably beneficial to the surivival of the species, and is therefore moral. Permanent survival is physically impossible, and therefore doesn't fall under any sort of moral guideline.

But, according to your argument, a nice quality of death for the species is never preferable to any survival, no matter how unpleasant the lives of the survivors. I don't accept that.

To borrow someone else's posted example, last 2 humans alive... the human race can exist beyond the present generation, and undoubtedly a few more after that. However, we also know it's futile, and that the quality of life will get worse for the survivors. Why bother, then? Why not just give the species a clean break?

The example of the California condors also posted earlier suggests that it is not necessarily futile to reproduce from extremely small numbers.

Avoiding the point of the analogy is retarded, the idea is that we know it is going to be futile and will inflict unnecessary suffering by reproducing.

I see no reason to automatically conclude that these two people will sit back and decide either to not try to survive (going against the imperative of individual survival) or deciding not to reproduce (going against ingrained sex drives and the larger imperative of species survival). They may not be able to do so, but that does not mean that they will not make the attempt.

Are you fucking stupid? Complaining about unknowns in a SPECIFIC, CERTAIN hypothetical example is just retarded. They are not IMMORTAL and contraception is not absent from no reason from their world.

Why not give the species a clean break? Well, if Mr. and Ms. Omega can muster the willpower to consciously do so, more power to them. But I expect the task would be more difficult than they can imagine, simply because a species that has thus far survived does so by virtue of a built in need to continue to survive.

Since people have abortions all the time because they think the children will had bad lives and since people do want control over their own death, I don't think this "need to continue human survival" is all pervading.

[Simplicius]

Avoiding the point of the analogy is retarded, the idea is that we know it is going to be futile and will inflict unnecessary suffering by reproducing.

My mistake for thinking that the futility of reproduction and decreased quality of life were not components of the scenario, but your own conclusions.

I should ask, then - who are the actors in this hypothetical? Last Man and Last Woman, or myself? Is it moral for L.M. and L.W. to try to survive, or it is moral for me as Hypothetical God to force them to try to survive versus giving them cyanide in their sleep?

Are you fucking stupid? Complaining about unknowns in a SPECIFIC, CERTAIN hypothetical example is just retarded. They are not IMMORTAL and contraception is not absent from no reason from their world.

(See above for context.) If L.M. and L.W. are the actors in this scenario, my point stands - why would they not seek food and water, avoid predators, and fuck when they wanted to? It's not a moral choice on their part; they're obeying their biological imperatives to survive and reproduce.

If I am the actor here, and I must choose to either put down humanity as I would a suffering dog or let it live until it dies, the matter is wholly different. It would be immoral for me to force that suffering onto others. But it ignores the point of species survival as a moral constant, since my actions as Hypothetical God have nothing to do with the perpetuation of my own kind - although presumably the morailty of putting down the last of humanity derives from some aspect of my own morality that does stem from the need for my own kind to survive.

Since people have abortions all the time because they think the children will had bad lives and since people do want control over their own death, I don't think this "need to continue human survival" is all pervading.

You'll note that at no point do humans have to think about species survival in those terms - all they have to think is "I want to live" and "I want to fuck". After biology kicks in, species survival is ensured.

"Control over their own death" includes wanting to postpone it as much as possible.

Few people accept that as the basis of a morality though. Most people would balk at the idea of doing whatever is most efficient to ensure the continuation of [human] life without regard to other factors. They tend to value things that are neutral to that end, such as freedom, love, respect, and so on.

EDIT: Also, labelling that end as 'good' or 'bad' is again, subjective. While the apparent purpouse of un-designed organic life is to replicate and survive, any judgement on whether this goal is laudable is, as all else, ultimately a subjective decision. 'Purpouse' does not equate with 'goodness.'

Few people understand that as the basis of a morality, perhaps. As I said, it itself is morally neutral. But from it derive things that are not morally neutral and have some place in that end - including freedom (condition of existence), love, and respect (components of human interaction).

Also note that I never described the end of perpetuation as good or bad, merely as the way things are. Life that survives is life that has a built-in desire to survive, and from that desire to survive come things that are 'good' and 'bad', i.e. either assist or hinder that end.

How do we disprove his statement? We could try saying that his view is deviant, but that would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. We are no more objectively correct than he is, repellant though he may be.

Aid or hindrance of the need to perpetuate and survive provides an objective yardstick against which any moral system can be measured, and allows Sutekh's morality to be evaluated.

[Rye]

Avoiding the point of the analogy is retarded, the idea is that we know it is going to be futile and will inflict unnecessary suffering by reproducing.

My mistake for thinking that the futility of reproduction and decreased quality of life were not components of the scenario, but your own conclusions.

I should ask, then - who are the actors in this hypothetical? Last Man and Last Woman, or myself? Is it moral for L.M. and L.W. to try to survive, or it is moral for me as Hypothetical God to force them to try to survive versus giving them cyanide in their sleep?

Where the fuck are you getting all this bullshit?

Okay, here is the scenario I am putting forward, once again:

1) the extinction of the human race is unavoidable.
2) the exact generation of extinction is variable by a small amount.
3) successive generations will suffer far more than the current generation.
4) why is it more moral to create suffering offspring than dying happy and childless in this situation?

(See above for context.) If L.M. and L.W. are the actors in this scenario, my point stands - why would they not seek food and water, avoid predators, and fuck when they wanted to? It's not a moral choice on their part; they're obeying their biological imperatives to survive and reproduce.

Where the hell did you get that from I am saying they can have a fine life, just that the last humans dying childless after a nice life could be morally preferable to bringing some suffering offspring into the world when there's no possible way the human race could survive after a few more generations.

If I am the actor here, and I must choose to either put down humanity as I would a suffering dog or let it live until it dies, the matter is wholly different.

That is precisely it, there are times when putting a dog down is better than extending it's life and reducing the quality. I see no reason why this can't apply to the species also, which is what the example was all about.

You'll note that at no point do humans have to think about species survival in those terms - all they have to think is "I want to live" and "I want to fuck". After biology kicks in, species survival is ensured.

"Control over their own death" includes wanting to postpone it as much as possible.

NO SHIT. I'm not saying if they wanted to they are physically unable to, I am asking why it is the morally superior choice when it multiplies unnecessary suffering!

[Pick]

There's a difference between "right" and "must be done despite being wrong" by the way. I, in fact, believe that hurting other things is intrinsically wrong. There are just mitigating circumstances, such as fucking survival, or when you don't have a choice and it's what is less wrong. It's impossible to be completely moral, and I don't even think people should try to be so immaculate.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think that survival of the human race is morally absolute. If it were a choice between the human race and trillions of other aliens out there, I'd still chose humanity. In the end, it is my team. Shame about the others, but I'm sure they feel the same way about their species.

[Simplicius]

1) the extinction of the human race is unavoidable.
2) the exact generation of extinction is variable by a small amount.
3) successive generations will suffer far more than the current generation.
4) why is it more moral to create suffering offspring than dying happy and childless in this situation?

I will concede that in this specific scenario it is more moral to take the path of least suffering. However, that decision is only contingent on Condition #2, that the scenario guarantees that the species will not survive for more than a generation or two, and the fact that L.M. and L.W. have not yet produced offspring. Alter that, and I would have to decide the other way.

That is precisely it, there are times when putting a dog down is better than extending it's life and reducing the quality. I see no reason why this can't apply to the species also, which is what the example was all about.

Again, though - in the world as it exists today (as your hypothetical is an extreme case), perpetuating the species is a source of moral behavior, if only because babies are constantly being born.

[Base Delta Zero]

I think that survival of the human race is morally absolute. If it were a choice between the human race and trillions of other aliens out there, I'd still chose humanity. In the end, it is my team. Shame about the others, but I'm sure they feel the same way about their species.

The 'human race' is irrelevant, because it is not a living being. You might be willing to do that, but that would make you evil.

Adressing the other discussion: Humanity as a species is a moral object in regard to its members, and the survival of a species, just like any smaller group, is irrelevent, it is only bad in regard to the actions involved in doing this (namely, well, killing a whole species), but if it is already dying out, the members are going to die anyways, and their is no moral imperative to perpetuate it. There may be a biological imperative, but that is far from the same thing.

[Gil Hamilton]

The 'human race' is irrelevant, because it is not a living being. You might be willing to do that, but that would make you evil.

You are absolutely wrong, dickwad. We have a moral imperative to protect our own from harm, with most directly being our family and friends, even strangers who need help, but in a broader abstract sense, humanity itself. Willing self-sacrifice in protection is different and noble, but it is not in any way evil to defend and protect our kind from exinction. No species has a divine right to exist while others do not.

If you think it is "evil" to preserve humanity, then you can go fuck yourself.

[Fuzzy]

The 'human race' is irrelevant, because it is not a living being. You might be willing to do that, but that would make you evil.

You are absolutely wrong, dickwad. We have a moral imperative to protect our own from harm, with most directly being our family and friends, even strangers who need help, but in a broader abstract sense, humanity itself. Willing self-sacrifice in protection is different and noble, but it is not in any way evil to defend and protect our kind from exinction. No species has a divine right to exist while others do not.

If you think it is "evil" to preserve humanity, then you can go fuck yourself.

I think the point being made is if you were presented with a choice of saving the human race comprised of 6-7 billion beings or saving 5 other sentient races, each comprised of 6-7 billion beings, which would be morally right? Would it be better to save those 30+ billion aliens, or would it be better to save the 6 billion humans?

[Base Delta Zero]

Base Delta Zero wrote:
The 'human race' is irrelevant, because it is not a living being. You might be willing to do that, but that would make you evil.

You are absolutely wrong, dickwad. We have a moral imperative to protect our own from harm, with most directly being our family and friends, even strangers who need help, but in a broader abstract sense, humanity itself. Willing self-sacrifice in protection is different and noble, but it is not in any way evil to defend and protect our kind from exinction. No species has a divine right to exist while others do not.

Yes, we have a moral imperative to protect other people from harm, not species. If humanity were attacked by space aliens, it would be just by all means to defend ourselves, but that's because of the people comprising the human race, not the species itself.

[petesampras]

Base Delta Zero wrote:
The 'human race' is irrelevant, because it is not a living being. You might be willing to do that, but that would make you evil.

You are absolutely wrong, dickwad. We have a moral imperative to protect our own from harm, with most directly being our family and friends, even strangers who need help, but in a broader abstract sense, humanity itself. Willing self-sacrifice in protection is different and noble, but it is not in any way evil to defend and protect our kind from exinction. No species has a divine right to exist while others do not.

Yes, we have a moral imperative to protect other people from harm, not species. If humanity were attacked by space aliens, it would be just by all means to defend ourselves, but that's because of the people comprising the human race, not the species itself.

Ultimately it comes down to the reason 'why' you assign moral worth to certain things. Are humans important because they are sentient beings or because they belong to your species? I get the impression some people here are trying to derive a moral code from the tenant - 'humanity must survive'. This is not going to lead to a moral code which is anything like those which 99% of people (including those here) actually believe and follow.