Should Morals Be Judged In A Cultural Context?

[Eduk]

She may, in fact, still be applying principles of the Golden Rule and empathy. She may well understand that the child would suffer agonies but that she would be helping her child in the long term because, by driving out the demons, that child would not longer suffer agonies in the after life.

Are you saying that morally she is ok because she truly believes demons have possessed her son? I presume in the real world you would still like to see social services getting involved, possible court dates etc? It's just that morally she is in the clear?

[Iapetus]

Reply to Eduk:

I think morals have evolved based off of natural selection (or to put it another way I believe in evolution). I also think they are more than just a system which increases the chance of living from generation to generation (for genes).

I accept the concept of evolution. I don’t think it is anything like sufficient to attribute ‘morality’ to gene adaptation/change/evolution. I don’t want to get into a profound discussion about this but I think the development of language is crucial to the concept of morality. We could then, I suppose, call up the evolution of ‘memes’ – as proposed by Richard Dawkins - and I find that interesting. Dawkins has also proposed an explanation for how altruism can aid gene perpetuation. It is interesting and, in many ways, convincing, though I don’t think it is the end of the story.

I think morals are best described as a system which best ensures all life (in the universe) can survive.

I don’t agree with that at all. I would not apply ‘morality’ to any life form that we know about apart from humans. Life has got by without ‘morality’ and has prospered for billions of years. I do accept that it is part of a survival strategy for social living.

But you have to start with an axiom somewhere, you have to define that life is good (for example). If life is good then much follows and much differences of opinion can be unravelled.

I don’t define life as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Life is. One day it won’t be.

[Fooloso4]

Iapetus,

First, I see that you have not responded to my last post where I pointed out that despite everything you have been saying you made the judgment that an action was immoral despite the intentions of the actor. Although you took the motivation of the actor into consideration, it did not change your assessment of the action.

But instead of addressing this you revert to asking questions about things that have already been covered.

A car – driven by a person – dislodges a stone which blinds a pedestrian. Is the action of hitting the stone with the car a moral or an immoral action?

Neither. Not all actions are moral actions.

A golf ball – driven by a person – lands in a wedding cake. The newlyweds consider this highly amusing and everybody has a good laugh. Is the action of striking the golf ball a moral or an immoral action?

Neither. Not all actions are moral actions.

Would the morality of the action change if the newlyweds reacted badly to the golf ball landing in the cake?

Nope.

A bridge collapses during maintenance procedures. People are killed. Is the collapse of the bridge, in itself, a moral or an immoral action?

Neither. Not all actions are moral actions.

The space shuttle, Columbia, burns up on re-entry and all the crew die. Is the action of flying the shuttle a moral or an immoral action? Or of building the shuttle in the first place?

Neither and neither. Not all actions are moral actions.

The construction of a stone jetty creates a protective harbour to the east but depletes a holiday resort of beach sand a kilometer further along. Is the action of building the jetty a moral or an immoral action?

Not enough information.

Turning on a heater warms up a room. Is this a moral or an immoral action?

Neither. Not all actions are moral actions.

How can what your 'criteria' help to assess these actions?

In the only case that might involve moral considerations, we would weigh the benefits and harms of constructing the jetty. A willful and deliberate disregard for the well-being and rights of those affected must be shown. Whether the harm is a moral or a legal harm or both requires more information.

How, then, do you judge the actions described above without involving the ‘moral agents’ who made them?

Except in the case of building the jetty I do not see any moral issues involved and so we do not have to consider moral agency.

You have defined a ‘moral agent’ as, “someone competent to reason and deliberate about moral choices”.
But you seem to regard that ‘competence’ as a given; something which is known. But it is not; it has to be assessed. A decision – a judgement - has to be made. That is part of the moral assessment.

Competence is a given, that is, the norm. An assessment of competence is made only when a question is raised about the competency of an individual. Competence is not a moral assessment. It is a legal and medical assessment. The assessment of competency extends to all decisions, not just moral decisions.

If, after examination, the instigator of the action is found to be not competent of understanding the moral implications then, clearly, they cannot be judged to be ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’. But they will have undergone a ‘moral’ assessment.

The moral assessment is based on the legal and/or medical assessment of competency. Competency is about all decision making not just moral decision making. A moral assessment of the culpability of the person is made on the basis of the determination that the person is not competent.

The findings of the assessment will be that, as a result of lack of competence the ‘actor’ will be judged neither moral nor immoral. But the finding or ‘neither moral nor immoral’ does not necessarily depend on competence.

Of course the finding of ‘neither moral nor immoral’ depends on competency. It is because the actor is not competent that we do not judge him to be morally responsible for his actions.

It might also apply in relation to an accident or of being forced, through threats, to take a particular action.

Right, there are circumstances in which we are not held responsible for our actions, cases in which we do not have a choice.

‘Moral’ or ‘immoral’ are not the only judgement options available.

Why are you bringing this up now? We both made the distinction at the beginning of the discussion between a wrong and a moral wrong.

People make informal ‘moral’ judgements every day. They decide for themselves whether or not somebody is capable of taking responsibility for an action, on the basis of limited information available to them. But, like it or not, an assessment has been made.

The issue of moral assessment is not whether or not people make such assessments, it is obvious that they do. The issue is what we must take into consideration for a proper moral assessment.

The assessment of competence was not separate; it was integral.

The assessment of competence was integral to the question of their culpability. The court was not deciding the question of whether it is immoral to murder and torture a two year old child.

The readers of those newpapers, no doubt, made their own judgements and interpretations.

Yes, no doubt people make their own judgments. Are you claiming that morality is whatever anyone says it is? If not, what is the point?

So where are your exceptions? Competence, as I explained, is an essential part of any moral assessment.

Competence is the norm. Incompetence is the exception.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Eduk:

Are you saying that morally she is ok because she truly believes demons have possessed her son?

I didn’t say anything about her being ‘morally OK’. I told you that I think she is crazy. And the main reason I think she is crazy is her belief in demons, which leads her to cause untold suffering to her child. I have made my ‘moral’ assessment. It is not the same as hers.

I presume in the real world you would still like to see social services getting involved, possible court dates etc?

I don’t know where you live but I live in a country where, regardless of belief, child torture is illegal and I am very glad that it is. I would, of course, want social services involved. I would want the child protected. I would want assurances that the mother might not be free to beat other children. But, for the protection of other children, I would certainly want to understand what motivated the mother to beat her child.

If, however, we lived in a rural area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, the situation might be very different. My ‘moral’ position might well be regarded as eccentric, even unacceptable. My options for protecting the child might well be very restricted.

In many areas of the Middle East, a widespread ‘solution’ to rape of a woman is for the rapist to marry the woman. That concept appalls me but it is justified and is even accepted as ‘moral’ within that particular society. What do you suggest I should do about it? The best I can offer is to learn as much as I can about the custom and try to understand its justifications but to also make sure that the such behaviour never becomes accepted where it is not already.

It's just that morally she is in the clear?

That depends on what you mean by ‘in the clear’. In ‘western’ countries she has committed a grave crime. Probably not in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I have a ‘moral’ objection to her behaviour. Others may not.

[Eduk]

That depends on what you mean by ‘in the clear’. In ‘western’ countries she has committed a grave crime. Probably not in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I have a ‘moral’ objection to her behaviour. Others may not.

If you believe it is morally unacceptable then what is your point? I agree other people may believe it is morally unacceptable, but those people are wrong and you agree they are wrong?
I am struggling to pin point your exact meaning.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Fooloso4:

First, I see that you have not responded to my last post where I pointed out that despite everything you have been saying you made the judgment that an action was immoral despite the intentions of the actor. Although you took the motivation of the actor into consideration, it did not change your assessment of the action.

When, after many requests, I finally persuaded you to explain to me your criteria for judging actions independently of the actors, I received two sentences and it was, as I said, like getting blood out of a stone. When you asked me for criteria by which I might judge the torture of children, I freely offered more than 2,000 words. But, because I was providing so much information, I knew you would use it to try to change the tack of the conversation. And you proved me right. So I preceded it with this: “I don’t dodge questions. So I shall respond to your questions about child torture, to demonstrate that I can. But, since you have written so little when I have requested relevant information from you, I do not intend to engage in discussion with you about what follows. I have lost faith that it will produce anything fruitful”.

Either you did not read it or you ignored it.

So, to remind you of your ‘criteria’:

… whether an action promotes or decreases the well-being of those affected by the action. One’s well-being involves such things as having basic needs satisfied and enjoying a degree of freedom to choose and act without undue harm to others.

I offered you a range of scenarios to discover how you would apply these criteria to judge the actions independently of the people who initiated them. It is not the case that I was asking the same questions as before. They were scenarios designed to test the ‘criteria’ you have finally provided.

I guessed that you wouldn’t use the criteria and – sure enough – you didn’t. I assumed that you would give very brief responses which offered little by way of explanation and that is what you provided. Your glib response was:

Not all actions are moral actions.

I know that. If it was the case that no action can be judged independently of the initiator, then I would have expected a row of ‘not moral’ responses. And that is what I got. What I would like to know is if any actions – independent of their initiators – can be assessed morally. This was the ideal opportunity for you to suggest something positive for a change and to offer examples of when they can be judged independently. This would also be a straightforward way of explaining how your ‘criteria’ could be applied. I thought that you might leap at the opportunity (I didn’t really …).

But you didn’t. You would wait until I have to squeeze it out of you. You would not offer information freely, as I would.

In the case of the jetty you tried a wriggle:

A willful and deliberate disregard for the well-being and rights of those affected must be shown.

But that would involve investigating the intentions and motivations of the builders of the jetty. Which contradicts the idea of independence.

Except in the case of building the jetty I do not see any moral issues involved and so we do not have to consider moral agency.

Of course not. Because there are none. We cannot divorce the actions from their initiators. You seem to be going out of your way to prove my point.

So let’s examine your ‘criteria’. I can’t see how they are useful and neither, apparently, can you. You suggest that an action’s ‘morality’ can be judged if:

an action promotes or decreases the well-being of those affected by the action.

According to that criterion, if the golf ball landing in the cake made the newlyweds happy, then the action should be considered ‘moral’. According to that criterion, if the golf ball landing in the cake made the newlyweds unhappy, then the action should be considered ‘immoral’. That is not, however, how you judged it.

According to that criterion, the action of the space shuttle exploding in flight, which killed seven people, caused grief to millions and set back the space programme, should be considered ‘immoral’. But that is not how you judged it.

One’s well-being involves such things as having basic needs satisfied …

But when a pedestrian is blinded by a stone flicked up from a car, no moral judgement is made.

It seems that “the well-being of those affected by the action” has absolutely no impact on the ‘moral judgement’ even though, according to your criteria, it should.

So what is the point of your criteria?!!!

Competence is a given, that is, the norm. An assessment of competence is made only when a question is raised about the competency of an individual. Competence is not a moral assessment. It is a legal and medical assessment. The assessment of competency extends to all decisions, not just moral decisions.

How or why would you raise an issue about competency if you did not have suspicions based on some form of assessment? Are you seriously trying to tell me that ‘moral assessments’ never make use of legal or medical opinion? Switching off a life support machine, for example? Are you trying to tell me that, in making a ‘moral assessment’, we should not make use of the maximum possible relevant information? Are all your moral judgements based on official legal and medical assessments, or do you tend, like all the rest of the world, to make judgements based on what information is available?

The moral assessment is based on the legal and/or medical assessment of competency. Competency is about all decision making not just moral decision making. A moral assessment of the culpability of the person is made on the basis of the determination that the person is not competent.

Then why do you continue to avoid like the plague the example of the James Bulger case, where judgement of competency was an integral part of the process? And where that judgement was modified subsequently? If the judgements were based on reason, the arguments presented were related to the moral significance of judging children by adult standards.

I suggested ‘Moral’ or ‘immoral’ are not the only judgement options available. There was also ‘neither moral nor immoral’.

Why are you bringing this up now? We both made the distinction at the beginning of the discussion between a wrong and a moral wrong.

I though that you wrote; “I agree that ‘wrong’ does not always mean ‘immoral’”. That does not mean the same thing as you suggested. I find your question somewhat ironic when you have tried to argue that “Not all actions are moral actions”.

The issue of moral assessment is not whether or not people make such assessments, it is obvious that they do. The issue is what we must take into consideration for a proper moral assessment.

The issue is exactly that people make moral assessments every day. Whether or not we agree with those assessments, people speak and act on the basis of those assessments. And those assessments hardly ever involve all the relevant information. No matter how hard we try to refine those assessments, there will be people who disagree with them. You have not stated what is required for a ‘proper moral assessment’ and I very much doubt that you are able to do so, particularly when your ‘criteria’ are so lacking in stringency.

Yes, no doubt people make their own judgments. Are you claiming that morality is whatever anyone says it is? If not, what is the point?

I am claiming that morality is subjective. I have already stated that I know of no demonstration that an ‘objective’ morality exists which is worthy of the name. Groups of people may find common agreement about some judgements, particularly if they can make reference to an authority on which they agree, such as a divine entity or a holy book. But, even then, they end up disagreeing, about moral and non-moral judgements. Is God the same authority as Allah? Who knows? Do you?

Competence is the norm. Incompetence is the exception.

A nice, relatively meaningless point to end on.


Fooloso, I have persisted with this, even though it is a struggle to glean even the most basic information from you. You have claimed that an action can be judged morally without reference to the initiator of the action. But you have given me no examples to help me understand this claim, even though you have had plenty of opportunity to do so.

I have asked and asked again about how you would make such a judgement and you have wriggled. I eventually got two sentences from you which, as far as I could see, were no use at all. When given an opportunity to demonstrate their validity, you failed to do so. In fact, you made no reference to them. You insisted that the examples I offered were not moral actions. I agree. But you could not suggest any which were, which rather defeats the purpose of the claim.

You seem to think that all moral judgments must be made in an official setting, where separate assessments are made by professionals. That is not how the world works. Yet you have been extremely reluctant to engage in any meaningful discussion about a genuine case where this type of procedure operated. You have used your fixation with competence – which I introduced – to cover up shortcomings in your explanations.

I have had enough. I have contributed nearly all of the examples and very much more than my share of detailed explanations. I have not dodged questions except when it was clear that they were off the line of our discussions and I explained when that was the case. But this could go on forever. I am bored, so I am ending it here.

-- Updated 27 Apr 2017, 22:14 to add the following --

Reply to Eduk:

If you believe it is morally unacceptable then what is your point? I agree other people may believe it is morally unacceptable, but those people are wrong and you agree they are wrong? I am struggling to pin point your exact meaning.

I believe that it is morally unacceptable; I think I have made that clear. I also said that my morality is subjective. It didn’t say that the woman’s view was wrong. But I disagree with it. My disagreement is based on the opinion that demons don’t exist. I can’t prove that demons don’t exist. She believes that they do. Which is why she believes that demons need to be ‘exorcised’. She believes that she is doing good by exorcising the demons. If I arranged for her to be punished for doing what she believes to be right, then she would believe that I was the immoral one. My best hope would be to convince her that demons don’t exist. That is not easy.

[Spectrum]

Reply to Spectrum:

My intended point using the link as support was to state that subject 'Morality' is different from the 'Legislature & Judiciary' established by politicians.
What is happening in courts is Judges must judge objectively in accordance to enacted Laws and nothing else. The judiciary has nothing to do with Morality per-se [as in Philosophy of Morality] directly.

It may well have a great deal to do with morality. As I explained, cases often come to court as a result of differences in interpretation of ‘morality’. It is one of the duties of the judiciary to abritrate over such differences. Arguments may be ‘moral’ in nature but you are right in suggesting that the final judgement should be judicial rather than moral.

Your approach to 'morality' [your own definition] is too subjective thus as I had stated too loose with moving and broken goal posts.

In addition, to discuss the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics you should have sufficient background knowledge and views of the main players [philosophers] in this subject.

Have you the vaguest idea of my background knowledge? Are you assuming that yours is superior? If so, then that is unjustified and overweaning arrogance.

Re; mentioning Kant;
Why not, I stated I am very familiar with Kant's philosophy [slightly rusty but can easily polished up if need to] and my views on morality are based on Kant's. So why should I not mention Kant?

So you have read books on Kant. Well done. I hope it has helped you. So if I mention Karl Popper, Richard Feynman and Tommy Cooper, does that give you a clearer picture of my views on life, the universe and everything?

Richard Feynman and Tommy Cooper [which?] are probably part-time philosophers.
I am very familiar with Karl Popper [specialty was Philosophy of Science and Politics]. He was involved in some aspects of morality but he is not notable in the Philosophy of Morality.

Philosophers who are heavily involved in Morality are;
1. Henry Sedgwick
2. Kant
3. Hume
4. John Stuart Mills
5. Nietzsche
6. Spinoza
7. Jeremy Bentham
8. R. M. Hare
9. Peter Singer
10. others

My morality is my morality. It is subjective. Your morality is your morality. It is probably very different from mine. What is your problem with ‘subjective’? If you make an assessment of my morality, then you had better be able to back it up with reasoned argument or you are demonstrating your own prejudice. And you have offered no reasoned argument.

Your views of what is morality is way out from the norms of Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
Suggest you take a course or do more research on this subject.

It may well have a great deal to do with morality. As I explained, cases often come to court as a result of differences in interpretation of ‘morality’. It is one of the duties of the judiciary to arbitrate over such differences. Arguments may be ‘moral’ in nature but you are right in suggesting that the final judgement should be judicial rather than moral.

The final judgment of an established judiciary system is judicial and cannot be moral. Thus a judicial decisions are grounded on enacted Laws by a specific governance system.

The question is what are the enacted Laws grounded on?
In a democratic system, Laws are supposedly formulated by Lawmakers elected by the majority. The quality is such Laws are thus dependent on the moral quality of the majority.
A dictatorial government will have laws in accordance to the whims of the dictator, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
The above 'moral' values will thus shift as when the governments and the feelings of the people changes.

The only near-permanent ground for moral at present are the theistic moral model, i.e. the moral authority is fixed to what God said so in the holy texts. Evidently such moral system is weak, albeit effective to some extent.

Thus there is a need to find a moral system that promote values that are universally good and grounded on absolute good.
I am proposing this is a possibility based on the Kantian Moral & Ethical theories.

As suggested, you need to brush up on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, then you can argue and propose your own principles of subjective-morality as better in contrast to the others.

[Eduk]

The only near-permanent ground for moral at present are the theistic moral model, i.e. the moral authority is fixed to what God said so in the holy texts. Evidently such moral system is weak, albeit effective to some extent.

That's not accurate. Religious texts change all the time. Plus interpretation changes even more often. Plus saying something is moral and something being moral are two different things. You need to have a reasonable belief that said texts were accurate and your interpretation was accurate before you could say it was reasonable to base morals on them.

[Spectrum]

Reply to Eduk

I can't conceive of Spectrum's absolute moral laws. There seems no practical way to get to them?

Where did I ever propose associating absolute moral laws with the practical.
The theoretical and practical are two distinct referents.

• Analogy:
  Are you aware in the field of geometry a perfect circle exists and can be defined.
  The perfect circle is defined based on the intellect and reason?
  Do you deny the above?
  
  While a perfect circle is merely an ideal and theoretical, such a standard is used to measure a circle in the practical.
  Thus when creating a circle for whatever practical purpose, one will use the perfect definition of what is a circle to create a circle.
  Whatever is a circle created in the practical world can never be a perfect circle.
  The most we can get is a near-perfect circle.
  
  If there is no standard definition for a circle, then everyone will claim their own measurements are a circle and all sorts of disputes will arise.

Now you tell me why we cannot apply the same process from the above analogy to Pure Morality and Applied Ethics?

-- Updated Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:44 am to add the following --

Reply to Eduk

I can't conceive of Spectrum's absolute moral laws. There seems no practical way to get to them?

Where did I ever propose associating absolute moral laws with the practical.
The theoretical and practical are two distinct referents.

• Analogy:
  Are you aware in the field of geometry a perfect circle exists and can be defined.
  The perfect circle is defined based on the intellect and reason?
  Do you deny the above?
  
  While a perfect circle is merely an ideal and theoretical, such a standard is used to measure a circle in the practical.
  Thus when creating a circle for whatever practical purpose, one will use the perfect definition of what is a circle to create a circle.
  Whatever is a circle created in the practical world can never be a perfect circle.
  The most we can get is a near-perfect circle.
  
  If there is no standard definition for a circle, then everyone will claim their own measurements are a circle and all sorts of disputes will arise.

Now you tell me why we cannot apply the same process from the above analogy to Pure Morality and Applied Ethics?

-- Updated Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:55 am to add the following --

The only near-permanent ground for moral at present are the theistic moral model, i.e. the moral authority is fixed to what God said so in the holy texts. Evidently such moral system is weak, albeit effective to some extent.

That's not accurate. Religious texts change all the time. Plus interpretation changes even more often. Plus saying something is moral and something being moral are two different things. You need to have a reasonable belief that said texts were accurate and your interpretation was accurate before you could say it was reasonable to base morals on them.

Interpretations do change but the principles in the Torah, Bible, Quran are supposed to be immutable thus fixed as words of God.

Note what is moral in this case is qualified to the specific 'moral' box.
For each believer, what is stated in their adopted religion is the perfect moral as so claimed by their God.
Of course outside the box, it is a free for all and each will claim the others are evil rather than good.

The point is outside the various boxes, how can humans determine what and whose moral-ethical system is good?
This is why one need Philosophy of Morality to determined what is good [absolutely and relatively] on an objective and rational basis.

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:

It may well have a great deal to do with morality. As I explained, cases often come to court as a result of differences in interpretation of ‘morality’. It is one of the duties of the judiciary to arbitrate over such differences. Arguments may be ‘moral’ in nature but you are right in suggesting that the final judgement should be judicial rather than moral.

The final judgment of an established judiciary system is judicial and cannot be moral. Thus a judicial decisions are grounded on enacted Laws by a specific governance system.

The question is what are the enacted Laws grounded on?
In a democratic system, Laws are supposedly formulated by Lawmakers elected by the majority. The quality is such Laws are thus dependent on the moral quality of the majority.
A dictatorial government will have laws in accordance to the whims of the dictator, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
The above 'moral' values will thus shift as when the governments and the feelings of the people changes.

The only near-permanent ground for moral at present are the theistic moral model, i.e. the moral authority is fixed to what God said so in the holy texts. Evidently such moral system is weak, albeit effective to some extent.

Thus there is a need to find a moral system that promote values that are universally good and grounded on absolute good.
I am proposing this is a possibility based on the Kantian Moral & Ethical theories.

As suggested, you need to brush up on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, then you can argue and propose your own principles of subjective-morality as better in contrast to the others.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

I concur with all of this. I would ask Spectrum to justify "Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE" from a practical, sociopsychological point of view, please Spectrum.

[Eduk]

The point is outside the various boxes, how can humans determine what and whose moral-ethical system is good?

Well as soon as you demonstrate your moral codes are based on unreasonable beliefs doesn't that in some way invalidate them? Again saying something is immoral and believing something is immoral does not mean something actually is immoral

[Belindi]

The point is outside the various boxes, how can humans determine what and whose moral-ethical system is good?

Well as soon as you demonstrate your moral codes are based on unreasonable beliefs doesn't that in some way invalidate them? Again saying something is immoral and believing something is immoral does not mean something actually is immoral

I don't know who you are quoting, eduk, but the quote expresses the central problem.

Power is what rules which moral-ethical system is good. Let's hope that power is expressed by reasoned negotiation not warfare.

[Eduk]

But again no. Just because a moral system is enforced doesn't mean it is correct or good.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Spectrum:

Your views of what is morality is way out from the norms of Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.
Suggest you take a course or do more research on this subject.

Spectrum, it appears that you lack the wit to grasp the simplest of ironies. If you look up ‘Tommy Cooper’, then you might get an inkling. But probably not. I couldn’t care less who you think are the greatest philosophers. My morality does not depend on them or on you. If you think that ‘philosophy’ is solely concerned with what can be learned from ’philosophers’, then you and I think differently. And none of this forms any sort of reasoned response to my criticisms of your ‘system’. But it appears that you are incapable of a reasoned response. Your alternative strategy is to name Kant, as if that means something significant. It doesn’t.

Your outrageous arrogance precedes you. You have no idea what I studied at university, nor subsequently. You have no idea what constitute my life’s experiences. You have no idea how that translates into my personal philosophy. I could, of course, “do more research on this subject”, as could you and everybody else on the planet. But if these are the sort of comments to which you are reduced, then you are not worthy of further discussion.

[Fooloso4]

Iapetus:

I guessed that you wouldn’t use the criteria and – sure enough – you didn’t.

I do not use criteria for moral judgment in cases where there is no moral issue. Can you identify any moral issues it the cases you provided?

If it was the case that no action can be judged independently of the initiator, then I would have expected a row of ‘not moral’ responses. And that is what I got.

This makes no sense. I did not say ‘not moral’ I said that they do not raise moral issues. What moral issues do you think they raise? It is as if you showed me a picture of a rhinoceros and insisted I explain why it’s an elephant.

What I would like to know is if any actions – independent of their initiators – can be assessed morally.

Yes, I have said so many times.

This was the ideal opportunity for you to suggest something positive for a change and to offer examples of when they can be judged independently.

I have provided several examples. I challenged you to provide an example of when the act of torturing children is a moral action or an action that does not raise a moral issue. You told me what some people have done, but you did not provide a single case in which it is moral to torture children of fun. There is nothing that you can say about the actor that changes that evaluation.

But that would involve investigating the intentions and motivations of the builders of the jetty. Which contradicts the idea of independence.

I have not said that actor and action are judged independently in all cases. That is something you manufactured in order to perpetuate an argument.

We cannot divorce the actions from their initiators. You seem to be going out of your way to prove my point.

I have pointed to exceptions to this rule. It is one thing for you to disagree that they count as exceptions. It is quite another to treat what I take as the exception as if I am stating it as the rule. Pointing to a case that is not an exception does not show that there are no exceptions.

According to that criterion, if the golf ball landing in the cake made the newlyweds happy, then the action should be considered ‘moral’. According to that criterion, if the golf ball landing in the cake made the newlyweds unhappy, then the action should be considered ‘immoral’. That is not, however, how you judged it.

Hitting a golf ball is not a moral or an immoral act. No one is acting as a moral agent in this example.

According to that criterion, the action of the space shuttle exploding in flight, which killed seven people, caused grief to millions and set back the space programme, should be considered ‘immoral’. But that is not how you judged it.

Again, no one is acting as a moral agent. There is no moral issue.

But when a pedestrian is blinded by a stone flicked up from a car, no moral judgement is made.

Right because no one is acting as a moral agent. A driver is not morally responsible for rocks in the road or tires throwing rocks.

It seems that “the well-being of those affected by the action” has absolutely no impact on the ‘moral judgement’ even though, according to your criteria, it should.

The well-being of those affected by an action has an “impact” on the moral judgment only in cases involving moral judgment. If you cannot point to any moral issue in the cases you provide then it should be no surprise that the well-being of those affected by the action has nothing to do with moral judgment.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that ‘moral assessments’ never make use of legal or medical opinion?

I am saying nothing of the sort. What I have said repeatedly is that if the person has been determined to be incompetent then the moral assessment makes use of that determination and makes no judgment about the person. If the person is competent then the person is judged.

Switching off a life support machine, for example? Are you trying to tell me that, in making a ‘moral assessment’, we should not make use of the maximum possible relevant information?

No, I am not telling you that. I have said just the opposite. A proper moral assessment requires all relevant information be considered.

First you ask:

Are all your moral judgements based on official legal and medical assessments …

And in same paragraph:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that ‘moral assessments’ never make use of legal or medical opinion?

Is your strategy to accuse me of both affirming and denying something in the hope that one way or the other you can find something to criticize?

I suggested ‘Moral’ or ‘immoral’ are not the only judgement options available. There was also ‘neither moral nor immoral’.

Of course they are not the only options. I have said as much. I said that the cases you presented are neither moral nor immoral. You seem to be looking for things to argue about without regard to what has already transpired.

The issue is exactly that people make moral assessments every day.

Pointing to the fact that people make moral assessments every day merely states the obvious and does not address the point that their “informal ‘moral’ judgments” cannot and do not stand as judgments of competency.

A nice, relatively meaningless point to end on.

Pointing out that competency is the norm to someone who does not understand why incompetency is the exception is not relatively meaningless. Competence is a necessary condition for moral judgment of a person. When we talk about moral agents we mean precisely agents who are competent. Unless there is evidence to the contrary we assume that adult human beings are moral agents, and that means that they are competent.

You have claimed that an action can be judged morally without reference to the initiator of the action. But you have given me no examples to help me understand this claim, even though you have had plenty of opportunity to do so.

I have done so repeatedly. I pointed to cases where the actor is not competent and so we do not judge him to be immoral but we may still hold the action to be immoral. I also pointed to examples of actions that are always immoral because there is no circumstances in which the action is moral. You yourself pointed to teaching children about Hell as immoral. Your reason for claiming it is immoral had nothing to do with the intention of the actor but simply that it was mental torture. You have judged it to be immoral without reference to the initiator of the action and without regard to the initiator’s intentions or motivation. You have judged it to be immoral because it is torture. You have judged the action to be immoral on the unstated premise that torturing children is immoral.

You seem to think that all moral judgments must be made in an official setting, where separate assessments are made by professionals.

What I said is that the determination of competency must be made in an official setting. We cannot simply claim that grandma is not competent and take away her right to make her own decisions. We cannot simply claim that grandma is not competent and not judge her actions.

That is not how the world works.

That is exactly how the world works. You cannot just claim that someone is not competent and take away their right to make their own decisions. You cannot just claim that someone is not competent and dismiss the actions of that person.

You have used your fixation with competence – which I introduced – to cover up shortcomings in your explanations.

Why are you writing about competency? I have not mentioned it. It is a new term which you have just introduced.

I will let that speak for itself.

Let me remind you of how this argument started. You took exception to my statement that I saw no problem with calling the act of torturing a child immoral even though the brain damaged torturer was not culpable. Competency is not my “fixation”. It is central to the argument. The fact that you specified that the man is brain damaged shows that you understand that competency is the norm and that this case raises the question of how the exception is to be treated.

But this could go on forever.

Yes, as long as you fail to keep the whole of the issue in mind and treat exceptions as the rule you will continue to be confused and argue in meaningless and contradictory circles.

I am bored, so I am ending it here.

You should have ended it when you said that teaching about Hell could be considered mental torture and therefore morally wrong. This completely undermined all your efforts. When I said that we can judge the act of torturing children to be immoral you argued against it, and yet thousands of words later you say that torturing children is immoral. You denied that act can be separated from actor and yet in your example of the immoral act of mental torture you say nothing at all about the actor or the actor’s intention. It does not matter whether the actor’s intention was noble or base, you judged the action to be immoral.

I have attempted to steer you through the labyrinth of misunderstanding and misdirection you created, but when it became clear that you have done the very thing you say cannot be done you feign boredom and say that you are ending it here.