How much profit is immoral? (2024)

John McGuinness

All Messages By This Member

#17831

The question might be addressed in terms of a few particularly cogent examples, such as price-gouging. Michael Sandel opens his book on Justice with this case:

In the summer of 2004, Hurricane Charley roared out of the Gulf of Mexico and swept across Florida to the Atlantic Ocean. The storm claimed twenty-two lives and caused $11 billion in damage. It also left in its wake a debate about price gouging.

At a gas station in Orlando, they were selling two-dollar bags of ice for ten dollars. Lacking power for refrigerators or air-conditioning in the middle of August, many people had little choice but to pay up. Downed trees heightened demand for chain saws and roof repairs. Contractors offered to clear two trees off a homeowner's roof — for $23,000. Stores that normally sold small household generators for $250 were now asking $2,000. A seventy-seven-year-old woman fleeing the hurricane with her elderly husband and handicapped daughter was charged $160 per night for a motel room that normally goes for $40.

Many Floridians were angered by the inflated prices. "After Storm Come the Vultures," read a headline in USA Today. One resident, told it would cost $10,500 to remove a fallen tree from his roof, said it was wrong for people

to "try to capitalize on other people's hardship and misery." Charlie Crist, the state's attorney general, agreed: "It is astounding to me, the level of greed that someone must have in their soul to be willing to take advantage of someone suffering in the wake of a hurricane."

Florida has a law against price gouging, and in the aftermath of the hurricane, the attorney general's office received more than two thousand complaints. Some led to successful lawsuits. A Days Inn in West Palm Beach had to pay $70,000 in penalties and restitution for overcharging customers.

But even as Crist set about enforcing the price-gouging law, some economists argued that the law — and the public outrage — were misconceived. In medieval times, philosophers and theologians believed that the exchange of goods should be governed by a "just price," determined by tradition or the intrinsic value of things. But in market societies, the economists observed, prices are set by supply and demand. There is no such thing as a "just price."

Thomas Sowell, a free-market economist, called price gouging an "emotionally powerful but economically meaningless expression that most economists pay no attention to, because it seems too confused to bother with." Writing in the Tampa Tribune, Sowell sought to explain "how 'price gouging' helps Floridians." Charges of price gouging arise "when prices are significantly higher than what people have been used to," Sowell wrote. But "the price levels that you happen to be used to" are not morally sacrosanct. They are no more "special or 'fair' than other prices" that market conditions — including those prompted by a hurricane — may bring about.

Higher prices for ice, bottled water, roof repairs, generators, and motel rooms have the advantage, Sowell argued, of limiting the use of such things by consumers and increasing incentives for suppliers in far-off places to provide the goods and ser vices most needed in the hurricane's aftermath. If ice fetches ten dollars a bag when Floridians are facing power outages in the August heat, ice manufacturers will find it worth their while to produce and ship more of it. There is nothing unjust about these prices, Sowell explained; they simply reflect the value that

buyers and sellers choose to place on the things they exchange.

Jeff Jacoby, a pro-market commentator writing in the Boston Globe, argued against price-gouging laws on similar grounds: "It isn't gouging to charge what the market will bear. It isn't greedy or brazen. It's how goods and ser vices get allocated in a free society." Jacoby acknowledged that the "price spikes are infuriating, especially to someone whose life has just been thrown into turmoil by a deadly storm." But public anger is no justification for interfering with the free market. By providing incentives for suppliers to produce more of the needed goods, the seemingly exorbitant prices "do far more good than harm." His conclusion: "Demonizing vendors won't speed Florida's recovery. Letting them go about their business will."

Attorney General Crist (a Republican who would later be elected governor of Florida) published an op-ed piece in the Tampa paper defending the law against price gouging: "In times of emergency, government cannot remain on the sidelines while people are charged unconscionable prices as they flee for their lives or seek the basic commodities for their families after a hurricane." Crist rejected the notion that these "unconscionable" prices reflected a truly free exchange:

This is not the normal free market situation where willing buyers freely elect to enter into the marketplace and meet willing sellers, where a price is agreed upon based on supply and demand. In an emergency, buyers under duress have no freedom. Their purchases of necessities like safe lodging are forced.

The debate about price gouging that arose in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley raises hard questions of morality and law: Is it wrong for sellers of goods and ser vices to take advantage of a natural disaster by charging whatever the market will bear? If so, what, if anything, should the law do about it? Should the state prohibit price gouging, even if doing so interferes with the freedom of buyers and sellers to make whatever deals they choose? (See link below for more of the story.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/excerpt-justice.html

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17832

I don’t think theexamples you mention support a universal, objective moral standard that wouldgive us any guidance in the day-to-day issues we face. How do the answer the question how muchprofit is immoral? 10%? 20%?100?

I agree that all of usbut the sociopaths find all kinds of things to be immoral. But, while there is considerable overlap, Idon’t believe that we can say we have anything like unanimity. Consider abortion: some people see it asimmoral; others see the denial of a woman to control her own body asimmoral. There are varying standards ofif and when an abortion is legal, but there certainly is no unanimity on thesubject.

Rights, in my view, are ahuman construct. The don’t exist apartfrom us. We humans created them, and wedid so in the last few centuries. It’shard to think of a “right” that was even spoken of prior to 1776. A Humean would say that rights reflect widelyheld values, and that the majority will compel any dissenting minority to respectthem, but, as Holmes said of the Common Law, they are not a “broodingomnipresence in the sky.”

Price gouging is a humanterm--somebody’s ethical standard written into law.

John McGuinness

All Messages By This Member

#17834

It may be slow, but we do make moral progress. Some long-standing practices are now widely - even universally - condemned, such as slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifice, pedophilia and (I think) voluntary lethal sadomasochism (this last one was not perhaps ever widely practiced). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely respected in principle and is slowly, painfully moving toward implementation in practice (though one step forward two steps back may be the current trend, we may reasonably hope that things will return to two steps forward, one step back - the trend of democratic reversion to authoritarianism in some countries may not be permanent and may eventually be reversed, for example).There is no basis for triumphalism, of course, but we havereason to remain hopeful.

On ‎Saturday‎, ‎July‎ ‎21‎, ‎2018‎ ‎04‎:‎31‎:‎47‎ ‎PM, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] wrote:

Price gouging is a humanterm--somebody’s ethical standard written into law.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17837

I agree that we makemoral progress in our own terms, but it does not follow that there is anobjective standard somewhere independent of us and our values and all that wehave to do is find it the way we found the Higgs boson. Slavery has been abolished in this country becauseeventually enough people opposed it.Before that happened, from the time of the Greeks until the 19^thcentury, slavery was accepted by most people.Aristotle was slave owner, yet we don’t despise him the way we despise,for example, John C. Calhoon.

Joe Cosby

All Messages By This Member

#17839

How can it be right that there is no objective standard? If there is no objective standard, that must mean that there is nothing that is always wrong everywhere at all times. Which means that slavery must be OK under certain circ*mstances. Isn't that what your argument means?

What about rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment? Was Harvey Weinstein right that he should be excused for what he did because he was just living by the standards of the '70's and that he did not realize that standards had changed?

I think you are correct that you cannot prove anything to be morally right or wrong the same way that you can prove the existence of a Higgs boson, but all that means is that you can't use the scientific method to make the proof. The conclusion that I draw from that is epistemological -- that the scientific method is not the only way of knowing the truth.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17840

How can it be that there IS an objective standard? What is it?How can we know that we’ve found it?

Is abortion immoral? Or is denial of a woman’s right to chooseimmoral? What’s the objective standard? Ispre-marital sex objectively moral? Samesex marriage? Capital punishment?

A devout Muslim wouldconsider a woman wearing a bikini to be immoral. Is that objectively true? Is divorce immoral? People disagree.

Harvey Weinstein waswrong by your standards and mine, but in his lifetime and mine, and perhaps yours,with the possible exception of rape, these largely would have fallen under thecategory of “boys will be boys.” What’s happened is that society’s standardshave changed and the rules, which reflect that change, no longer approve of orpermit that kind of behavior. But as Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer said, he didn’tinvent the casting couch.

David Hume notes thatthere is a great deal of overlap in human beliefs regarding morals. These are where community moral standardscome from--we may disagree on abortion, but we agree that murder is wrong. Butthis simply reflects our common humanity--we agree on many things, but not onall. And our individual beliefs as tomorality, and therefore our collective beliefs, can and do change overtime. When change is in the direction welike, we see it as moral progress; when the reverse is the case, we deplore theworld going to hell in a hand basket.

Joe Cosby

All Messages By This Member

#17843

Good question, so let’s take it one step at a time. The first step isn’t to attempt to define a comprehensive objective standard that resolve every potential question. The first step is just to determine whether some objective standard must exist. If we conclude that it does for at least one situation, we examine it further to determine what the principle is, how broad it is, and what it covers (and whether there are more than one principles).

So returning to the question of whether an objective standard exists for any particular situation, let’s go back to Harvey Weinstein. I think your argument is that while his behavior might be wrong for you and me, it was OK for him because he thought it was OK. Is that a fair description of your argument?

If so, how far does it go? Weinstein was recently indicted for rape. Does your argument mean that if Weinstein thought rape that he is not morally culpable? And if he thought what he was doing was OK, even if it constituted rape, is it OK for the government to indict him, convict him, and put him in jail?

--Sent from my iPhone

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

On Jul 22, 2018, at 3:58 PM, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

How can it be that there IS an objective standard? What is it?How can we know that we’ve found it?
Is abortion immoral? Or is denial of a woman’s right to chooseimmoral? What’s the objective standard? Ispre-marital sex objectively moral? Samesex marriage? Capital punishment?
A devout Muslim wouldconsider a woman wearing a bikini to be immoral. Is that objectively true? Is divorce immoral? People disagree.
Harvey Weinstein waswrong by your standards and mine, but in his lifetime and mine, and perhaps yours,with the possible exception of rape, these largely would have fallen under thecategory of “boys will be boys.” What’s happened is that society’s standardshave changed and the rules, which reflect that change, no longer approve of orpermit that kind of behavior. But as Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer said, he didn’tinvent the casting couch.
David Hume notes thatthere is a great deal of overlap in human beliefs regarding morals. These are where community moral standardscome from--we may disagree on abortion, but we agree that murder is wrong. Butthis simply reflects our common humanity--we agree on many things, but not onall. And our individual beliefs as tomorality, and therefore our collective beliefs, can and do change overtime. When change is in the direction welike, we see it as moral progress; when the reverse is the case, we deplore theworld going to hell in a hand basket.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17844

I suspect that Weinsteindoesn’t think that much, if not all, of what he’s charged with doing is wrong.But that doesn’t matter. Enough of hisfellow citizens believe that it was wrong and have enacted those views intolaw. He isn’t charged with beingimmoral; he’s charged with violating the law. The law simply reflects thecollective moral beliefs of a large segment of the citizenry.

But the fact that the lawreflects the moral beliefs of a majority of the citizens doesn’t get to the question of where the moralbeliefs of the citizens come from. Forsome they come religion. For others, from ethical codes or standards they liveby. But these sources also differ. Not all religions prohibit the same thing.Private ethical beliefs are just that--private.So where do we get these private values?I think our values reflect what we approve or disapprove of. Conduct of which we approve--our own and thatof others--we call moral; that of which we disapprove we call immoral. And to the degree that we are able, we impose those views on the larger community whether they like it or not.

Joe Cosby

All Messages By This Member

#17845

Those are all good points but I think you are still missing the heart of the matter. Every time we discuss whether there is an objective standard for morality, you argue that people cannot agree on what that standard is. But I doubt you would make the same argument about the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson either exists or doesn’t exist — it hardly matters whether some people believe that it doesn’t exist, nor does it matter whether people disagree about exactly what it is or what it’s precise properties are.

I’m making the same argument about objective moral standards — that there are at least some types of behavior that are always and everywhere objectively morally wrong. I have suggested that rape is one such behavior.

At the risk of mischaracterizing your argument, you seem to be saying that (a) there is no objective moral standard and (b) whether something is right or wrong depends on the cultural (or legal norms) in the place and time where the act occurred. (Although I am particularly uncertain about whether (b) accurately states your position since you also said that what constituted sexual assault or harassment for you and me might not be sexual assault or harassment for Harvey Weinstein, which suggests that the morality of an act is entirely contingent on the individual’s understanding of right and wrong, not on social or legal norms.)

If I got that right, it raises at least one additional question. What about “The Handmaid’s Tale”? Is the rape that occurs in that story OK because it is socially and legally acceptable in the society in which it occurs?

--Sent from my iPhone

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

On Jul 22, 2018, at 9:22 PM, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

I suspect that Weinsteindoesn’t think that much, if not all, of what he’s charged with doing is wrong.But that doesn’t matter. Enough of hisfellow citizens believe that it was wrong and have enacted those views intolaw. He isn’t charged with beingimmoral; he’s charged with violating the law. The law simply reflects thecollective moral beliefs of a large segment of the citizenry.
But the fact that the lawreflects the moral beliefs of a majority of the citizens doesn’t get to the question of where the moralbeliefs of the citizens come from. Forsome they come religion. For others, from ethical codes or standards they liveby. But these sources also differ. Not all religions prohibit the same thing.Private ethical beliefs are just that--private.So where do we get these private values?I think our values reflect what we approve or disapprove of. Conduct of which we approve--our own and thatof others--we call moral; that of which we disapprove we call immoral. And to the degree that we are able, we impose those views on the larger community whether they like it or not.

media_40@hotmail.com

#17846

I take the very standard politically correct SJW (social justice warrior) view. The 'me2 movement' (which should be called 'Just Me' is mostly (50% as a start) just about asking for back wages.

Those people knew exactly what the contract or deal was. If they get on the 'casting couch ' and have skills they get a lucrative movie deal and becoome a 'star' at least for awhile. Later they decided they want 'back wages'. Weinstein made too much money.(I dont think ive ever seen a movie he has made---so dont need that--i have no thought about any of these hollywood people except that they are not my people. If they want to get into a religious or money war thats their issue. Only hollywod movies i like are charlie chaplin--maybe the weinstein of his day, and he got banned from the USA--died in swtizerland sicne he was banned.)

Supposedly somebody got 'hurt' (eg raped). I can't count how many people i know who have been raped or sexually abused. The crap produced by Hollywood is responsible for alot of this. (I remember one failed Hollywood actor who tired to pick me up when i was young and on the street in LA---he told me had AIDS and because i was over 16 and had nothing to lose---i was already 'over the hill'l so i might as well die from AIDS and i also owed it to him--i told him my grandma was older than him an she didnt think she had nothing to lose. . Also that i didnt owe him anything. and get out of my face2.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17847

I didn’t see theHandmaid’s tale so I can’t comment directly. But if there was a rape and if itwas socially and legally acceptable in the society in which it occurred, bywhat standard do we say it was or was not morally OK? It certainly would not be OK by ourstandards. But if it was OK by theirstandards, how do we say it was not OK other than by ours? That we prefer ours to theirs?

As I understand yourargument, you say that there are objective moral standards in the universe andthat they exist whether we know them or not.Some examples that have been mentioned are incest and slavery--allsocieties prohibit incest and we all know that slavery is wrong.

But it seems to me thatthese conclusions are dependent on time and place and people and their values.

Take incest, I assumethat it is true that all societies have incest taboos. But they sometimesdefine incest differently. For example,in Tsarist Russia (and maybe today for all I know) first cousins could bemarried. But two siblings from family Acould not marry two siblings from family B.Tolstoy doesn’t tell us why (my source is War and Peace which I’ve beenreading) but presumably, particularly for the nobility, first cousin marriageswere necessary given the scarcity of potential spouses. Their children would have one set ofgrandparents in common, but there would be four more grandparents that they didnot share. But if their children marrieda first cousin who was the offspring of their parents’ siblings, all four oftheir children’s grandparents would be the same.

This may have made a lotof sense in 19^th Century Russia, but not all societies follow thispractice. Generally, first cousinmarriages are prohibited, but marriages between pairs of siblings are OK. (From time to time we’ll see newspaperstories of double weddings where the Smith sisters married the Jones brothers.)

What is the objectivemoral standard involved? I don’t seeany.

Take slavery. There are today people on this planet who ownslaves. Fortunately, they are ashrinking minority. But the fact thatsome people today, and most people not that long ago, found nothing morallywrong with slavery -- e.g. the Jesuits at Georgetown University--would seem tonegate your argument that since, today, most people say slavery is immoralestablishes that there is an objective moral standard regarding slavery. Twocenturies ago, those who followed the structure of your argument would havebeen able to say that of course slavery is moral--it’s found in every societythat exists or has ever existed.

As a matter ofepistemology then, how do we know that there are objective moral standards thatexist independent of us? And, if thereare such standards, how do we know what they are?

John McGuinness

All Messages By This Member

#17848

Human nature -- or what it is like to be human -- offers a perspective on standards. A previous discussion on a closely related question, Why should we be good?" illustrates this line of thinking, predicated on the basis of a common sense of what it means to be human. This may be somewhat fuzzy at the boundaries, but it seems solid enough at the core. There clearly is a contingent aspect to morality, tied to social context, but at the same time some cultures are better than others, and arguably there is a progression (however halting) toward better rather than worse cultural contexts. But you can review the discussion for yourself. Here is a summary:

The discussion on July 11, 2015 ("Why should we be good?")generally followeda main outline of the theme as presented inopening remarks: we should be good because it's good for us."Every agent acts for an end which seems good to that agent." "Good" basically means "gives pleasure" or "provides enjoyment" to or for the agent.

In the primordial situation, more of a theoretical condition than an actual historical state, every agent focuses exclusively on pursuing self-interests. As a result, given the context in which human beings, as social animals, usually find themselves, every agent tends to engage in an unending struggle with every other agent, leading to constant, unconstrained competition and conflict. The pressures and discontents of such a life-style lead to the emergence of some degree of cooperation in developing and adopting guidelines for conduct for the sake of optimizing -- not maximizing -- enjoyment. These moral codes aim to optimize the enjoyment of any and all in the society, compared to the unrestrained conflict that would otherwise prevail.

Thus we should be good because, on balance, it offers the best chance of being good for us as individuals. However, some of our self-interests, including some very important to us, cannot be achieved outside a social context:

--sex

--reproduction

--communication/conversation/dialogue

--group efforts/shared efforts, or cooperation and collaboration (hard to build a bridge alone!)

--efficiency/progess/productivity, best pursued via division of labor/specialization

--etc. (see Maslow's Hierarchy of human needs/wants)

We are "nodal" creatures that are "wired" for connection and action in a network -- we cannot function properly, or flourish, in isolation.

We "owe it to" ourselves to cultivate healthy habits that maximize our potential for individual action(s), and we "owe it to" our fellows to develop the habits that maximize the chances for the most effective common action or cooperation. Such common action benefits each and everyone of us equitably, if not equally. In principle, each member of a society is better off as a result of the common actions carried out in accordance with a code of conduct devised, pursued and implemented by some suitably consensual process. This code defines or prescribes what constitutes being or doing good. Some precepts or guidelines seem straightforward or obvious -- don't kill, don't lie, don't steal -- by proscribing actions that are intrinsically bad; other rules are more nuanced, arising as societies grow in complexity, such as deciding which side of the road to drive on, or setting out basic requirements for courteous behavior, and are more matters of agreement on social convention.

All precepts or rules require constant refinement. No moral code is perfect, some are better than others, all can be improved. Even the best codes need adjustment over time as circ*mstances change. Serious people stay engaged in the process of examining, refining and adjusting social standards of conduct.

There was no agreement on whether or not morality or codes of conduct were intrinsically rational in some sense, or merely practical adjustments to circ*mstances in the interest of improving prospects for survival. If there were a rational basis for morality, "ought" would entail "can," but this is clearly not always the case for moral precepts. On the other hand, moral precepts seem to arise from human nature or basic needs or desires, so in that sense are rational, though the "needs" thus addressed are not like the need for water which justifies seeking for and drinking water. Moral needs are more nuanced and dependent on differing social contexts.

The role of conscience seemed important to a few commentators, but that role is not easy to define. It may be a fourth dimension of human agency, along with behavior (action), thinking (reason or rationality), and feeling (emotion). Conscience acts as a guide, but it is not given at the outset of anyone's life; it must be developed over time and in response to circ*mstances. That opens conscience to possible variations, relative to individuals, and thus not necessarily reliable.

Altruistic societies are or tend to be more successful than those that cater strongly to individualism at the expense of public goods, but selfish individualists can flourish in altruistic societies at the expense of those who are more cooperative or "moral." All the same, the clear value of being good or generally conforming to social precepts and expectations leads to predictability as a prevailing norm and thus the greatest benefits to all as a result of stable governance. There is a kind of social contract that arises in every functioning society: if you live in a community, its members will rightly insist on your conformity with the rules of conduct that make that community a social unit rather than a mere aggregation of individuals. You are, of course, in principle free to leave that community or to work to change the rules, butit is "bad" just to ignore or flout the rules.

An individual might be said to have an emotional obligation to be good -- it makes us feel better to be good than to be bad. Humans are born with a propensity to be moral, much as they are born with a propensity to learn language. It is part of the basic make-up of a human being. Morality must have at least implicitly rational aspects if it is able tosuggest whatmay bemost conducive to a society's success; the survival value of certain general patterns of behavior may then lead to evolution's favoring those behaviors, and this tendency may show up in predispositions or "sentiments" intrinsic to human beings. However, just following moral sentiments or instincts may lead to confusions or contradictions that require explicitly rational intervention.

All in all, there seemed to be general agreement that being good/doing good tends to produce the most beneficial outcome that is possible under a given set of circ*mstances. The degree of intrinsic (as opposed to practical or pragmatic) rationality seemed to be a matter of disagreement, whether about the principle of rationality itself or the definition of rationality. Nobody advocated bad acting or free riding or quirky disruptiveness as a worthwhile course of action. All thus agreed to be moral, though all didnot necessarily agree on exactly why.

On ‎Monday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎15‎:‎24‎ ‎AM, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue]

But it seems to me thatthese conclusions are dependent on time and place and people and their values.

What is the objectivemoral standard involved? I don’t seeany.

As a matter ofepistemology then, how do we know that there are objective moral standards thatexist independent of us? And, if thereare such standards, how do we know what they are?

Bob Aldrich

All Messages By This Member

#17849

This is an interesting and illuminating exchange. Although the overarching issue of whether there are objective moral standards gets debated here every few months, in various contexts, it never seems to get resolved.

The main problem with the subjectivist position is its implication that morality is a fiction. It might be a fiction, but if so, why do people treat it, in practice, as something real? If we admit that morality is a fiction, it loses its moral force. There ends up being no essential difference between morality and taste, or fashion.

On the other hand, the main problem with the objectivist position is the relative lack of agreement about either the method or the results of moral inquiry.

If we compare the realms of morals and of nature, we see that there are significant differences that pose major epistemological challenges. Natural laws and facts aren’t really any different for humans than for other animals. We’re all subject to the same rules of gravity, electricity, genetics, etc.

But morality, as far as we know, is a distinctly human construct.

To the extent that animals can be said to have “moral” values, or values of any kind, they are determined by the imperatives of survival and reproduction. It is only humans (as far as we know) for whom the question arises whether there are alternative values that should take precedence in determining our actions.

And moral rules are different from natural laws in another respect. We can’t choose whether to obey the laws of gravity, etc. To the extent we are “bound” by moral rules, it’s a soft form of “binding,” in that humans can choose not to be guided by them, or to be guided by an alternative set of rules.

If morality is a human construct, and yet is binding in some sense, ie, more than a matter of taste, how is it binding? Is it like a game we have invented? A crossword is a human construct, and yet there is only one, objective solution to each puzzle. Chess is just a game invented by humans, but chess moves can be objectively good or bad. Perhaps morality is also a game invented by humans, one where we know what the possible moves are, and we believe that various moves can be objectively good or bad, but where the outcomes - the results of possible moves - and even the overall purpose - what represents “winning” or”losing” - aren’t easy to discern.

When confronted with a game that is so difficult to define, much less master, one may be tempted to say, “forget it, I’ll make whatever moves I want.” That’s the subjectivist position.

The objectivist position could be expressed as: “yes, this is a mysterious and difficult game, but it’s not a pointless one. There are good and bad moves, but they vary depending on the ‘board position’ - the circ*mstances you find yourself in.” There are overarching principles - categorical imperative, etc. - but the application of those principles will often be, and should be, different in different times and places. For example, the set of moral rules most appropriate for an affluent society may be quite different from those of an undeveloped society in which the necessities of life are extremely scarce.

Bob

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

On Jul 22, 2018, at 7:53 PM, Gmail jgcosby7327@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

--Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2018, at 3:58 PM, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

How can it be that there IS an objective standard? What is it?How can we know that we’ve found it?
Is abortion immoral? Or is denial of a woman’s right to chooseimmoral? What’s the objective standard? Ispre-marital sex objectively moral? Samesex marriage? Capital punishment?
A devout Muslim wouldconsider a woman wearing a bikini to be immoral. Is that objectively true? Is divorce immoral? People disagree.
Harvey Weinstein waswrong by your standards and mine, but in his lifetime and mine, and perhaps yours,with the possible exception of rape, these largely would have fallen under thecategory of “boys will be boys.” What’s happened is that society’s standardshave changed and the rules, which reflect that change, no longer approve of orpermit that kind of behavior. But as Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer said, he didn’tinvent the casting couch.
David Hume notes thatthere is a great deal of overlap in human beliefs regarding morals. These are where community moral standardscome from--we may disagree on abortion, but we agree that murder is wrong. Butthis simply reflects our common humanity--we agree on many things, but not onall. And our individual beliefs as tomorality, and therefore our collective beliefs, can and do change overtime. When change is in the direction welike, we see it as moral progress; when the reverse is the case, we deplore theworld going to hell in a hand basket.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17851

I don’t think that thesubjectivist position implies that morality is fiction. A subjectivist, e.g., Hume, would say thatour moral feelings are a fact. It is alsoa fact that there is great overlap in our feelings, overlap that permits us touse our collective power to enforce them whether a minority agrees or not.

But to say that there isgreat overlap in our feelings (moral sensibilities) is not to say that there iscomplete agreement. Most of us agreethat murder is wrong, but many disagree as to what we should do with themurderer. Is it moral to execute the murderer? Perhaps Exhibit A on the matterof disagreement is abortion. Consider two objectivists who disagree as to the morality of abortion. How does one of them "prove" the other is wrong? Certainly not in the way that one physicist may "prove" to another that the Higgs boson exists. In what other way then?

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17850

I don’t think that thesubjectivist position implies that morality is fiction. A subjectivist, e.g., Hume, would say thatour moral feelings are fact. It is alsoa fact that there is great overlap in our feelings, overlap that permits us touse our collective power to enforce them whether a minority agrees or not.

But to say that there isgreat overlap in our feelings (moral sensibilities) is not to say that there iscomplete agreement. Most of us agreethat murder is wrong, but many disagree as to what we should do with themurderer. Perhaps Exhibit A on the matterof disagreement is abortion. Consider two objectivists who disagree with eachother on abortion. How does one convincethe other? Certainly not in the way thata physicist would try to convince another physicist that the Higgs bosonexists.

dpalmeter@comcast.net

#17852

Apologies for the multiple postings. I wrote the first one and tried to send it. Nothing seemed to happen, so I hit sent again. A while later, when it still hadn't appeared, I tried to recall the first and wrote what I could remember. Same thing--nothing seemed to happen. Next time, I'll try not to be so impatient.

anonymous_bo

All Messages By This Member

#17853

Ironically and unfortunately I think this topic is being treated too philosophically for its own good. We do not need to have a consensus on objective vs subjective morality as a prerequisite any more than we need to first prove that profit ontologically exists. I proposed this topic and I wasn't looking for such stringent demonstration. The point of this topic can very fairly be treated based on modalities. For example, "Given the belief that...this much or type of profit is immoral because...". As has been brought up with abortion we have at least two conflicting moral systems but there are still boundaries relative to each moral system. Likewise, this topic invites one to consider and challenge that if they believe a given IS moral, then do they also believe there is no limit on profit or does it follow given their belief that there is a moral limit to profit.

Anthony

--------------------------------------------

toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

On Wed, 7/25/18, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: [cafephilodcdialogue] Re: How much profit is immoral?
To: cafephilodcdialogue@...
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 10:45 AM

I don’t think that the
subjectivist position implies that morality is
fiction. A subjectivist, e.g., Hume, would
say that
our moral feelings are a fact. It is also
a fact that there is great overlap in our feelings, overlap
that permits us to
use our collective power to enforce them whether a minority
agrees or not.

But to say that there is
great overlap in our feelings (moral sensibilities) is not
to say that there is
complete agreement. Most of us agree
that murder is wrong, but many disagree as to what we should
do with the
murderer. Is it moral to execute the murderer?
Perhaps Exhibit A on the matter
of disagreement is abortion. Consider two objectivists who
disagree as to the morality of abortion. How does one of
them "prove" the other is wrong? Certainly not
in the way that one physicist may "prove" to
another that the Higgs boson exists. In what other way
then?

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892 --
#yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp #yiv2922959892hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp #yiv2922959892ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp .yiv2922959892ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp .yiv2922959892ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mkp .yiv2922959892ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2922959892ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2922959892ygrp-lc #yiv2922959892hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2922959892ygrp-lc .yiv2922959892ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892activity span
.yiv2922959892underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 dd.yiv2922959892last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 dd.yiv2922959892last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 dd.yiv2922959892last p
span.yiv2922959892yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892file-title a, #yiv2922959892
div.yiv2922959892file-title a:active, #yiv2922959892
div.yiv2922959892file-title a:hover, #yiv2922959892
div.yiv2922959892file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892photo-title a,
#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892photo-title a:active,
#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892photo-title a:hover,
#yiv2922959892 div.yiv2922959892photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 div#yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv2922959892ygrp-msg p a span.yiv2922959892yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv2922959892 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;min-height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv2922959892 .yiv2922959892replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv2922959892 input, #yiv2922959892 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv2922959892
code {
font:115% monospace;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2922959892logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-msg
p#yiv2922959892attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-reco
#yiv2922959892reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor #yiv2922959892ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor #yiv2922959892ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-sponsor #yiv2922959892ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}

#yiv2922959892 #yiv2922959892ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv2922959892

Bob Aldrich

All Messages By This Member

#17854

Anthony,

OK, my last post is hereby withdrawn (to be reposted at an appropriate time). 🤫

Bob

On Jul 26, 2018, at 12:59 AM, Anthony Gutierrez anonymous_bo@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote:

Anthony

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/25/18, dpalmeter@... [cafephilodcdialogue] <cafephilodcdialogue@...> wrote: