God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

Actually, my system being subjective is it's power. Not a negative thing.
Any statically objective system of morality is easily shown to be silly.You determine if the outcomes are acceptable or not by seeing how the people affected by the action react.If I give a coffee to my friend and he's disgusted by it and says he doesn't like coffee... then it's a bad thing to give him coffee.
If he accepts it with a smile and says thank-you... then it's a good thing to give him coffee.Sure, there are situations where we cannot know how someone is going to react. That's where trying your best to be a good person comes in... and acknowledging you made a mistake and correcting it for future situations if you're wrong.But, well, I don't see what the alternative is. What is a system of morality that doesn't have to deal with not being able to see the future?
An static objective system would work for that... but it's useless as a system for morality anyway... because people are not static or objective. Can you name one?
What do you mean by me "liking the results"?If I like coffee... and I buy a coffee for my friend, but he doesn't like coffee...
Just, I "don't like the results" because I just made a mistake.But I like the moral system, and how it updates my actions so that next time I don't get him a coffee.

This is exactly why we're not finding any common ground.I understand that in an absolute total objective sense there is "no reason" for any moral arguments whatsoever.
I understand that there are many different reasons that many different people use that could be consistent for them or not.What I'm saying is that my reason is "to try and help people as much as possible and try to hurt them as minimally as possible."That's what I tried to explain in Message 326.If you do not agree with my reason, then we can discuss my reason's usefulness.
If you do agree with my reason.. then the rest of my ideas flow from there.Just saying 'There is "a" reason.' Without going into more detail leaves the discussion in a dead-end.
Of course there is... the whole point is to figure out what that reason is, and see if it's better than my reason or not.If it is... then I'll change my system of morality.
If it isn't... then I'll stick with my system.Regardless of that... the ideas of my system still flow from my (current) reason.So, we can move the discussion forward in one of two ways:You do not accept my reason, and you can identify a possible alternative and we can discuss the pros/cons of each.You do accept my reason, and we can then use that as the basic foundation and discuss situations in light of that reason.Or, we can stop the discussion as there's no where else to go. Who is a stakeholder? That is important to know.
In my system... the "stakeholder" would be the person (or multiple people) that are affected by the action... not the person (or multiple people) that are deciding to implement the action. And also not any person who is completely unaffected by the action in any way.In light of my reason... it makes perfect sense to value the stakeholders (as I've just defined them) and hold their subjective opinion of their own feelings as paramount for determining if the action was "good" or "bad."If using another reason... or if defining "stakeholder" differently... then I completely agree with you. It is, however, obvious and irrelevant.

I don't see how this works.
You can refuse to operate within whatever society uses and create negative consequences (like Charles Manson).
Or
You can refuse to operate within whatever society uses and create positive consequences (like Ghandi).I don't see how you can say that "not operating within whatever society uses" is a one-way street to Charles Manson in light of other people like Ghandi or anyone else who breaks away from the norm and creates a better way. Exactly.
That's why my decision is to let the people affected by the action decide if it's good or bad.How is that similar to what Charles Manson did? Fair enough."Slavery is bad as long as people don't want to be slaves."I don't see how that changes my point, though... Exactly.And some reasons will be better than others.
All I'm trying to do is identify whatever potential reasons I can and see if they are better or worse than the one I already use.

Matters for what?I want a system of morality to govern my actions so that I can maximize helping other people and minimize hurting other people.
My personal reason matters a great deal for that. Again... matters for what?
Matters for what society does? I'm not interested in what society does. I'm interested in what I do. I'm me. I do actions. Those actions affect other people. I want the actions I do to result in helping people rather than hurting them.To me, the group reason is irrelevant as long as I don't incite violence from them against myself or those I care about.I don't see how trying to help the people I affect will lead to inciting violence from them against myself or my family... You just redefined stakeholders, and then said it doesn't work with my system?
Of course not... you just redefined what the system was so that it was no longer "my" system.I agree it doesn't work when you mangle definitions.If we do, however, use my system.. we should consult the victim and only the victim.Does the victim want to be raped?
- If yes, then my system says that society should not stop the action.
- If no, then my system says that society should prevent the action.Of course, society may very well use some other system... but that doesn't change the facts that flow from using mine.Whatever point you're trying to make here seems irrelevant to the ideas I'm trying to describe.

I agree completely with this statement. It's precisely what my system is designed to prevent. Objective in what sense?What if society doesn't want to maximize helping people vs. minimizing hurting people?
What if society wants to prioritize society's survival at all costs?
What if society thinks rape victims are required as sacrifice to the Gods to keep the economy running?Wouldn't that be introducing society's own bias into the situation?How can you tell if society is "more objective" or not? When is it "objective enough."
What standard are you using?

Either you don't understand what I'm describing, or you're trolling.This statement doesn't make any sense.I just described that what matters to me is helping other people in whatever way they describe that as such.
I'm talking about figuring out what matters to "everybody else."Then you said that this just matters to me, but not to anyone else.You just said that what matters to other people doesn't matter to other people. What about it?
I consider it the same way as I consider tobacco...We know that smoking is bad for you.
But, if someone wants to judge for themselves that they would rather accept the negative consequences for whatever positive conditions they get in return... who am I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to smoke?Same for drugs:If someone wants to judge for themselves that they would rather accept the negative consequences for whatever positive conditions they get in return... who am I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do drugs?

I'm not eliminating the bias.
I'm saying that their bias is the only one that matters. Fair enough.
This is then society's "reason" for deciding good/bad.I'm just saying that my "reason" is better than that.I think it's obvious that my reason of wanting to maximize helping people and minimize hurting people is better than sacrificing rape victims to the Gods to keep the economy running.I fully understand that any person (or society) that doesn't agree with my reason will not agree with my system that flows from that reasoning.

I don't think you get to say what matters to everybody else.
I think that "everybody else" gets to say what matters to everybody else. And it's going to be different for different people. There you go again with "don't matter."Don't matter to what????My individual ideas about morality certainly do matter when my moral priority is to help people and not hurt them.Of course my individual ideas don't matter to anyone else who doesn't care about helping people and not hurting them.
But, according to my priority, I don't care.At some point, I would rather by lynched by a mob than give up on certain levels of my principles. I do when I'm trying to do the right thing and am unable to gain the information from them directly. Then I do the best I can with my experiences and history.
However, I can only say I'm actually doing the right thing if I can confirm it with them.If you have a specific circumstance in mind, please present it and we can discuss.

Then it should be easy for you to describe a simple scenario or example where this happens.Since you haven't been able to do that, I think you're overstating your case.

That's not true. And, again, you're ignoring everything I've already said about this.
But, if you want to do it again, then we will:I do not back the man's refusal to pay his gas bill.
I simply back that this man gets to decided if what the gas company is doing to him is good or bad.On the course of punishment (here: not paying the gas bill), I've already agreed with you that such things should not be determined by the one affected by the action. I've already agreed that 3rd party is better in this scenario.Punishment should consider a lot of things, not limited to:How many other people are the gas company affecting with the same action?
Are all people saying that the gas company is being bad to them?However, I still say that the man should be able to identify if the gas company is being good or bad to him.Again, your scenario doesn't even show a failure in the use of my system, let alone a drastic one.

Of course they don't, who says they should?
That doesn't change my proposed argument that my system is the best way to prioritize helping people and not hurting them.

Why would you think that? I told you that there are more things to consider here:

quote:

---

How many other people are the gas company affecting with the same action?
Are all people saying that the gas company is being bad to them?

---

If you care to expand your example in light of these points, we can expand the explanation.The gas company deals with many people.
Each of those people gets to decide whether or not the gas company is treating them well.Are there contracts involved that both parties agree to? If so, then how they feel may no longer be an issue in regards to punishment.If not, then if most of the people are upset... don't you think something should be done?
If most of the people are not upset... and it's just this one fellow... then likely nothing should be done. However, this doesn't mean this one fellow isn't being treated badly. It just means that we justify treating this one fellow badly in order to run the gas company as best we can.People (society) can then judge for themselves if they are okay with the gas company being bad to this one fellow while being okay with everyone else.The point is not to sweep this one person under the rug.Society deciding it's okay while considering this one man being treated badly is one thing.
Society deciding it's okay while totally ignoring this one man and saying he doesn't count... is another.Same practical outcome, different mindset.The different mindset comes into affect when the situation changes:Let's say 2 people are upset now.
Maybe this is still okay for society.Then my way: we have 2 people being upset, but society keeps going anyway.
Not my way: The gas company keeps going, ignore the kooks.As the number of upset people grow... my way shows a larger and larger problem that needs attention.
As the number of upset people grow... the gas company keeps going, ignore the kooks. If you keep ignoring individual cases... you'll never add them up into larger sets.If you do keep track of the individual cases... then "not my way" actually is "my way" anyway... and your entire example, again, was simply describing the system I'm explaining in the first place.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

To attempt to do it in a better way, of course.If the other people's system is better (better at prioritizing helping and not hurting others), then I would dump my system and take up that one. If mine's better, then I'd keep mine.The point of this idea is to follow the moral priority: help others and don't hurt them as much as possible.

What are you calling a "success" or a "failure"?Are you saying that 1 person that is not happy is a "failure" when a gas company services 1000s of people?
Then... you're saying the current system is equally a failure? I don't understand your terminology. I'm calling it a success because it successfully identifies when someone is being hurt, and when someone is being helped.If the gas company has a priority of making money, instead of helping people... then I don't see how that makes the indentification that 1 person is being hurt a "failure."The identification is still a success.
The gas company (if it's priority is staying in business, or making money, or whatever) is also a success.I don't understand your issue. How so?My system suggests to recognize that someone is hurt when they say that they are hurt.
How is that "inordinate weight"?

Of course not. That's exactly why my system is designed to let other people decide when they are hurt or helped.On the other hand, if we want to talk about my priorities and why I hold them... then it is all about me, and should very well be.You're confusing two different aspects to try and make a point that doesn't exist. Then what's your problem?
If society does exactly what I say they do... why do you have an issue with what I say? This has nothing to do with anything I've ever described in this thread. In fact, I've told you many, many times now that this is inherently not what I mean and that you have something mistaken.Would you like to continue on and try to uncover your mistake in good faith?
Or would you like to continue trolling and purposefully confusing separate aspects to make some point that makes you feel better but has nothing to do with what I'm actually talking about?