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

Using what dictionary? Who better to decide whether the gas bill constitutes victimization than the bastard who's too cheap to pay for his gas? Almost anybody. Why do you think we have courts of law? This isn't some bizarre idea that I just pulled out of the air. It's the way human society has always worked. Society.

But that isn't true. The reason we know drugs are bad (and as a society, we do know that, m'kay?) is not because the victims of drugs are unhappy. On the contrary, we have arrived at our position contrary to the feelings of the supposed "victims". In the case of slavery, the feelings of the victims were equally irrelevant to the conclusions drawn about them. Why would anybody attempt to stop the use of drugs if all the drug users were happy in their position? I thought you agreed that they didn't. Once again, the people who saw unhappy slaves - the southerners - were not prompted to abolish slavery. The people who didn't see unhappy slaves - the northerners - decided to abolish slavery. Essentially, they were operating from a position of ignorance. Politics is always about perceptions, not reality.

No it doesn't always come back to how the victim feels. In the examples I gave, the victim is absolutely clueless. Instead we make judgement is made independent of what the child may think at the time or in the future.In some cases, we completely ignore the feelings of the ultimate victim. For example, we allow very poor people to raise children who would almost certainly have more opportunity and do better in a wealthier home, because we believe in a right of a parent to raise their children as they see fit. So how do we choose whose happiness matters?

Again, I completely agree with you.
And, again, your statement doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. We've been over this already.
Look at the question I asked. I asked "Who better to state whether an affected person was helped or hurt than the person who was affected?" You changed it into "constitutes victimization."Do you have a comment for the actual question that I asked?I'm not attempting to discuss victimization. I'm simply attempting to develop a way to live a moral life. What better way is there to live a moral life then to know whether or not you're helping others or hurting them?Given that... who better to tell you if you're actually helping or hurting then the one who you're actually affecting?

I've met many, many hard drug users. None of them would describe themselves as "happy." All have described themselves as 'unhappy.'I've also met lots of marijuana users.
Some describe themselves as happy - they want to have the drug legalized.
Others describe themselves as unhappy (and related to the drug-use) - they do not want to have the drug legalized.You seem to be proving my point... Really? They never saw an unhappy slave? Not one of them?
How did they know it was something they wanted to abolish? What did they base the decision on? Again, I'm not discussing politics. I'm discussing a way to live a moral life.

You can prevent a man from having sex with a child without care of the child.. for sure. You can do it because you want to beat a man senseless for fun... you can do it for a lot of reasons.I'm just saying that the reason I have (to protect the feelings of the child) is valid and works and makes sense. Not that any other reasons are invalid.Then it comes down to which system is best. And, again, my system seems to be more foundational, functionl, simple and practical than any other offered/described here so far. Especially when used on a consistent basis.

quote:

---

For example, we allow very poor people to raise children who would almost certainly have more opportunity and do better in a wealthier home, because we believe in a right of a parent to raise their children as they see fit.

---

Because we know from experience that more opportunity doesn't always equal "more happy" and that "doing better" is a subjective thing... not an objective measurement.And, sometimes, we do take children away from families when we do, objectively, know that their situation is not going to be "more happy" for them. Such as an abusive environment. A "poor" environment hasn't proven itself to be as objectively unhappy as an abusive one.

quote:

---

So how do we choose whose happiness matters?

---

A fantastic question.
What's your answer?
My answer is that the person who is affected by the action should be the one who's happiness matters most.I would be most interested if you have a better answer.If you don't care about people being happy... why are you replying?
My entire point is about living a moral life... dealing with other people and helping them be happy instead of hurt.

The answer still applies: Almost anybody is better equipped to give an objective judgement than the person with the most vested interest. How do you know without the input of society?

Who said "hard" drugs? You admit that marijuana users may be happy, yet we still "know" that drugs are bad. Our opinion is not based on the opinions of those most effected. The point is that not all of them saw slaves close up. Some of them got their opinion second-hand. The same way that you know there are people starving in Africa. Did you go to Africa? Probably not. Somebody told you about it. Yes you are. Abolishing slavery was a political issue.

So your personal reason then is protecting child feelings? So what about 14-15 year old boys who completely enjoy that apparently hot adult female molesters are giving up the booty? Is your standard in line with their feelings? The offered measurement (more opportunity) is only partially subjective. And it is far more objective than 'what the child is feeling' a standard that is completely subjective. The real reason we do not use it is because we value parental rights. So what I am asking is a reason for 'parental right' that is based on the feelings of children who at the time of birth are pretty close to oblivious. Your method does not give results that match reality. The best attribute of your system seems to be that you thought it up. But that aspect does not hold much weight with people other than you.Perhaps if you dropped the idea of feelings of the children and made a more subjective statement about what the child's best interest, you would be closer to the truth on many occasions. But that would not add much objectivity, if any.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I simply don't understand this.
I understand if you're talking about punishment or retribution or anything like that... that makes a lot of sense.But simply for identifying good vs. bad... I don't understand how this statement applies.Let's say I give a coffee to my friend.
That friend doesn't like coffee.I say it's up to my friend: he doesn't like coffee, therefore, giving him coffee is a bad thing; and in trying to be a moral person I should avoid giving him coffee now.You say it's up to the someone else with an objective judgement? Why?Is it possible that the objective judgement could be "most people like coffee... therefore this is a good thing"? That doesn't make any sense... now we're calling it good for me to hurt my friend (not a lot, but still...). That seems to lose meaning for the word "good."If the "objective judgement" is that I shouldn't give my friend coffee... how was this objective judgement developed? Is it just that someone else's ideas happen to align with my friend's?It just doesn't make any sense (to me) to identify good vs. bad with an outsider. I'm simply trying to understand how it works. Can you explain it for this simple example? By taking the input of the people you are affecting with your decisions.
Of course, these people will be parts of society... which is why I agree with you on most things, just not specifics.

I feel like we're getting of course.You seem to want to talk about something else, and I'm trying to focus on a single idea. What I want to discuss is "why is slavery a bad thing?"
Not "how was slavery abolished in America?""Why slavery is a bad thing" does not (have to) include politics, depending on how you structure your moral system.When we're born, we don't have a moral system.
When we're young, we are taught a moral system from our parents (basically... a list of rules to follow).
As we develop our own moral growth, we can make a shift into deciding what we want our own moral system to be based on.Some people keep the list of rules given to them when they were children.
Some people move on from that list of rules, and accept another list of rules from someone else (religious leader, personal role-model...)
Some people move on from taking historical lists of rules to accepting society's current list of rules (whatever that may be).
Some people don't develop a consistent structure to follow and simply "wing it" whenever decisions come up.
Some people move on and simply create their own list of rules for whatever reason.I'm talking about creating my own list of rules for my own reasons.Some people have the highest moral priority of "survival".
This works for most things and usually involves surviving in society... therefore taking on the list of rules that current society uses.The issue I have with this is that I do not have "survival" as my highest moral priority.
It's possible to gravely hurt other people for the sole purpose of your own survival and call this "good" under this system.
I think that "trying to help people and trying not to hurt people" should be my highest moral priority.
I can imagine scenarios where I would rather die than cause a certain level of pain to other people.
I can imagine scenarios where I would rather the entire human race as a whole dies off instead of causing a certain level of pain to either that same human race, or possibly another intelligent race entirely.If you do not agree with the above priorities, then I completely understand why you do not agree with my proposed system of morality.
This doesn't make my system "wrong." It does, however, make it "wrong for ringo."
If this is the case... there's no sense in talking about my system of morality, we should be discussing why I hold the priorities that I have (if you care to have that discussion...)If you do agree with my above priorities, then we should continue our discussion and use them as the context for deciding on when particular things are good or bad.

Yes.If 14-15 year old boys like what going on, and never have future regrets with the situation that occurred... why not?
If 5-6 year old boys like what's going on, and never have future regrets with the situation that occurred... why not?The fact is that 5-6 year old boys generally do not like what's going on. And also, they are highly likely to have future regrets (severe, negative repercussions). That's why it's a bad thing... because it leads to people being very hurt. That's why we have the laws to protect those children.I don't know the data on 14-15 year old boys.
But... the same thing applies... if they are highly likely to have future regrets... then such things should be stopped because it's bad.
However... if they are not highly likely to have future regrets. Perhaps even highly likely to have future fond memories of the situation... why would we want to stop it? What's wrong with giving someone fond memories?The same thing goes for boys aged 25-26, or any other age.
If there's negative consequences... then it was a bad thing.
If there's no negative consequences, and even the possibility of good consequences... what's the problem?The thing you're trying to play with is how care-givers (parents) generally "guess" at what's going to be best for their children until their children are able to guess such things for themselves.But the basic premise (whether or not the "victim" is going to have negative consequences to deal with) is exactly the same in all the scenarios regardless of the age. It all comes down to the feelings of the victim. The reason: Historically, parents try their best to do whatever they think "is best" for their child. Who better to make these decisions in the formative years?The reason we take kids away from parents is when we can conclusively prove that the parents are indeed not trying to do what "is best" for their children.Again, it all comes back to the feelings of the person being affected... the child.
Would the child do better with another family ("do better" = be happy in their adult life)?That's the question that's being answered. Being happy is the future feelings of the child. Considering "the best interests" of the child... is considering the (future) feelings of the child. How so? Just stating something doesn't make it valid. So far, you haven't shown this in any way. You haven't even casted doubt. I've never said to take into account the current-feelings of the children. I understand that they may not understand the future consequences of certain actions.
I've said to take into account their possible future feelings. What else would you use to describe "child's best interest" as?I think what I'm saying is a lot closer to what you find acceptable than you want to admit, for some strange reason... It adds as much as possible. However much that is. Unless you can describe a model that offers more objectivity in a more helpful way that put's the "child's best interests" as a priority? You still have yet to attempt that...

What's the point of "good" or "bad" unless it's for determining consequences?

Slavery was abolished because it was perceived as a bad thing. To understand that perception, we have to understand how it was abolished. So was Charles Manson. I didn't say it was "wrong". I said it isn't the way things work - and you seem to agree. Can you imagine a scenario in which you would put on the uniform and kill little brown people? If not, you're more saintly than most of us.

So your system does not explain what we actually do. In lots of cases parents are absolutely clueless. Generally speaking we can say that an experienced parent or a trained professional is much better suited to make those decisions than the brand new parents of a new born. In fact, the new born's grandparents are probably better positioned than the parents.However we don't make such decisions with the best interest of the child in mind. Instead we recognize the rights of parents despite the fact that the impact on the child can be greater. And I'm saying the child's "feelings" are not what is taken into account and that such a standard is too nebulous. In fact such a standard is way more nebulous than having all children raised by parents who will be likely to be able to afford a college education.