Moral Luck

[über-venom]

This is a suitable topic for seasoned debators.

In philosophy, moral luck refers to the idea that a person's morality can change based on things entirely out of their control. For example, a person can be morally good, something outside of their control happens, and then the person commits terrible evils.

Now, the entire theory is going to require a bit of development, so bear with me, read everything as it applies to your stance. And if you like read the wiki!

First though, a bit of ground work. There a couple of positions that some people will have towards the topic that I want to address. If neither of these apply to you you can skip it.

Moral Eliminativism and Moral Relativity

• You are a moral eliminitivist if you believe that, when it comes down to it, there really is no such thing as morality.
• You're a moral relativist if you believe that morality truly is relative to each person. What's good is whatever's good to them, and what's evil is whatever's evil to them.

Both of these responses are very relevant to the topic. The problem is they give fairly generic answers to basically all of the moral luck arguments. Moral luck doesn't exist because there's no such thing as morality to begin with. OR, Moral luck doesn't exist because it all depends on how the person views their own actions.

Ok, so my message to this group: play devil's advocate here. Everyone should understand already that a truly sound moral eliminitivism or relativist argument will refute the moral luck argument and effectively all other moral arguments with it because it addresses the "meta-issues." If you'd like to talk about either one of these, I'd ask you to make another thread. If there's enough interest, I'll make one. I should also note that if you are one of these people, you'd be probably be inclined to argue for moral luck here anyway since it introduces serious problems with the nature of morality.

Legal vs. Moral distinction

Some people view these as the same thing. And it's pretty easy to show that they're not. For example, there is nothing legally wrong with trying to exploit the laws, in order to hurt other people. But most would agree that there is something morally wrong with that. Also, a king can be above the law, where no laws apply to him, and still commit atrocities. Similarly, people can make laws that are immoral in themselves, like the Jim Crow laws. Point is, when you are arguing whether a person is morally equivalent or different, do not use law.



Ok, so now that all that's out of the way it's time to get down to business.

For those who read/skimmed the wiki, you would have found that there were four types of moral luck. Resultant, circumstantial, constituitive, and causal. Personally I am more interested in the first two. But feel free to bring up either of the other two. Just know that both of them are intimately related with certain free will suppositions that should probably be developed elsewhere. Anyway, first up...

_____________________________________________


Resultant Luck - if you believe morality has anything to do with the results of your actions, this section is for you.

(This is just an example I came up with a long time ago, but the one on wiki is almost exactly analogous)

It's late at night, about 10 o'clock. This lady is walking down the street (for whatever reason) and assume she is innocent. On either side of her are two tall buildings. Unbeknownst to this woman there is an assassin in each building, each with the same brand of .50 cal. sniper rifle aimed at her head. Neither assassin is aware of eachother's presence. But each are dead set on murdering the woman. Now, here's the rub. Assassin #1, unknowingly had his gun replaced with an exact replica of his own, only it doesn't shoot. This is not the case for assassin #2. So, both of them pull the trigger at the exact same time. Assassin #2's bullet comes from five stories up careening through the air and landing dead on target (no pun intended). The woman is killed instantly. Assassin #1, though he planned to do the same exact thing, was incapable of firing a bullet in the first place. ​

The question is, are they morally the same, or different? Most people will say they are morally the same. But feel free to disagree. If they are morally different they are victims of moral luck. If they are morally the same, they are not victims, and therefore this is not an adequate proof for the existence of moral luck. If you agree with that, you can say that there is no such thing as moral luck of the resultant species. But what about the circumstantial species?


Cicumstantial Luck - if you believe morality has anything to do with intentions read this too.

(This is just my twist on an already popular example.)

Consider two possible worlds with the same person.

World A:
Friedrich is a native born German. All his life he had been considered a good person by his peers, someone who'd never harm anybody. But one day all that changed, when the nazi regime took over in Germany he was forced in the war, as a soldier. Those recruiting him gave him little option to join, as he was threatened with torture if he chose any other course. But of course, as a nazi soldier, he wasn't merely ordered to do battle with enemies, he was also responsible for turning in any Jews he found as prisoners to be killed. At first, he was violently distraught by all the merciless killing he was involved in. But eventually he decided to accept his fate as a nazi soldier and his eyes became cold. It wasn't that he liked killing. It was just that there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it. If he tried he could possibly turn on his team and perhaps save one family of Jews, but that would almost certainly bring his death. So he remained passive. He did what he was told, and he did nothing when nothing was required of him.

World B:
1925 - Hitler is killed by a flying golf ball to the cranium.
Friedrich again is exactly the same as he was. Only since there was no Nazi regime, he ends up getting a well paying job, and a family with three wonderful children. And he lived a moderately peaceful life thereafter.​

In these two examples, Friedrich, being the same person as himself, would have done the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances. And not only that, but he would have wanted the exact same things under the exact same circumstances as well. But different circumstances (beyond his control) inevitably drove him into different lifestyles. And this happened in such a way that in one, he was morally good, and in the other he was morally indifferent. Yet it's the same person. This species of moral luck is one I find to be significantly more difficult to deny. But I still think there are ways to say that the same person from each world is morally the same. And thus deny moral luck of the circumstantial species. Again, to affirm this kind of moral luck, you have to defend the position that these two Friedrich's are morally different. To deny it, you have to either show that the examples are relevantly problematic, or that both Friedrichs are morally the same.




Take a while to read this over and think about your responses. Note that the debate topics start below the line. You may comment on the stuff above the line, but otherwise I expect the participants to cooperate with all the things that were said there. Best of luck in formulating your responses**!



** Any that are half-***** will recieve a half-***** answer.

 

[blazedaces]

Good topic. Alright, to begin with, I believe you should update the OP to include a few specific definitions you're considering here. See, in my mind, as I've taken multiple courses in ethics and studied it extensively I know that the common definition for the term morals is basically an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong. On the other hand, ethics is considered a system of right and wrong after you apply those same moral questions to reason/logic/attempted understanding/etc.

Why is this distinction made? Well, for many reasons, but in my humble opinion it is to deal with the silly notion of moral relativism. Yes, it's obvious different people have their own intuitive belief system (morals), but when you try at least to be a bit more objective about it clearly certain patterns arrive and you're left with slightly consistent ethical theories (people are welcome to look up ethical theories, there are plenty of resources on the subject, but it's not something to get into at the moment).

Furthermore, even if you claim that even attempting an objective viewpoint is not entirely possible since we are products of our society my response is that even throughout different societies certain patterns emerge, plus the world CAN AND HAS COME TOGETHER to decide upon ethical consistencies (i.e. The Geneva Convention).

Still, I'm not entirely certain this is the set of definitions you are using in your post above, so whatever set of definitions you're using, please explain them, thanks.

Still, to continue on with my response, the next topic I guess is moral eliminativism. Unfortunately, I really don't take this position seriously. In fact any time someone tries to take the approach that some _______(insert abstract concept here) doesn't exist I feel the same way. Whether it's love, morals, luck, or whatever else, usually this person doesn't understand the concept of defining words. What does one mean when they say morals don't exist? Do people NOT have a set of beliefs on what is right and what is wrong? Is it impossible to be objective about this (in which case you're just a moral relativist in denial)? What does one actually mean?

Moving on, I'll only respond to the two types of moral luck you posted about. In general though it's obvious that moral luck (as it's defined) exists to some degree. The question on many people's minds philosophically is probably how much? Some might argue everything can be considered moral luck, while others might argue based on how one determines the morality of a given action that moral luck never occurs, yet still it's existence is accepted in the back of one's mind.

Resultant luck and circumstantial luck both deal with the concept of how does one deal with the balance between intention and consequence? It has to be acknowledged at least that one can only control their intentions fully (or directly) while one controls the consequences of their actions only indirectly (or consequentially ). There is an ethical theory that argues that only the consequences of one's actions are important in consideration of the morality of an action, utilitarianism.

I personally don't take this extreme, yet I also don't take the extreme that only intentions matter either. I believe since one must acknowledge that we have indirect control over the consequences of our actions we must take consequences into much consideration.

That being said I believe both resultant luck and circumstantial luck are kind of opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak. Both, I believe, exist and occur frequently in our lives. As a result, we must deal with them in some manner. I believe both examples can bring up the question that matters to me after a situation occurs where I question my moral integrity: was there something different I could have done to change the consequence of that action?. In your example in resultant luck, the answer is no. Thus, resultant luck should not be a consideration in one's ethical values. In fact, I think such extreme examples should be completely ignored.

On the other hand, in your example of circumstantial luck, this is not the case. Now, I want to point something out before you respond. This is an extremely hypothetical situation, but like all hypothetical situations it's extremely vague. There are so many factors not being considered here. My response assumes that you're trying to mimic reality (the real world), so as a result, I assume the person would have had plenty of situations where they could get out. If you ask, well, what if he couldn't. Every time he tried to escape a family member of his would be killed, etc. I don't know, but then you're taking the example too far.

Circumstance should deal from the way I see it with an environment that surrounds an individual. Now, environments certainly influence our actions, but one choice we should be able to make is to remove ourselves from such an environment, thus relinquishing the circumstantial influence. Is it still true that someone undergoing circumstantial luck could be a good person? Yes. Do I believe they can get out if they really want to? Yes.

I'm interested to know what others think. Please feel free to disagree with me.

-blazed

 

[RDK]

First and foremost, welcome to the Debate Hall uber-venom, and with a great opening topic. I know I'm going to enjoy this.

Secondly:

Furthermore, even if you claim that even attempting an objective viewpoint is not entirely possible since we are products of our society my response is that even throughout different societies certain patterns emerge, plus the world CAN AND HAS COME TOGETHER to decide upon ethical consistencies (i.e. The Geneva Convention).

This has been beaten to death several times in and outside the DH, but I suppose I need to bring it up again. Objectivity and ethics are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to have an objective system of ethics, unless you're arguing from the viewpoint of religion, which I know you're not Blazed, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

The fact that the Geneva Convention exists doesn't make a case for the existence of objective morals, no more so than the fact that we hold popular elections makes a case for objective politics. It just means that in this specific time period humans have leaned towards a particular set of agreed-upon morals, and even then, the Geneva Convention did not include the opinions of every single individual on the face of the earth.

Still, to continue on with my response, the next topic I guess is moral eliminativism. Unfortunately, I really don't take this position seriously. In fact any time someone tries to take the approach that some _______(insert abstract concept here) doesn't exist I feel the same way. Whether it's love, morals, luck, or whatever else, usually this person doesn't understand the concept of defining words. What does one mean when they say morals don't exist? Do people NOT have a set of beliefs on what is right and what is wrong? Is it impossible to be objective about this (in which case you're just a moral relativist in denial)? What does one actually mean?

I don't think moral eliminativists actually think that people don't hold to certain beliefs; they think that the morals themselves don't exist (at least objectively), and that they are simply an illusion, kind of like free will. But I'm not a moral eliminativist, I'm a moral relativist, so obviously I can't speak for everyone; that's just my best guess.

I'll respond to the OP shortly.

 

[blazedaces]

This has been beaten to death several times in and outside the DH, but I suppose I need to bring it up again. Objectivity and ethics are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to have an objective system of ethics, unless you're arguing from the viewpoint of religion, which I know you're not Blazed, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

The fact that the Geneva Convention exists doesn't make a case for the existence of objective morals, no more so than the fact that we hold popular elections makes a case for objective politics. It just means that in this specific time period humans have leaned towards a particular set of agreed-upon morals, and even then, the Geneva Convention did not include the opinions of every single individual on the face of the earth.

This isn't about accepting an extreme view. It's about accepting that there is no extreme. Ethics is in a realm that is neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective. The entirely subjective we often associate with art (a question like "is this picture beautiful?") whereas the entirely objective we often associate with math (1+1=2, where there is one right answer).

You can't argue that there isn't something in between those two extremes. I'm not interested if this has been "beaten to death" previously in the debate hall. Usually when people make this assertion if I'm not present I usually just ignore it. I'm not interested in arguing about semantics, which is what your argument will eventually boil down to. I'm more interested in coming to a reasonable agreement.

Ethics is somewhere in between those two extremes. There is some subjectivity to it, and yet, there is some objectivity to it. Plenty of ethical theories have attempted to appoint objective standards not including religious ones (Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism, Rights, etc.).

How in the world is popular elections a case for objective politics? I don't see how the analogy applies. You're welcome to re-explain it, but I don't see the connection. Ethics, again, is not about what people believe, it's about what is a reasonable criteria for determining right and wrong.

If you're looking for the ultimate set of rules to determine the morality of an action, no, you're never going to get it. But don't try and say that because this ultimate set doesn't exist, that no set can possibly be reasonable, or come close to this supposedly ultimate set... That's like saying that because we will probably never know everything we shouldn't even try to know anything...

-blazed

 

[RDK]

If you're looking for the ultimate set of rules to determine the morality of an action, no, you're never going to get it. But don't try and say that because this ultimate set doesn't exist, that no set can possibly be reasonable, or come close to this supposedly ultimate set... That's like saying that because we will probably never know everything we shouldn't even try to know anything...

-blazed

The idea that we can somehow "know" (or even come close to "knowing") what is objectively right and wrong is laughable in the highest degree. Morals are an invention, although not a strictly human one, that we use so that society can exist and function. They have no root in the physical world and are highly subjective from individual to individual, even from group to group.

How do you purport to reasonably say what is right and wrong? Or even come close to it? By taking a poll, which is essentially what the Geneva Convention is? And the analogy does apply. Just because X group of people decides on something does not make it so. It just means X group of people says it is.

 

[blazedaces]

The idea that we can somehow "know" (or even come close to "knowing") what is objectively right and wrong is laughable in the highest degree. Morals are an invention, although not a strictly human one, that we use so that society can exist and function. They have no root in the physical world and are highly subjective from individual to individual, even from group to group.

How do you purport to reasonably say what is right and wrong? Or even come close to it? By taking a poll, which is essentially what the Geneva Convention is? And the analogy does apply. Just because X group of people decides on something does not make it so. It just means X group of people says it is.

You're guilty of exactly what I claim is the problem with someone saying anything doesn't exist...

Morals are a human invention in the same sense that math is a human invention. Sure, physics is rooted in the physical world. It's taking math and applying it to the physical world. But math itself is completely a human invention (or not strictly one, but let's ignore that distinction for now). Are you going to use this same argument to reason we can't know objectively the rules of mathematics? Different cultures have come up with different mathematical systems. Even different views on numbers, and their purpose. So? Is this really an argument for why math is not objective?

The Geneva Convention was absolutely NOT a poll. A large group of representatives coming together and discussing an issue, and coming to conclusions on that issue... is not a poll. Again, I'd rather not go in circles about semantics man. It wasn't a poll. There's a difference.

How much have you read on ethical theories? All ethical theories are attempts to reasonably assess issues of morality. You speak as if it "can't" be done, yet it has plenty of times before. Each ethical theory has advantages and disadvantages. But they're a starting point. An actual means of which to argue why some action is "right" or "wrong". Personally, I think that's better than blathering on speculatively or saying "well he said this" or "she says that".

Should we not even attempt to apply objectivity because it's hard? Do moral/ethical arguments not exist? Are none of them in any way sound? Do they serve no purpose whatsoever? Is there no distinction between law and morality? Isn't law just "a set of standards to help keep order in society"?

And by the way, plenty of people have laughed at quite a lot of things the world has accomplished...

-blazed

 

[über-venom]

Well, I was aiming for simplicity in the OP so that the debate would attract members who are new to this. But I actually didn't expect to meet someone so well versed in ethics. That said, I'll be glad to specify anything you consider vague. Alright, let's see...

Are you asking for a strict definition of morality? TBH, I haven't made one before. Maybe you could give me an example of one? Anyway, if anything, my definition of morality would be similar to your definition of ethics. Also, tell me why you need one, so I know where the problem is.

Moving on, I'll only respond to the two types of moral luck you posted about. In general though it's obvious that moral luck (as it's defined) exists to some degree. The question on many people's minds philosophically is probably how much? Some might argue everything can be considered moral luck, while others might argue based on how one determines the morality of a given action that moral luck never occurs, yet still it's existence is accepted in the back of one's mind.

Ok. Yes, we have very different views here. Personally I view moral luck as evidence of a failing in an ethical theory. Also you probably already realize this, but just in case. Moral luck can not exist objectively by itself without an ethical theory. For example, resultant luck can only exist with theories similar to utilitarianism. But with no theory at all, it just doesn't exist. So this is my take on moral luck as it applies to theories. If moral luck is present when you apply an ethical theory to all applicable situations, then it's evidence of a glitch in that theory. It's like a paradox; it's something that just needs to be dissolved through theory revision. Why? Because in a good ethical theory there should be no situations where there are sufficient factors outside the agent's control to bring about a moral/ethical change in the agent.

But I want to make one thing clear. Remember, moral luck applies only to an agent, an action cannot be considered to have the porperty of "moral luck". So we're also going to be faced with the problem of defining a relationship between the morality of the action and that of the agent, which is a serious endeavor. But anyway, the significance of this is that moral luck only happens when the agent incurs a change in morality due to moral-luck-inducing circumstances. If the ethical theory can take these circumstances into account without incuring a change in the agent's morality, then that is a good theory as far as moral luck is concerned.

So, I think we have different starting points here. You believe that moral luck obviously exists, and are questioning how much it does. For me, and this may be a bit of a stretch, you could say that my take on moral luck is that I assume it doesn't exist and as a result I use it to evaluate ethical theories, like I've been talking about. But, I mean, I'm open to the possibility that moral luck is present in all possible (and reasonable) ethical theories, and that's what I'm debating against.

The approach to moral luck outlined in the OP uses paradigm examples for cases of good and evil. The point is, you can generate examples for moral luck that are perfectly compatible with many ethical theories. Murdering in malice is a paradigm example of an evil action by most standards; feeding starving children is a paradigm example of a good action by most standards. If you're using these extremes, it almost doesn't matter where you draw the line. Now, the reason this is important is because the paradigm examples purport to show that moral luck MUST exist because it is present in all possible (and reasonable) ethical theories. But that's only to argue that it exists. To your comment about how much it exists, yes, then it would matter where you draw the line.

Resultant luck and circumstantial luck both deal with the concept of how does one deal with the balance between intention and consequence? It has to be acknowledged at least that one can only control their intentions fully (or directly) while one controls the consequences of their actions only indirectly (or consequentially ). There is an ethical theory that argues that only the consequences of one's actions are important in consideration of the morality of an action, utilitarianism.

I personally don't take this extreme, yet I also don't take the extreme that only intentions matter either. I believe since one must acknowledge that we have indirect control over the consequences of our actions we must take consequences into much consideration.

There are many times that we don't even have indirect control over the consequences of our actions. And there are some instances where the "control" that we do have, makes things happen that are completely unforeseeable. I could even argue that there are morally applicable circumstances where we don't have control over our intentions. For example, Friedrich tries to escape, is caught and tortured severely. And as a result of the trauma, by way of operant conditioning, he never considers escaping again.

On the other hand, in your example of circumstantial luck, this is not the case. Now, I want to point something out before you respond. This is an extremely hypothetical situation, but like all hypothetical situations it's extremely vague. There are so many factors not being considered here. My response assumes that you're trying to mimic reality (the real world), so as a result, I assume the person would have had plenty of situations where they could get out. If you ask, well, what if he couldn't. Every time he tried to escape a family member of his would be killed, etc. I don't know, but then you're taking the example too far.

Yeah, I thought of saying they'd kill his family if he didn't cooperate, but then that would encourage people to think he was almost justified in his actions. So just refer to what I was talking about above as a revision: Friedrich tries to escape, is caught and tortured severely. And as a result of the trauma, by way of operant conditioning, he never considers escaping again.

To your comment about the real world, yeah, I'd say it's somewhat important that to mimic reality. Anyway, I'm pretty confident I could generate an analogous, yet more realistic, example that gets the same point across. If you think realism is very important for our purposes, I'll consider making one when I have more time.

Circumstance should deal from the way I see it with an environment that surrounds an individual. Now, environments certainly influence our actions, but one choice we should be able to make is to remove ourselves from such an environment, thus relinquishing the circumstantial influence.

yeah you'd probably take some issues with constituitive luck then. Since it takes the approach of viewing the agent as part of the circumstances.

Is it still true that someone undergoing circumstantial luck could be a good person? Yes. Do I believe they can get out if they really want to? Yes.

By definition, enough circumstantial luck will make a bad person into a good person, and enough circumstantial "unluck" will make a good person into a bad person. And then the second question assumes they can want to. Operant conditioning and brain washing can introduce some problems there.



Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how I'm gonna do this yet. At first I was planning on playing devil's advocate in favor of moral luck. I didn't expect someone to support it, much less as something that's obvious. So yeah, one half of my post has a different agenda than the other half. I don't think there is such thing as moral luck, but I'll debate any and all arguments I find to be unsound, regardless of what side they're on.

 

[KrazyGlue]

A very good topic indeed, uber-venom.

Now, first, I do believe that this issue depends heavily on how you define morals. So, for now, let's use the definition provided by blazedaces:

"an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong"

I, too, will focus only on the two types of moral luck you brought up.

Resultant Luck

It's late at night, about 10 o'clock. This lady is walking down the street (for whatever reason) and assume she is innocent. On either side of her are two tall buildings. Unbeknownst to this woman there is an assassin in each building, each with the same brand of .50 cal. sniper rifle aimed at her head. Neither assassin is aware of eachother's presence. But each are dead set on murdering the woman. Now, here's the rub. Assassin #1, unknowingly had his gun replaced with an exact replica of his own, only it doesn't shoot. This is not the case for assassin #2. So, both of them pull the trigger at the exact same time. Assassin #2's bullet comes from five stories up careening through the air and landing dead on target (no pun intended). The woman is killed instantly. Assassin #1, though he planned to do the same exact thing, was incapable of firing a bullet in the first place. ​

The question is, are they morally the same, or different? Most people will say they are morally the same. But feel free to disagree. If they are morally different they are victims of moral luck. If they are morally the same, they are not victims, and therefore this is not an adequate proof for the existence of moral luck. If you agree with that, you can say that there is no such thing as moral luck of the resultant species. But what about the circumstantial species?

I agree that they are morally the same; nowhere in the definition of morals does it mention the results of the action. This result is simply "luck" not "moral luck".

Cicumstantial Luck- Consider two possible worlds with the same person.

World A:
Friedrich is a native born German. All his life he had been considered a good person by his peers, someone who'd never harm anybody. But one day all that changed, when the nazi regime took over in Germany he was forced in the war, as a soldier. Those recruiting him gave him little option to join, as he was threatened with torture if he chose any other course. But of course, as a nazi soldier, he wasn't merely ordered to do battle with enemies, he was also responsible for turning in any Jews he found as prisoners to be killed. At first, he was violently distraught by all the merciless killing he was involved in. But eventually he decided to accept his fate as a nazi soldier and his eyes became cold. It wasn't that he liked killing. It was just that there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it. If he tried he could possibly turn on his team and perhaps save one family of Jews, but that would almost certainly bring his death. So he remained passive. He did what he was told, and he did nothing when nothing was required of him.

World B:
1925 - Hitler is killed by a flying golf ball to the cranium.
Friedrich again is exactly the same as he was. Only since there was no Nazi regime, he ends up getting a well paying job, and a family with three wonderful children. And he lived a moderately peaceful life thereafter.

In these two examples, Friedrich, being the same person as himself, would have done the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances. And not only that, but he would have wanted the exact same things under the exact same circumstances as well. But different circumstances (beyond his control) inevitably drove him into different lifestyles. And this happened in such a way that in one, he was morally good, and in the other he was morally indifferent. Yet it's the same person. This species of moral luck is one I find to be significantly more difficult to deny. But I still think there are ways to say that the same person from each world is morally the same. And thus deny moral luck of the circumstantial species. Again, to affirm this kind of moral luck, you have to defend the position that these two Friedrich's are morally different. To deny it, you have to either show that the examples are relevantly problematic, or that both Friedrichs are morally the same.

In this particular example, I believe moral luck is not present. Friedrich's beliefs on what is right or wrong have not changed, he has simply decided to ignore his beliefs for his own well-being.

However, I do believe that Circumstantial luck can occur.

Here's an example I just thought up:

Situation #1: John and his best friend, Jack, both go to the same college and are in the same fraternity. Both drink heavily and often. Both have driven while under the influence of alcohol before, but have not been caught. Their fraternity schedules an off-campus party, and both are invited. John becomes ill a few day before the party, and ends up being unable to go. Jack, on the other hand, feels perfectly fine, and attends the party. Jack gets caught up in the excitement and has a few too many drinks. Hours later, after the party is over, Jack begins to drive himself back to the campus. Jack tries his best to drive , but he has blurred vision that makes it hard for him to see. Jack's car smashes into another. Jack was too drunk to remember to put on his seatbelt and goes flying out the window. He is instantly killed. John hears of his close friend's death then next morning. The event emotionally scars him, and he renounces his life of alcoholism. He goes to rehab, and after being cured, he joins an anti-DUI agency.

Situation #2: The situation is the same for John. However, in addition to John being sick, Jack will be traveling out of state and will not be able to attend the party. Neither of them go, no crash occurs, and they both become severe alcoholics.


I tried to keep this as realistic as possible. Through Jack's decisions in situation 1, which John has no control over, John was permanently changed and he has permanently different moral views on alcohol and DUI. He now believes DUI and binge drinking are wrong. If the event had not occurred, he would have had no problem with those two things.
________________________

In conclusion, I believe there is no way to completely deny circumstantial moral luck.

 

[Nysyarc]

Situation #1: John and his best friend, Jack, both go to the same college and are in the same fraternity. Both drink heavily and often. Both have driven while under the influence of alcohol before, but have not been caught. Their fraternity schedules an off-campus party, and both are invited. John becomes ill a few day before the party, and ends up being unable to go. Jack, on the other hand, feels perfectly fine, and attends the party. Jack gets caught up in the excitement and has a few too many drinks. Hours later, after the party is over, Jack begins to drive himself back to the campus. Jack tries his best to drive , but he has blurred vision that makes it hard for him to see. Jack's car smashes into another. Jack was too drunk to remember to put on his seatbelt and goes flying out the window. He is instantly killed. John hears of his close friend's death then next morning. The event emotionally scars him, and he renounces his life of alcoholism. He goes to rehab, and after being cured, he joins an anti-DUI agency.

That's an interesting scenario. The only problem is that after John initially decides to stop drinking entirely and go to rehab and all of that, there are realistically two different outcomes. We can't say that every time someone has a close friend who dies from drunk driving, they decide to give up drinking entirely themselves. The fact that most people go to rehab is because it is difficult for them to get over their habit.

The scenario you mentioned where he ends up alcohol-free is certainly possible. However, the other scenario is that he initially decides, on the spur of the moment, that he will quit drinking, but much later he will slowly begin to fall back into the same cycle of drinking a little bit, and eventually getting completely drunk every weekend. I think in the situation you mentioned, it is not his morals that are changing, it is understanding of what he is doing. He didn't see anything wrong with drinking until a tragic accident happened that made him realize the consequences.

Think of it this way. Let's say Joe is a morally good person; he would never intentionally harm another person or a living animal. Joe likes to hang out with his friends and have a few drinks in the woods sometimes. He and his friends always leave their beer bottles lying on the ground; they figure it can't cause any harm. One hot summer day, an exposed beer bottle that Joe had dropped starts a forest fire. Many animals are killed in the fire. Joe feels guilty and decides never to litter again, and even considers never drinking in the woods again. His morals have not changed, because he never wanted to cause harm, but his awareness of the indirect harm he was causing has improved. Thus, I believe in a case like that, the morals are not changing, they are being exposed as what they really were all along.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That's an interesting scenario. The only problem is that after John initially decides to stop drinking entirely and go to rehab and all of that, there are realistically two different outcomes. We can't say that every time someone has a close friend who dies from drunk driving, they decide to give up drinking entirely themselves. The fact that most people go to rehab is because it is difficult for them to get over their habit.

The scenario you mentioned where he ends up alcohol-free is certainly possible. However, the other scenario is that he initially decides, on the spur of the moment, that he will quit drinking, but much later he will slowly begin to fall back into the same cycle of drinking a little bit, and eventually getting completely drunk every weekend. I think in the situation you mentioned, it is not his morals that are changing, it is understanding of what he is doing. He didn't see anything wrong with drinking until a tragic accident happened that made him realize the consequences.

All this is true. However, my point was that circumstantial moral luck does occur, not that my example will necessarily be true in all situations.

Think of it this way. Let's say Joe is a morally good person; he would never intentionally harm another person or a living animal. Joe likes to hang out with his friends and have a few drinks in the woods sometimes. He and his friends always leave their beer bottles lying on the ground; they figure it can't cause any harm. One hot summer day, an exposed beer bottle that Joe had dropped starts a forest fire. Many animals are killed in the fire. Joe feels guilty and decides never to litter again, and even considers never drinking in the woods again. His morals have not changed, because he never wanted to cause harm, but his awareness of the indirect harm he was causing has improved. Thus, I believe in a case like that, the morals are not changing, they are being exposed as what they really were all along.

I would say his moral opinion of littering has changed (at first he had no problem with it, and now he probably believes that it is wrong/dangerous to litter).

 

[Nysyarc]

I would say his moral opinion of littering has changed (at first he had no problem with it, and now he probably believes that it is wrong/dangerous to litter).

But are his morals really changing? Moral luck (by the definition uber-venom gave) is when someone's morals are changed through events that are out of their control. I don't believe it is possible for someone's morals to truly change.

The only reason he had no problem with it at first was because he did not think anything bad would come of it. His morals didn't stop him, because he saw nothing wrong with what he was doing. When he realized that there was something wrong with what he was doing, his morals kicked in and told him to stop. His morals never actually changed, just his knowledge of the situation.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't believe it is possible for someone's morals to truly change.

I would definitely disagree with this.

One obvious example of changing morals is when a child ages. Obviously a 5 year old has a different sense of what is right or wrong than a 50 year old.

The only reason he had no problem with it at first was because he did not think anything bad would come of it. His morals didn't stop him, because he saw nothing wrong with what he was doing. When he realized that there was something wrong with what he was doing, his morals kicked in and told him to stop. His morals never actually changed, just his knowledge of the situation.

His morals don't change in terms of his opinions on whether living beings should be harmed, but in terms of whether littering is acceptable or not they have.


I suppose it depends on how you use the term, but here's how I see it:

Morals: "an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong"

Joe initially thought littering wasn't wrong, now he thinks it is. Whether or not he is being ignorant of the possible damage it could cause, the previous statement is true.

His belief that littering isn't wrong have changed to a belief that littering is wrong.

His beliefs about what is and isn't wrong have changed.

 

[Nysyarc]

I would definitely disagree with this.

One obvious example of changing morals is when a child ages. Obviously a 5 year old has a different sense of what is right or wrong than a 50 year old.

That wasn't very well worded, you could be talking about two different people entirely, but I understand your point. Still, I think there is a distinct difference between the development of morals and the alteration of morals that have been developed. A child does not yet have a complete set of morals because they are still learning. Once a person has a set of morals they are comfortable with, I don't think they can change.

Now obviously people are capable of acting against their morals if circumstances demand it, but I don't think anyone would ever willingly act against their initial moral upbringing, nor would those morals change if they had to act against them at some point.

I suppose it depends on how you use the term, but here's how I see it:

Morals: "an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong"

Joe initially thought littering wasn't wrong, now he thinks it is. Whether or not he is being ignorant of the possible damage it could cause, the previous statement is true.

His belief that littering isn't wrong have changed to a belief that littering is wrong.

His beliefs about what is and isn't wrong have changed.

This is exactly the problem. Not everyone has the same definition of what exactly morals are. In my mind, there is not an individual moral value attributed to every action we do, but rather one encompassing set of morals that helps guide what we do in general.

It can be argued that what happened with Joe was not a change of morals, but rather, further development of morals. At first, Joe had no moral disposition on littering, because he had no experience to tell him whether it was right or not. He did it because it was the easiest thing to do, not because his morals told him that it would not lead to harm. He was ignorant, but after the fire incident, he developed his morals to include littering as something not to do.

In fact, with that argument, it can be said that all moral 'changes' are actually developments of our moral disposition; additions to what we have already determined to be right or wrong. Joe didn't think that littering was the right thing to do, but he also didn't think it was the wrong thing to do. Experience allowed him to develop his morals so that he now believes littering is wrong.

If his littering had somehow had a positive effect on the environment (bear with me here), he would have done it more often and concluded that it was the right thing to do. At first he was not devoted to either extreme.

 

[RDK]

Morals are a human invention in the same sense that math is a human invention. Sure, physics is rooted in the physical world. It's taking math and applying it to the physical world. But math itself is completely a human invention (or not strictly one, but let's ignore that distinction for now). Are you going to use this same argument to reason we can't know objectively the rules of mathematics? Different cultures have come up with different mathematical systems. Even different views on numbers, and their purpose. So? Is this really an argument for why math is not objective?

Mathematics deals with the study of quantity, structure, space, relation, change, etc., what have you. It's a way of describing things. Exactly how you describe the above things doesn't matter as much (in your example of other civilizations using different numerical systems); what matters is the implications.

The point is that the method used to describe things may change, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things there to describe. Mathematics describes reality; just like any scientific theory that cobbles together evidence. Comparing the objectivity of mathematics to ethics and saying they're equally subjective (or unprovable) is silly, and is akin to saying that science and ethics are equally subjective.

Like I said; objective morality is a dichotomy. Morality and ethics are a way for various groups to human interactions and viewpoints as wrong merely as they see fit. Unless you're religious, there is not one hint of evidence that points to there being a set of objective morals. If there are, I suggest writing a book about it and win lots of money and recognition. The Nobel Prize awaits.

The Geneva Convention was absolutely NOT a poll. A large group of representatives coming together and discussing an issue, and coming to conclusions on that issue... is not a poll. Again, I'd rather not go in circles about semantics man. It wasn't a poll. There's a difference.

Obviously I was being cute. But you completely missed the point. "A large group of representatives" is not everybody, nor is it completely fair. Are you saying the electoral college is fair just because it's a large group of representatives?

How much have you read on ethical theories? All ethical theories are attempts to reasonably assess issues of morality. You speak as if it "can't" be done, yet it has plenty of times before.

I never said it couldn't be attempted; I said that an objective set of ethics doesn't exist. There is no universal, objectively "right" or "wrong" way to act that includes all individuals everywhere. At best, morality can describe what is good or bad in relation to how an organism should act to maintain the survival of its genes. But even that's stretching it.

In reality, ethics stems from a misunderstanding of how the natural world works. Humans are not separate from other animals in any quantifiable way that matters. Why should we feel the need to set ourselves apart from other animals with ridiculous notions of honor and morality?

And if we don't--if we concede that animals can have morals too--then you must admit that morals are not universal. They are situational at best, as pointed out by the examples in the OP.

Oh, and BTW--reasonable is subjective. What may be reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you, and vice versa. It all depends on perspective, which is what I stressed with the animal analogy. A lion's morality will not be the same as a gazelle's.

Each ethical theory has advantages and disadvantages. But they're a starting point. An actual means of which to argue why some action is "right" or "wrong". Personally, I think that's better than blathering on speculatively or saying "well he said this" or "she says that".

But ultimately, what is it based on? A bunch of old guys blathering on about what they feel is right or wrong.

And then we end up with things like the religious right.

Should we not even attempt to apply objectivity because it's hard? Do moral/ethical arguments not exist? Are none of them in any way sound? Do they serve no purpose whatsoever? Is there no distinction between law and morality? Isn't law just "a set of standards to help keep order in society"?

I never said the arguments themselves do not exist; I said they don't describe an actual, physical thing. Morality is not a tangible object; it describes a way of life, and there's no reason to say my way of life is any more valid than yours, etc.

And they do serve a purpose; I've said that many time before. Without morality, society would probably fall apart. Things wouldn't work. Let's go back to my animals analogy.

Animals that travel in groups (let's take chimpanzees for the sake of example) need to work together in order to survive (I.E., they have a greater chance of surviving as a group than alone). If one chimp decided he wanted to horde all the food at the expense of his fellows, or if he decided to kill them so that he had the greatest chance of passing on his genes, then he's basically shot himself in the foot. This is a display of horribly short-sighted selfishness, and doesn't help him in the long run. He would be better of helping the group to ensure his long-time success.

So yes, morality is useful, but the fact that different individuals--even groups--have completely different morality is a pretty good indicator that some sort of universal code doesn't exist. I don't know how you can be arguing this without advocating religion.

And by the way, plenty of people have laughed at quite a lot of things the world has accomplished...

-blazed

Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That wasn't very well worded, you could be talking about two different people entirely, but I understand your point. Still, I think there is a distinct difference between the development of morals and the alteration of morals that have been developed. A child does not yet have a complete set of morals because they are still learning. Once a person has a set of morals they are comfortable with, I don't think they can change.

We are constantly learning, unless, of course, someone has a mental injury or disorder. There is never a given age where one cannot learn any more. We change our morals based on new things we learn and new perspectives we gain.

This is exactly the problem. Not everyone has the same definition of what exactly morals are. In my mind, there is not an individual moral value attributed to every action we do, but rather one encompassing set of morals that helps guide what we do in general.

That's an interesting take on morals.

It can be argued that what happened with Joe was not a change of morals, but rather, further development of morals. At first, Joe had no moral disposition on littering, because he had no experience to tell him whether it was right or not. He did it because it was the easiest thing to do, not because his morals told him that it would not lead to harm. He was ignorant, but after the fire incident, he developed his morals to include littering as something not to do.

In fact, with that argument, it can be said that all moral 'changes' are actually developments of our moral disposition; additions to what we have already determined to be right or wrong. Joe didn't think that littering was the right thing to do, but he also didn't think it was the wrong thing to do. Experience allowed him to develop his morals so that he now believes littering is wrong.

Again, it depends on how you define (and interpret definitions of) morals. However, if you think of all moral changes as moral developments, then do you believe one's morals can be "developed" by a situation out of their control?

 

[Nysyarc]

We are constantly learning, unless, of course, someone has a mental injury or disorder. There is never a given age where one cannot learn any more. We change our morals based on new things we learn and new perspectives we gain.

Yes, that was my fault, I didn't relay my thoughts very well. I didn't mean to say that at a certain age, people are stuck with a set that will never develop further, I just meant that once they have a moral outlook on something, I don't believe it can change. I agree that we never stop learning, however that is why I believe that we are always developing our morals, rather than changing them.

Again, it depends on how you define (and interpret definitions of) morals. However, if you think of all moral changes as moral developments, then do you believe one's morals can be "developed" by a situation out of their control?

Yes. And I don't think in that case it can be considered moral luck. If moral luck by definition is limited to the changing of morals, then my point of view does not have anything to do with moral luck.

Basically, I don't think that someone who decides on a moral level that killing is wrong, can later decide that it is not wrong. They may kill someone, but it will be an act against their morals, and their morals will not change as a result; they will feel guilty about it. Obviously the only exception would be if the person were no longer sane; a mentally ill person probably could alter or even completely reverse their moral values. However in my opinion, a sane person's morals will never change, only develop as they learn.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes. And I don't think in that case it can be considered moral luck. If moral luck by definition is limited to the changing of morals, then my point of view does not have anything to do with moral luck.

Basically, I don't think that someone who decides on a moral level that killing is wrong, can later decide that it is not wrong. They may kill someone, but it will be an act against their morals, and their morals will not change as a result; they will feel guilty about it. Obviously the only exception would be if the person were no longer sane; a mentally ill person probably could alter or even completely reverse their moral values. However in my opinion, a sane person's morals will never change, only develop as they learn.

To be honest, I've never really quite understood where you were going with the "developing, not changing" argument. To develop, by definition, entails changing. Just looking for clarification here.

 

[Nysyarc]

To be honest, I've never really quite understood where you were going with the "developing, not changing" argument. To develop, by definition, entails changing. Just looking for clarification here.

Well, I was pushing more towards the alternate definition of developing, to develop a new _____. For instance, "I developed an interest in playing guitar". Rather than developing (your definition) the current morals that exist, the person is developing (my definition) new morals. Maybe it's the wrong word to use but I can't think of another one that properly suits the topic.

As for where I'm going with it, obviously moral luck deals with changing morals (or not? Going by uber's definition here), and I don't believe that morals can change.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, I was pushing more towards the alternate definition of developing, to develop a new _____. For instance, "I developed an interest in playing guitar". Rather than developing (your definition) the current morals that exist, the person is developing (my definition) new morals. Maybe it's the wrong word to use but I can't think of another one that properly suits the topic.

I can see where you're going with that. However, I would still call it a change to their interests, seeing as the person wasn't interested before and now is. While he may not have thought of the idea before and is now gaining new interest, he is still changing, because to gain is to change something by increasing it.

Even if someone is developing a completely new moral opinion, they are gaining morals and therefore are morally changing.

As for where I'm going with it, obviously moral luck deals with changing morals (or not? Going by uber's definition here), and I don't believe that morals can change.

see above

 

[Nysyarc]

I can see where you're going with that. However, I would still call it a change to their interests, seeing as the person wasn't interested before and now is. While he may not have thought of the idea before and is now gaining new interest, he is still changing, because to gain is to change something by increasing it.

Even if someone is developing a completely new moral opinion, they are gaining morals and therefore are morally changing.

Yes but that is not by definition 'moral luck', nor is it their current morals changing. Moral luck entails a person changing a current moral belief, not gaining new perspective. Obviously you can look at gaining new knowledge as 'changing', but that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that once you have gained said knowledge and formulated a moral outlook, it cannot later be changed.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes but that is not by definition 'moral luck', nor is it their current morals changing. Moral luck entails a person changing a current moral belief, not gaining new perspective. Obviously you can look at gaining new knowledge as 'changing', but that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that once you have gained said knowledge and formulated a moral outlook, it cannot later be changed.

Ah, I see.

Well, in that case, what is your argument against how John's morals didn't change in my scenario? You never explicitly said why you thought his morals couldn't change, only that there is a possibility they wouldn't.

 

[Nysyarc]

Ah, I see.

Well, in that case, what is your argument against how John's morals didn't change in my scenario? You never explicitly said why you thought his morals couldn't change, only that there is a possibility they wouldn't.

Situation #1: John and his best friend, Jack, both go to the same college and are in the same fraternity. Both drink heavily and often. Both have driven while under the influence of alcohol before, but have not been caught. Their fraternity schedules an off-campus party, and both are invited. John becomes ill a few day before the party, and ends up being unable to go. Jack, on the other hand, feels perfectly fine, and attends the party. Jack gets caught up in the excitement and has a few too many drinks. Hours later, after the party is over, Jack begins to drive himself back to the campus. Jack tries his best to drive , but he has blurred vision that makes it hard for him to see. Jack's car smashes into another. Jack was too drunk to remember to put on his seatbelt and goes flying out the window. He is instantly killed. John hears of his close friend's death the next morning. The event emotionally scars him, and he renounces his life of alcoholism. He goes to rehab, and after being cured, he joins an anti-DUI agency.

This scenario is actually very similar to mine with Joe. John and Jack are not getting drunk and driving because they think it is 'right', or not the wrong thing to do. They enjoy drinking, and have never experienced anything negative from it, and in their minds, driving home is easier than walking, and again, they've never had a bad experience with it. With that perspective, he is gaining new knowledge after the crash and developing his morals, because he previously had no moral outlook on DUI that could be changed.

If you argue that he did have a moral opinion on DUI, and that he thought there was nothing wrong with it at all morally... in that case I think the aftermath is somewhat unrealistic. Someone who has morally decided after experiencing things first-hand, that something is not wrong, can try to convince themselves that it is wrong for a time. Eventually though, they will slip back to their original beliefs, and John would revert back to drinking again, and possibly drinking and driving.

 

[KrazyGlue]

This scenario is actually very similar to mine with Joe. John and Jack are not getting drunk and driving because they think it is 'right', or not the wrong thing to do. They enjoy drinking, and have never experienced anything negative from it, and in their minds, driving home is easier than walking, and again, they've never had a bad experience with it. With that perspective, he is gaining new knowledge after the crash and developing his morals, because he previously had no moral outlook on DUI that could be changed.

What if John had a negative opinion of DUI laws, and then they become positive? Is that not a moral change on his part?

If you argue that he did have a moral opinion on DUI, and that he thought there was nothing wrong with it at all morally... in that case I think the aftermath is somewhat unrealistic. Someone who has morally decided after experiencing things first-hand, that something is not wrong, can try to convince themselves that it is wrong for a time. Eventually though, they will slip back to their original beliefs

This can certainly happen, although I don't believe that it's always true. He could certainly change his habits after something so terribly and traumatic happens; it's definitely a possibility. I'd be interested to see what evidence there is that after somebody changes their beliefs after a traumatic accident that they will always revert back to their original beliefs. And even if there were evidence of this, wouldn't John still have morally changed? Whether or not he has changed morally has nothing to do with if he will return to his old set of morals.

John would revert back to drinking again, and possibly drinking and driving.

1. I never said he never drank alcohol again, I just said he never became dependent on it again or drank and drove again.

2. He could have reverted back to DUI, but that's not the definite outcome.

 

[Nysyarc]

What if John had a negative opinion of DUI laws, and then they become positive? Is that not a moral change on his part?

I think what may be happening is that he is making a personal choice against his morals because of an event out of his control. Example: I personally have no problem morally with drinking alcohol, but I don't do it, because I am proud of my physical and mental condition. I understand why others do it and don't have a problem with it, but I refuse to do it myself. If I had a moral issue with something, I would question why others did it as well. I think murder is wrong, and so I think that anyone who murders is morally in the wrong.

Maybe John is of that opinion now. On a moral level, he still feels that people who are alcoholics are not in the wrong, but he won't be an alcoholic himself. It really depends on exactly how you define morals.

This can certainly happen, although I don't believe that it's always true. He could certainly change his habits after something so terribly and traumatic happens; it's definitely a possibility. I'd be interested to see what evidence there is that after somebody changes their beliefs after a traumatic accident that they will always revert back to their original beliefs. And even if there were evidence of this, wouldn't John still have morally changed? Whether or not he has changed morally has nothing to do with if he will return to his old set of morals.

But are habits the same thing as morals? As I said above, just because someone refuses to do something themselves, doesn't necessarily mean that they think it is morally wrong. Obviously there can't be evidence of unchanging morals, because it would require proofs that in every instance throughout history where someone's morals have 'changed', they reverted back. This is all based on philosophical views, and as much as I prefer debates where facts and evidence can be used, I do enjoy this.

1. I never said he never drank alcohol again, I just said he never became dependent on it again or drank and drove again.

2. He could have reverted back to DUI, but that's not the definite outcome.

Even if he does not revert back to being an alcoholic or DUI, that doesn't mean that his morals have changed. Maybe his willpower to disobey his morals is very strong because of the tragedy with Jack. It's like if someone is very strongly against killing people, but they are put in a situation where if they do not kill, someone or multiple people they love will come to serious harm or die.

It's a case of willpower vs. morals, whether or not the person would kill is based on how strong of a will they have to fight down their morals temporarily. John could potentially fight back and ignore his morals for his whole life, mentally convincing himself that DUI is wrong, even though in the back of his consciousness, he still sees the advantages of it and agrees with it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I think what may be happening is that he is making a personal choice against his morals because of an event out of his control. Example: I personally have no problem morally with drinking alcohol, but I don't do it, because I am proud of my physical and mental condition. I understand why others do it and don't have a problem with it, but I refuse to do it myself. If I had a moral issue with something, I would question why others did it as well. I think murder is wrong, and so I think that anyone who murders is morally in the wrong.

Maybe John is of that opinion now. On a moral level, he still feels that people who are alcoholics are not in the wrong, but he won't be an alcoholic himself. It really depends on exactly how you define morals.

Let's focus on the definition of morals, instead of trying to classify this as another term, such as "development" or "personal choice". Doing so takes away the whole extra level of complexity that comes with trying to compare the two terms. I will explain below why I believe John has morally changed.

But are habits the same thing as morals? As I said above, just because someone refuses to do something themselves, doesn't necessarily mean that they think it is morally wrong.

I didn't say habits are the same thing as morals, I said he changed his habits because he changed his morals.

Now, here's why I believe it's moral changing.

blazed's definition: "an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong"

Now, at first, John's belief is that DUI laws are wrong. He believes that people can safely drink and drive; after all, he and Jack have been able to do so on previous occasions. He thinks the law is an unnecessary restriction to our freedoms.

After the accident, John believes DUI laws are important to have. Through this rude awakening, he realizes that one cannot truly drink and drive safely. He now believes DUI laws are very important in society.

His beliefs on the DUI law have completely changed. He once believed it was wrong, now he believes it is right.

His belief system has changed, and therefore his morals have changed.

Your definition: "not an individual moral value attributed to every action we do, but rather one encompassing set of morals that helps guide what we do in general"

I'm not sure if I'm using your definition right, but I'll do as best as I can. Feel free to let me know if you meant something else.

Now, the part of John's set of morals that influences his dislike of the DUI laws is his belief that if something can be done safely by him, it's safe in general.

Post-accident, John's general set of morals has been altered. He now realizes that such an accident could happen to him as well. Jack was exactly the same as him in terms of alcohol consumption and beliefs on the DUI law. John realizes that his set of morals is incorrect. His new set of morals tells him: Just because something hasn't harmed me before, I must always consider the possible consequences before doing something dangerous.

This new moral system guides him to believe that that DUI laws are necessary.

Obviously there can't be evidence of unchanging morals, because it would require proofs that in every instance throughout history where someone's morals have 'changed', they reverted back. This is all based on philosophical views, and as much as I prefer debates where facts and evidence can be used, I do enjoy this.

Yeah, it was kind of meant to rhetorical.

Even if he does not revert back to being an alcoholic or DUI, that doesn't mean that his morals have changed. Maybe his willpower to disobey his morals is very strong because of the tragedy with Jack. It's like if someone is very strongly against killing people, but they are put in a situation where if they do not kill, someone or multiple people they love will come to serious harm or die.

It's a case of willpower vs. morals, whether or not the person would kill is based on how strong of a will they have to fight down their morals temporarily. John could potentially fight back and ignore his morals for his whole life, mentally convincing himself that DUI is wrong, even though in the back of his consciousness, he still sees the advantages of it and agrees with it.

But, see, you keep talking about "maybe" and "could". It's not the definite situation. What I'm trying to say is we're debating on whether morals can change, not whether they will always change.

I believe I've provided valid reasoning as to why a moral change can occur.

Let's actually focus on the definition of morals in the future, not alternate terms or other possible outcomes (because, as I previously stated, those are only possibilities).

 

[Nysyarc]

But, see, you keep talking about "maybe" and "could". It's not the definite situation. What I'm trying to say is we're debating on whether morals can change, not whether they will always change.

I believe I've provided valid reasoning as to why a moral change can occur.

Let's actually focus on the definition of morals in the future, not alternate terms or other possible outcomes (because, as I previously stated, those are only possibilities).

Well, I don't believe in beating a dead horse, and that's exactly what I would be doing if I tried to argue my original point any further. I have looked into it a bit more and have come to the conclusion that moral beliefs can change, but do not always change. There are some cases where my theories are correct, and some cases where yours are, so taking this particular debate further would be pointless.

The problem with defining morals is that there are so many different interpretations. My theory, that each person takes action based on a single general belief system is completely different from the thought that moral values are attributed to each action individually. And yet both can be argued against.

Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong.

principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them.

an intuitive belief system about what is and isn't wrong

A lot of differences between those technical definitions of 'morals'. Answers.com states that morals are the rules of conduct with 'reference' to standards of right and wrong, while Dictionary.com says that they are principles or habits (not rules) with respect to right or wrong conduct.

My laptop implies that right or wrong has nothing to do with it, but rather just what is 'acceptable' for the person in question. Blazed's definition seems to imply that morals cannot dictate what is right, but only what is and is not wrong. There is a difference between something being the right thing to do, and not the wrong thing to do.

So then are any of these definitions accurate? Or can we only really define morals for ourselves? I think because everyone has a different set of morals, everyone has their own definition of what morals are as well. It's an immensely subjective topic, and so it is very difficult to properly debate.

 

[blazedaces]

Mathematics deals with the study of quantity, structure, space, relation, change, etc., what have you. It's a way of describing things. Exactly how you describe the above things doesn't matter as much (in your example of other civilizations using different numerical systems); what matters is the implications.

The point is that the method used to describe things may change, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things there to describe. Mathematics describes reality; just like any scientific theory that cobbles together evidence. Comparing the objectivity of mathematics to ethics and saying they're equally subjective (or unprovable) is silly, and is akin to saying that science and ethics are equally subjective.

The point of the comparison is to show how silly your argument is on why a subject is subjective/not. Your argument is that because it was made up by man it is inherently subject, but that is not true, as math is made up man as well. You argue that mathematics describes reality, but this is a lie. Math, like logic, has nothing to do with reality. It is applied to reality through the sciences (physics, chemistry, applied mathematics, engineering, etc.).

Like I said; objective morality is a dichotomy. Morality and ethics are a way for various groups to human interactions and viewpoints as wrong merely as they see fit. Unless you're religious, there is not one hint of evidence that points to there being a set of objective morals. If there are, I suggest writing a book about it and win lots of money and recognition. The Nobel Prize awaits.

You still don't understand the point of comparing mathematics and morality (look up the word dichotomy, I know what you mean, but I think you used the word incorrectly here). There is no one set of mathematics. This is also no true logic (there are plenty of types of logic, we just tend to associate logic with Aristotelian logic). Why? Because they are both made up. That's right. We came up with them and therefore defined them. That's why it doesn't make sense to ask someone to "prove" logic. And there's no answer to the question "how do we know our logic is the best one"? This is the same as asking, if you noticed, "how do we know one set of ethical truths are the best"?

It all depends on your criteria. Morals/ethics are made up, and therefore are self-defined. It all depends on your goals. For example, a simple goal could be to achieve the most happiness to the most number of people (Utilitarian ethics).

Obviously I was being cute. But you completely missed the point. "A large group of representatives" is not everybody, nor is it completely fair. Are you saying the electoral college is fair just because it's a large group of representatives?

The electoral college is unfair for plenty of reasons. You're correct that this large group of representatives might not represent the world fairly, but then our question is how to best represent the world fairly? There are plenty of ways to go about trying to devise a system to do this. And we can argue about what is better/worse about each system. But that implies we can rate the fairness, and that a best fairness must exist, even if we can't completely attain it.

I never said it couldn't be attempted; I said that an objective set of ethics doesn't exist. There is no universal, objectively "right" or "wrong" way to act that includes all individuals everywhere. At best, morality can describe what is good or bad in relation to how an organism should act to maintain the survival of its genes. But even that's stretching it.

So? I've already compared this to mathematics. There is no one set of mathematical truths. There are many. We know of one. Most of the world has agreed on one and we've moved on from there. It doesn't mean others don't exist or others haven't been offered.

In reality, ethics stems from a misunderstanding of how the natural world works. Humans are not separate from other animals in any quantifiable way that matters. Why should we feel the need to set ourselves apart from other animals with ridiculous notions of honor and morality?

Define "matters"? How do we define different species? Look, I've even made this argument myself usually against someone else's silly argument. But it's still a silly one to begin with. There are plenty of ways to separate humans from other animals. Why should we separate ourselves with honor? I'm not talking about honor.

But morality? Because we care to. Simple as that. Why do we know we exist? Because we have the capacity to ask such a question. If you don't care about others, don't expect others to care about you. This same notion can repeat itself in morals. If you don't want to follow any particular set of ethics you probably don't care to have others follow one. If you complain about things other people do or if you EVER say something someone else did/said was wrong, then you must have your own notion of what is/isn't wrong.

And if we don't--if we concede that animals can have morals too--then you must admit that morals are not universal. They are situational at best, as pointed out by the examples in the OP.

A few ethical theories assume that the standards are indeed situational. Why difference does this make. I believe very much so that this is true. I NEVER thought this is what you meant by "universal". Other ethical theories that believe that we must follow certain "rules" all the time lead to contradictions. That's why I dislike them personally and think we can't apply them if we are to live our lives consistently.

Oh, and BTW--reasonable is subjective. What may be reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you, and vice versa. It all depends on perspective, which is what I stressed with the animal analogy. A lion's morality will not be the same as a gazelle's.

When I said reasonable, I meant logical (based on reason). Not based on what someone says is reasonable, but based on what is logical (we define something purely based on logic to be objective).

But ultimately, what is it based on? A bunch of old guys blathering on about what they feel is right or wrong.

And then we end up with things like the religious right.

So because people have failed before, we can never succeed? Is that your argument?

I never said the arguments themselves do not exist; I said they don't describe an actual, physical thing. Morality is not a tangible object; it describes a way of life, and there's no reason to say my way of life is any more valid than yours, etc.

Why not? No matter what system you talk about, as long as you provide a criteria, you can say one is better/worse than the other. Morals are abstract (just like math), so how can they describe a physical thing?

And they do serve a purpose; I've said that many time before. Without morality, society would probably fall apart. Things wouldn't work. Let's go back to my animals analogy.

Animals that travel in groups (let's take chimpanzees for the sake of example) need to work together in order to survive (I.E., they have a greater chance of surviving as a group than alone). If one chimp decided he wanted to horde all the food at the expense of his fellows, or if he decided to kill them so that he had the greatest chance of passing on his genes, then he's basically shot himself in the foot. This is a display of horribly short-sighted selfishness, and doesn't help him in the long run. He would be better of helping the group to ensure his long-time success.

So yes, morality is useful, but the fact that different individuals--even groups--have completely different morality is a pretty good indicator that some sort of universal code doesn't exist. I don't know how you can be arguing this without advocating religion.

Read the above arguments. There's no universal logic either. Yet logic is considered purely objective. Why? Think about this.

Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.

Insert vague non-relevant pretty response here...

-blazed

 

[Faithkeeper]

@ KrazyGlue and Nysyarc:

While you both make good points, and Nysyarc's theory is quite interesting, in the heart of it all I think you are arguing semantics. To better fit the OP for Nysyarc's point of view:

Does moral luck affect "developments" of one's morality.

may be more appropriate.

___________________________

​

While other examples may better illustrate the specific point the author was trying to make, I find the OP's story

Spoiler

[involving Nazi Germany]

to be the most generally relevant to the question posed by the OP.

I find the important points to be this:

*In the beginning, it was obvious he felt guilty.

*Later on, he had grown cold and felt no guilt.

Now to identify if this individual's morals were changed, these two questions I believe need to be asked:

1)Does being cold reflect different morality, or merely ignoring one's morality?

2) Is the act of growing cold representative of a changed morality, or merely a extended reflection of the original morality that the individual still has?


Now I realized that these questions are very similar, but seem to point to different directions for the reason of "no change in the morality."

An unfortunate part of a hypothetical situation (which was discussed very well by blazed earlier) is that is it so open to interpretation. The openness leaves me with no conclusions other than those of speculation. I find it very likely that even if one were to take a real life example, with many more details, we would encounter the same roadblock. Since I am not this individual, I am unable to identify the basis of his actions. Even if I were I may not be able to do this. I have closely considered this and concluded it may be a result of my lack of education or aptitude in this area, so I leave these questions in more able hands, in hope I may be able to contribute to or refute their conclusions later on.

 

[KrazyGlue]

@ KrazyGlue and Nysyarc:

While you both make good points, and Nysyarc's theory is quite interesting, in the heart of it all I think you are arguing semantics.

No, we deviated into semantics for a few posts, but if you look at the beginning and end of our debate, it was all centered over my example of circumstantial moral luck.

While other examples may better illustrate the specific point the author was trying to make, I find the OP's story

Spoiler

[involving Nazi Germany]

to be the most generally relevant to the question posed by the OP.

I find the important points to be this:

*In the beginning, it was obvious he felt guilty.

*Later on, he had grown cold and felt no guilt.

Now to identify if this individual's morals were changed, these two questions I believe need to be asked:

1)Does being cold reflect different morality, or merely ignoring one's morality?

2) Is the act of growing cold representative of a changed morality, or merely a extended reflection of the original morality that the individual still has?


Now I realized that these questions are very similar, but seem to point to different directions for the reason of "no change in the morality."

Yes, in this situation I would agree that a change of morals hasn't taken place.

An unfortunate part of a hypothetical situation (which was discussed very well by blazed earlier) is that is it so open to interpretation. The openness leaves me with no conclusions other than those of speculation. I find it very likely that even if one were to take a real life example, with many more details, we would encounter the same roadblock. Since I am not this individual, I am unable to identify the basis of his actions.

1. Right, but we have to assume that they do certain things for certain reasons. If we didn't make some sort of assumptions, we wouldn't have this debate thread, or any other theoretical debates. Or, for that matter, scientific debates, seeing as nothing in science is proven. We have to make behavioral assumptions in order to debate the possibilities.

2. Since this is a debate on whether moral luck is possible, knowing the particular person's basis of actions is not necessary. One could simply say that the person's actions could have been influenced by moral luck, and (due to this being a theoretical debate) that is a sufficient example of where moral luck could possibly take place.

EDIT: Sorry if that was a bit confusing, I'm having trouble articulating what I want to say. I can clarify if you want.

 

[Faithkeeper]

You are right on the assumptions thing.


I'm honestly not entirely decided on the existence of moral luck, but for the sake of this debate, I'll say it doesn't exist.

The example of the Nazi solider is:

"2)merely an extended reflection of the original morality that the individual still has?"

I explain this by saying: yes the solider is generally moral, but that morality (obviously) has its limits. His morality stands to a point, but under extreme pressure it crumbles. This does not mean that his morality changed, merely that he only remains moral up to a certain point. That is the strength of his morality, and his going beyond that point is not an indicator of a changed morality, but of the same morality beyond a certain point. (I use this to try to explain the situation with the operant conditioning as well.)

 

[KrazyGlue]

I agree with you that in the Nazi Germany situation, a moral change has not occurred. However, I believe a change can occur in the situation below.

Situation #1: John and his best friend, Jack, both go to the same college and are in the same fraternity. Both drink heavily and often. Both have driven while under the influence of alcohol before, but have not been caught. Their fraternity schedules an off-campus party, and both are invited. John becomes ill a few day before the party, and ends up being unable to go. Jack, on the other hand, feels perfectly fine, and attends the party. Jack gets caught up in the excitement and has a few too many drinks. Hours later, after the party is over, Jack begins to drive himself back to the campus. Jack tries his best to drive , but he has blurred vision that makes it hard for him to see. Jack's car smashes into another. Jack was too drunk to remember to put on his seatbelt and goes flying out the window. He is instantly killed. John hears of his close friend's death then next morning. The event emotionally scars him, and he renounces his life of alcoholism. He goes to rehab, and after being cured, he joins an anti-DUI agency.

Situation #2: The situation is the same for John. However, in addition to John being sick, Jack will be traveling out of state and will not be able to attend the party. Neither of them go, no crash occurs, and they both become severe alcoholics.


I tried to keep this as realistic as possible. Through Jack's decisions in situation 1, which John has no control over, John was permanently changed and he has permanently different moral views on alcohol and DUI. He now believes DUI and binge drinking are wrong. If the event had not occurred, he would have had no problem with those two things.

You can find the reasoning behind my belief that a moral change could occur in this situation by reading the last paragraph and by looking through my debate with Nysyarc.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I agree with you that in the Nazi Germany situation, a moral change has not occurred. However, I believe a change can occur in the situation below.

If you look at your example, it really all breaks down to conditioning. Jack doesn't like the pain that loss brings him, therefore he avoids this thing that that brings him this loss. The question I pose is, is this really a change in morality, or merely a conditioned response? If this is merely a conditioned response, does that reflect a moral change or not? I've been trying to figure out the answer for a while, but today I figured I'd just post it and let someone else have a crack at it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If you look at your example, it really all breaks down to conditioning. Jack doesn't like the pain that loss brings him, therefore he avoids this thing that that brings him this loss. The question I pose is, is this really a change in morality, or merely a conditioned response? If this is merely a conditioned response, does that reflect a moral change or not? I've been trying to figure out the answer for a while, but today I figured I'd just post it and let someone else have a crack at it.

He doesn't just avoid the alcohol, his opinion of DUI laws and binge drinking actually change. At first, he though that DUI was fine and that DUI laws were unnecessary restrictions to our rights. After the crash, he realizes how horrible DUI can be and now believes that the DUI laws are completely necessary and should be enforced.

While his actions (such as never binge drinking again or joining the anti-DUI agency) may be conditioned responses, I'm focusing on the change in his beliefs.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I find it hard to believe that he thought it was ok to DUI. Anyone who has been drunk knows you are impaired. I can understand if he didn't care whether it was wrong or not, but the morality was still there, he just didn't adhere to it. (this is all assuming we take alcohol as a moral issue.) The conditioning he received from the pain of loss conditioned him to more closely adhere to his moral values.

 

[Nysyarc]

I find it hard to believe that he thought it was ok to DUI. Anyone who has been drunk knows you are impaired. I can understand if he didn't care whether it was wrong or not, but the morality was still there, he just didn't adhere to it. (this is all assuming we take alcohol as a moral issue.) The conditioning he received from the pain of loss conditioned him to more closely adhere to his moral values.

That depends whether morality in your opinion means determining what is right and wrong, or simply what is wrong and what is not wrong. He doesn't have to think it is okay or good to DUI, but maybe he thinks that there is nothing wrong with it at first because he has never experienced anything negative from doing it.

It is easier to drive home, even if you're drunk, so John does not morally think that driving under the influence is wrong. Afterwards however, his opinion, and thus his morals, change. There is a difference in my mind between thinking something is the right thing to do in a situation, and thinking that something is just not the wrong thing to do. He could walk home, or he could get a ride with someone else, but driving himself is just as much an option for him at first.

 

[Faithkeeper]

That depends whether morality in your opinion means determining what is right and wrong, or simply what is wrong and what is not wrong. He doesn't have to think it is okay or good to DUI, but maybe he thinks that there is nothing wrong with it at first because he has never experienced anything negative from doing it.

It is easier to drive home, even if you're drunk, so John does not morally think that driving under the influence is wrong. Afterwards however, his opinion, and thus his morals, change. There is a difference in my mind between thinking something is the right thing to do in a situation, and thinking that something is just not the wrong thing to do. He could walk home, or he could get a ride with someone else, but driving himself is just as much an option for him at first.

I guess this is where our interpretations clash. I don't see how someone could think it's not wrong to drive under the influence. People who have been drunk know they are impair when they get drunk. Common sense (like, very very common sense) says that driving a car while impaired is not a good idea. (I hesitate to say "wrong" because I have trouble relating drinking to morality without using religion, but I really don't want to waste a page arguing about that...) Now, the way I see it, since he knows it's wrong, his morals are in place. But he drives home anyway because like you said, it's easier. He doesn't care if it's wrong, it's easier. The conditioning then causes him to place a higher value on the morals, but doesn't change the morals themselves, do you see what I'm saying? (If you understand but disagree, just say so, I won't bother posting again. I don't see us getting anywhere with this anytime soon due to different viewpoints.)

 

[KrazyGlue]

I guess this is where our interpretations clash. I don't see how someone could think it's not wrong to drive under the influence. People who have been drunk know they are impair when they get drunk. Common sense (like, very very common sense) says that driving a car while impaired is not a good idea. (I hesitate to say "wrong" because I have trouble relating drinking to morality without using religion, but I really don't want to waste a page arguing about that...) Now, the way I see it, since he knows it's wrong, his morals are in place. But he drives home anyway because like you said, it's easier. He doesn't care if it's wrong, it's easier. The conditioning then causes him to place a higher value on the morals, but doesn't change the morals themselves, do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, they know that they are impaired, but John might believe that people who are good drivers in general (like himself and Jack) are able to drive even with impairment. Maybe he doesn't believe we should get rid of DUI laws, but they should be reformed because, in his opinion, it is wrong to take away the right of driving while under the influence from those who can drive well under those conditions. He, after all, had driven home multiple times while under the influence and never had a crash.

Also, I think you're underestimating some people's lack of common sense. He may have been raised poorly by his parents; maybe they were both alcoholics as well and influenced his opinions. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody in the world that believes DUI isn't wrong when there are people who believe horrendous things such as suicide bombing are right.

(If you understand but disagree, just say so, I won't bother posting again. I don't see us getting anywhere with this anytime soon due to different viewpoints.)

*sigh*

I don't like when people say this. You're not even willing to try? The whole point is to debate, not to say "We're stuck so let's give up."
_______________________________________

Also, there's the other half of the change, in which his opinions of binge drinking change as well. Admittedly, I've been focusing on DUI, but keep this in mind as well.
_______________________________________

Also, @Nysyarc:

I believe that even if you believe morals are on a scale of "Right and Wrong" as opposed to "Wrong or Not Wrong" that a moral change has occurred.

Image, for the moment, the "Right to Wrong" spectrum as being divided into three levels of morality: Right, Neutral, and Wrong. Now, John's opinions of everything sort all the possible actions someone can take into one of the three levels. Driving Under the Influence is currently in the "neutral" area. After the accident, John's morals alter to put it in his morally "wrong" area.

This is, of course, abstract and very simplified (for the purposes of keeping this post from being extremely long), but I think it sufficiently illustrates why you can still call this a change of morals even if you believe in a "Right to Wrong" scale.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Yes, they know that they are impaired, but John might believe that people who are good drivers in general (like himself and Jack) are able to drive even with impairment.

Are we are talking about a single beer or something? There is a legal limit for that. If a person is drunk, they know they are impaired. You mention common sense later... Are talking about a severely mentally ill person who can't tell if they are impaired or not?

Maybe he doesn't believe we should get rid of DUI laws, but they should be reformed because, in his opinion, it is wrong to take away the right of driving while under the influence from those who can drive well under those conditions. He, after all, had driven home multiple times while under the influence and never had a crash.

See above.

Also, I think you're underestimating some people's lack of common sense. He may have been raised poorly by his parents; maybe they were both alcoholics as well and influenced his opinions. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody in the world that believes DUI isn't wrong when there are people who believe horrendous things such as suicide bombing are right.

As unpolitically correct as it is, it's true- suicide bombers do that for religion. "They don't have to be "logical" about it. Religion can tell you to do whatever it wants, and sense it is from the "word of God" it's right. And before we go off on that tangent, I'll ask you, how many Christians do you know that get drunk? It says in the Bible "Be not drunk..."

Spoiler

I was by no means trying to insult religious people, I'm Christian

*sigh*

I don't like when people say this. You're not even willing to try? The whole point is to debate, not to say "We're stuck so let's give up."

I don't like it when people say this. You assume my motives? *gives up the whole parallel garbage* Anyway... the posts were getting circular, signaling stagnancy. Now, I could think and try to figure out how to send this in another direction or:

1 Stop wasting time. I don't know about you, but my time is precious to me. I've only got so much, and I would really like to use it well. No matter who wins this debate is does absolutely nothing for either of us, except maybe boost confidence. Good point. Next time I'll "surrender" instead of stop posting, how about that?

2 "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I won't bother to explain, it's not that difficult.

3 I could try to explain myself to tell you of my motives, to have you better understand.

Also, there's the other half of the change, in which his opinions of binge drinking change as well. Admittedly, I've been focusing on DUI, but keep this in mind as well.

They do that for the same reason a lot of people do drugs. Because it's fun. Or they use it to

Spoiler

try to

get over depression. Regardless, they don't think it's right, they just simply value whatever they are doing over their morals.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Note: I reordered some of your post to make what I'm saying go in the right order. Hope you don't mind.

Are we are talking about a single beer or something? There is a legal limit for that. If a person is drunk, they know they are impaired. You mention common sense later... Are talking about a severely mentally ill person who can't tell if they are impaired or not?

No, we're talking about a young (college age, of course) and immature individual who is an alcoholic but thinks that his impairment doesn't affect his driving enough to make it dangerous.

As unpolitically correct as it is, it's true- suicide bombers do that for religion. "They don't have to be "logical" about it. Religion can tell you to do whatever it wants, and sense it is from the "word of God" it's right. And before we go off on that tangent, I'll ask you, how many Christians do you know that get drunk? It says in the Bible "Be not drunk..."

Spoiler

I was by no means trying to insult religious people, I'm Christian

I was just using that as an example.

They do that for the same reason a lot of people do drugs. Because it's fun. Or they use it to

Spoiler

try to

get over depression. Regardless, they don't think it's right, they just simply value whatever they are doing over their morals.

I never said he though it was right, he simply thought of it as "not wrong" or "neutral".

Now, I could think and try to figure out how to send this in another direction or:

1 Stop wasting time. I don't know about you, but my time is precious to me. I've only got so much, and I would really like to use it well. No matter who wins this debate is does absolutely nothing for either of us, except maybe boost confidence. Good point. Next time I'll "surrender" instead of stop posting, how about that?

I wasn't trying to "win", you just made it seem like you weren't convinced but at the same time were refusing to debate further. I'm just trying to debate because I personally enjoy debating and I don't consider it to be a waste of time. I learn lots of things from debating with other people. But if you don't actually want to debate, there's nothing I can do about it. So I won't waste your time any further.

I don't like it when people say this. You assume my motives? *gives up the whole parallel garbage* Anyway... the posts were getting circular, signaling stagnancy.

Now, I could try and come up with try and come up with a better example if you're interested. If not, then nevermind.

 

[Faithkeeper]

No, we're talking about a young (college age, of course) and immature individual who is an alcoholic but thinks that his impairment doesn't affect his driving enough to make it dangerous.

I still have trouble believing this. I know lots of people who drink, some of them younger than college age, yet I've never met anyone who thinks it's ok to drive when drunk. Again, I repeat, if they've been drunk before, they know (especially that binge drinking you mentioned) how messed up they get. Anyone who's been that drunk is aware that it is unsafe for them to drive there.

I never said he though it was right, he simply thought of it as "not wrong" or "neutral".

See above.

I wasn't trying to "win", you just made it seem like you weren't convinced but at the same time were refusing to debate further. I'm just trying to debate because I personally enjoy debating and I don't consider it to be a waste of time. I learn lots of things from debating with other people. But if you don't actually want to debate, there's nothing I can do about it. So I won't waste your time any further.

I enjoy debating in general. I don't enjoy debating in circles or in scenarios where nobody changes their minds. Both of those things seemed to be happening. I also don't like ad hominem debates...

Now, I could try and come up with try and come up with a better example if you're interested. If not, then nevermind.

It's your choice. If you do, I'd shy away from things like drugs and alcohol since many people don't consider those moral issues. But I can work with this example well enough.