Scammers

[architect]

That eBay scam was a few barrels in one for sure as the purchase was a big ticket item! Seared hard in my soul because my parents and sibling were just as broke so there was no one to rescue me. That was a good lesson, but I can only say that based on where I am today.

 

[Chicken lights]

But isn't determining whether or not someone is "good" a function of morals? I don't see too much of a distinction.

Two different things. It cuts both ways you could be a bad person with high moral standards, or a good person with loose morals.

At least the bad person with high morals you can usually trust. The good people with loose morals need to be kept on a short leash

 

[someidiot]

I don't think what you're saying makes much sense without first making an effort to define "moral" and "morals".

 

[Chicken lights]

I don't think what you're saying makes much sense without first making an effort to define "moral" and "morals".

One is singular, the other with the "s" is plural. I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You can have a high moral code or you can have loose morals, I don't think you can have both, it's a one or the other

 

[someidiot]

By making that statement, you suggest that you fail to grasp that the notion of "morals" is not a universally-understood one. For example, there's a common notion that's often floated by people who should know better that the source of all moral authority is biblical. As an atheist, I think that's nonsense, and am much more aligned with what Sam Harris argued in The Moral Landscape, which is that it is a naturally-occurring instinct, as it can be experimentally shown to exist in primates (who, to the best of the researchers' knowledge had not read the Christian bible (or any other religious tract)).

So I'm going to say it again: Until you've defined what you understand to be moral(s) - which, I'll point out grammatically is not simply a singular/plural construct i.e. a person is moral (adjective), but speaking of a person's morals indicates the word is instead used as a noun - it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation on the subject at all.

 

[Chicken lights]

Until you grasp the difference between being a moral person and a person having morals, I can't have a conversation with you about it either. Try re-reading what I wrote before to help you understand the difference.

Yes, the grammar is important and your last paragraph proves you don't grasp it. You added an (s) to moral where it doesn't belong.

I don't think you comprehend that being moral is inflexible, whilst morals are lax and often fluid to fit the current situation. That's why I prefer bad men who are moral, instead of good men with loose morals

Notice the "s", the grammar is the part to pay attention to. You're incorrect, the plural versus the singular is the part you're not understanding

Your theory that all good men possess good morals in order to be considered a good man is utterly incorrect

 

[architect]

By making that statement, you suggest that you fail to grasp that the notion of "morals" is not a universally-understood one. For example, there's a common notion that's often floated by people who should know better that the source of all moral authority is biblical. As an atheist, I think that's nonsense, and am much more aligned with what Sam Harris argued in The Moral Landscape, which is that it is a naturally-occurring instinct, as it can be experimentally shown to exist in primates (who, to the best of the researchers' knowledge had not read the Christian bible (or any other religious tract)).

So I'm going to say it again: Until you've defined what you understand to be moral(s) - which, I'll point out grammatically is not simply a singular/plural construct i.e. a person is moral (adjective), but speaking of a person's morals indicates the word is instead used as a noun - it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation on the subject at all.

I suggest some readings below since you are an avid reader and open to ideas! These are many criticism levied against Harris by actual experts of the topic.

The Facts Fetish

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values By Sam Harris (Free Press, 291 pp., $26.99) Sam Harris’s first two books, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, attacked religious faith. His new book, interestingly enough...

newrepublic.com

https://philarchive.org/archive/PIGNAA

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i89pc/whats_wrong_with_sam_harris_why_do_philosophers

Reference nature (animals) as testimony for or against something is also slippery and problematic ("human nature"). You end up with environmental determinism and iffy race-sciency stuff, which he has repeatedly stepped into and been criticised for.

Good science is about applying the right methodology towards the right question. Looking under microscopes in the search of understanding love will yield certain answer, but does it answer the right question? Not everything is under the purview of empiricism.

But for sure it's important to have a working definition of something before meaning conversation can be had. There is nothing common sense about much of anything in the world.

 

[someidiot]

Exactly my point. You can't discuss it until there's an agreed-upon definition of what it is. Until then you're just doing donuts on the lawn, spinning in circles.

 

[someidiot]

Let's strip this down.

being a moral person

What does that mean, exactly? Is it like obscenity - you can't define it, but you know it when you see it?

 

[someidiot]

I suggest some readings below since you are an avid reader and open to ideas! These are many criticism levied against Harris by actual experts of the topic.

We could get far out into the weeds very quickly with all the stuff that's been forced into that reddit thing. Personally, I have zero time for reddit, and think it's a stupid and unnecessary thing that happened at the hands of people who realized it was going to be too hard to make money from Usenet, which worked just fine. My theory is that Aaron Swartz didn't kill himself because of the "hacking" bust; he did it to atone for creating reddit. That aside, though, let's take a look at just the beginning of a single claim: "Harris is racist - specifically, he's an Islamophobe..."

Any idiot can tell you that Islam is not a "race", so I'm not going to pursue this further.

Beyond that claim philosophers do what philosophers do, which is argue about shit because they have no other life skills. A close friend of mine walked out of an honours degree in philosophy with an emphasis on ethics because - wait for it - the profs in the faculty didn't live up to any ethical standards he thought necessary for their authority to be valid.

So sure, people can disagree, but I have no substantive argument with Harris' position in that book - and besides, it wasn't until quite a bit later that he began to draw the fire described.

 

[architect]

Roger that! You have closed all the doors and comfortable with what you know and how you know it.

 

[someidiot]

Not at all - in fact, I've repeatedly asked a question that remains outstanding.

But wrt Harris, when the critics lead with something as overtly stunned as calling dislike of a religion "racist", it's hard to take their subsequent arguments seriously. And professional philosophers don't like him anyway because they think he's crashed their club.

Look, I'm not entirely onside with him these days, or with all of his views, but we risk fractalizing the conversation by flying out on a tangent of a tangent of a tangent.

 

[architect]

Like I said, you are sure of what you know and how you know it! Because of that I don't have much more to add without coming off a certain way that wouldn't be as acceptable in a public setting. But if you're asking someone to define and defend their concept and you do so while putting forward what to you is an authority or person of interest, then it is equally open for conversation!

I think there is a term for when people attempt to crash establish knowledge and understanding by someone that is a non-expert of that field, and make a lot of money out of it

 

[someidiot]

But if you're asking someone to define and defend their concept...

I've not asked for a defence, just for a defintion. As I said at the outset, his position depends entirely on what these words - moral and morals - actually mean. If he can't - or won't - offer a definition, then it's impossible to have further meaningful debate, because they're fraught with differing interpretations, meanings, and contexts, and we can't simply assume a shared understanding of them. That's all.

 

[architect]

Position... Debate......

I hear you loud and clear, good sir!

 

[Chicken lights]

What does that mean, exactly? Is it like obscenity - you can't define it, but you know it when you see it?

Try replacing moral with rules. A moral person sets rules, expects them to be followed, and there will be consequences if they aren't. Creed? Code? As long as you follow their rules, they aren't dangerous people

You can't learn it from a book. In fact the opposite holds true, the higher the education a person has the more close minded they become (usually)

People with morals like to change the rules of the game to suit them.

Hopefully that helps

 

[Sqought]

This reminds me of the D&D alignment chart. Lawful-ness is one axis, and good/evil is on the other. IMO this is a more accurate reflection of reality than assuming a "moral" person will follow rules and vice-versa, or assuming that rules are "moral" in the 1st place.

Example: Slavery was (and is) usually legal in places it is practiced, despite being IMO immoral. A slaver is still a danger to their slaves, even if everyone is "following the rules".

Perhaps what you mean by "moral" is closer to "Lawful-ness" in the D&D sense?

 

[Chicken lights]

This reminds me of the D&D alignment chart. Lawful-ness is one axis, and good/evil is on the other. IMO this is a more accurate reflection of reality than assuming a "moral" person will follow rules and vice-versa, or assuming that rules are "moral" in the 1st place.

Example: Slavery was (and is) usually legal in places it is practiced, despite being IMO immoral. A slaver is still a danger to their slaves, even if everyone is "following the rules".

Perhaps what you mean by "moral" is closer to "Lawful-ness" in the D&D sense?

Underground Railroad, doesn't matter if it was the northern route or the southern route, is a perfect example. People that helped were moral people, doing what they thought best, knowing there was laws and consequences if they got caught.

I'll look at your D&D chart more tonight, but I get what you mean. If you don't morally agree with a law, are you yourself going to feel guilt breaking it?