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

To know if you're helping people or hurting people when you deal with them.
To me, this is very important.

That's just empathy. It's automatic. It has nothing to do with morality.

Again, I don't care about understanding "the perception that Americans had of slavery that lead to abolishing slavery."I care about "why slavery is bad."Not in the specific case of American history, but in a larger scope. The largest scope possible, even. I don't see the point here... everyone does this, some just take "someone else's reasoning" or "society's reasoning" instead of their own. But even society's reasoning came from people.There is no issue with making up your own reasons.
The issue is whether or not those reasons are "worthy" or "honourable" or "upstanding."My reason is "trying to help people and not hurt people."
I'm not sure if Charles Manson had the same reason. Or, if he did... he was obviously doing it wrong. Of course. If this is my way, and I just made it up... why would we expect any past history to already be using it? It could out of coincidence or my own lack-of-imagination... but it's still not something we should expect.I will, however, argue that it is usable for the same issues that have been dealt with in the past.
More specifically, it can be used to show that slavery is bad and we should have laws against such things. I feel like you're making a culture reference I'm supposed to be picking up on... but I got nothing. What uniform? Who are the little brown people?However, if you mean in some made-up imaginary sense... then yes.
If you want a specific one, here's one:Let's say little brown people kill innocent victims for their own pleasure and have no intention of stopping in the future.
Let's say I can confirm that each and every one of them does so.
Let's say I need to wear a uniform in order to kill them (?).
Let's say there's little-to-no risk to my own safety and that of my family (or, I guess, if I don't do anything... there's a high risk to my family anyway).Then, yes, I would "put on the uniform and kill little brown people."
On top of that... given the above situation, if someone would still refuse to kill the little brown people, I would not consider them "saintly" by any means.

Not quite.The feeling of empathy is automatic for you and me, perhaps... but you don't know if it's actually correct or not unless you validate the sense-of-the-other-person's-feelings you have with what the other person actually says their feelings are.That's all I'm saying.Using "empathy" as a guide isn't enough... it's better to validate it by double-checking with the actual person to know if your feeling-of-empathy is actually correct, or is perhaps misplaced.Also... this method would work for those people who don't even have empathy and are interested in living a moral life.
For some people, their empathy is not automatic. This method would work for them as well. On the contrary, it has everything to do with morality.
How can you have morality if you cannot identify "good" or "bad"?

Ah, I see.
I think you misunderstood the context of my words when you first posted.I never intended to imply that my system is the reasoning behind everything we do and we just don't know it.
I only mean to say that my system works, it's practical, it's usable, and it could be used for all the "known to be good" things we already do anyway.Sorry for the confusion. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here... but I'm positive it's unrelated to any ideas I've tried to express.
Perhaps more clarification is required?

So you're talking absolute morality. Without input from society, how do you know you're not doing it wrong? I turned eighteen in 1970. If I was an American, I would have been drafted in time for the Easter offensive in 1972. About that time, I was asked that question about little brown people. My answer was an immediate and definite "yes", which caused gasps and faintings. Oddly enough, in that situation I would decline to kill.

There is no "actually correct". In the vast majority of situations there is no direct consultation with the other person. Empathy is how you would feel if you were placed in a similar situation. The person you have empathy for might actually feel entirely different but it doesn't matter. Empathy has nothing to do with good or bad. It's just a feeling, like enjoying ice cream.

I don't believe absolute morality exists, so no.
But if it does... then yes.I am, specifically, talking about why slavery is bad in as general a scope as is possible. If you can think of a larger scope that still has practical application... I'm all ears. But I am getting input from society.
I'm asking the people affected by my actions. Those people are the people who make up society.How do I know those people aren't getting it wrong?I don't.
But, really, they are the highest possible authority.Take my friend and his coffee again... who better to tell me if it's a good thing for me to give him coffee or not than himself?
I will get my feeling of empathy to make an experienced guess... but if I can confirm it with him, it's better.It's like the scientific approach to empathy. Validating your initial findings with replication from different sources or "testing against reality." Then, as I said, I don't consider you "saintly" I'm not sure what you're going for with this statement? Perhaps saying why the conditions I provided weren't enough to spur you into action (or, more likely, just not all the way to killing) would be good for furthering discussion?Or... did you just want to end the use of this little example? Just ignore my questions, if so. I get rambly on this topic because I find it extremely interesting.

That sounds to me like you're trying to approach an absolute scope. No, those are some of the people who make up society. The ones who are not directly effected by your actions also take an interest. They're more objective, more likely to make decisions that are best for the group. Because "wrong" is defined in terms of what works, not in any absolute sense. Only society can decide whether they got it right or wrong. I'm trying to illustrate that real situations are complicated. I might not feel empathy for innocent people but I might well feel empathy for terrorists. How they actually feel doesn't enter into it. That's what I'm trying to get across to you.

Yes, there is.
Empathy is our sense of another person's feelings.
That other person is actually feeling something (even if that feeling is "ambivalence.")
Our empathy.. our sense of that other person's feeling... may match it (be "actually correct") or it may not.But "actually correct" does indeed very much exist here. I would say in the vast majority of difficult situations. Yes, you're right.
For the vast majority of every-day situations, though... you're wrong. The people are usually right there. Also, you don't always have to ask. A smile or thank-you vs. a disgruntled look is usually enough to indicate if you're on the right path or not.No one said being moral was easy.
Or that you'll always be able to know whether or not you're taking the best option.
That's just life. No, it's really not. Close, but not quite:

quote:

---

Empathy

​

noun

​

1. the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

---

Empathy is our sense of how someone else is feeling. Not how we would feel in a similar situation. It does matter if I'm concerned with helping them instead of hurting them.
If that's what I'm concerned with... then their actual feelings of being hurt or helped on the matter are of the utmost importance. Perhaps this has to do with your usage of the term "empathy", but here's our exchange on the matter: Are you saying that "helping people vs hurting people" has nothing to do with "good vs bad"?Then I can make sense of your responses... But this leads to the next question... how else do you determine good vs. bad?
If your answer is "whatever society says" this only pushes the question back: how does society determine good vs. bad?And, of course, why would whatever-the-answer-is be more important than helping people vs. hurting people?Like I said before, your answer could be "survival"... but that just doesn't cut it (for me).

Well... you're wrong
And, since I'm the authority on what I'm trying to do... I'm right Who cares? You've never been able to explain this point you keep insisting on.Yes, many people might take an interest in whether or not my friend likes coffee. But who cares? They aren't the ones I'm giving coffee to. They are not affected by the action. Who cares what they think?Some actions affect multiple people... in those situations it's quite possible that some people will be helped and others will be hurt and the "best option available" might have to be used.But even then... if still-other people "take an interest", but are not affected by the action who cares what they think? This is only true if you accept that society gets to determine what's right and what's wrong.
Or if society gets to force their conclusions on you.
I do not accept such a premise, and I don't think such "forcing" is "good."I'm saying I have a better premise, and a better way.I am not saying that this isn't how things work right now.. I'm fully aware that society is forcing me not to have weed right now. But, as I said, I don't think such "forcing" is "good."
Other forcings of society I do think are good (say... forcing rapists to go to jail).How can my ideas be different from those of society if society is what determines good/bad?
Because, for me (at least), society does not determine good/bad. I have my own method.I understand how this can be difficult out-of-the-box thinking to understand if you happen to be someone who does think that society gets to determine good/bad. You don't have to illustrate such a thing, I'm well aware.You have yet to mention a complication that my system doesn't deal with, though.
You have, however, failed to try and understand my explanations many, many times. You seem to prefer continuing to say that I must be meaning something other than what I'm actually telling you. I don't understand what you're attempting to say here.
Are you trying to ask if I think something specific is good or bad? If so, I can't make out what that "something specific" actually is.
Or are you just asking for my thoughts on a situation? If so... what situation? I am not very familiar with the specifics on any particular historical war.

Let me put it another way: There is no way that you can know that your feeling actually matches another person's feeling. Morality is only significant in difficult situations. You trivialize morality by applying it to everyday situations like giving somebody a cup of coffee or crossing the street. I'm not equivocating empathy with action, as you seem to be doing. How we feel is distinct from what we do. We may act counter to our own feelings. We may feel empathy without acting on it or we may act without feeling empathy. There is no direct correlation. From the consequences. Humans are characteristically bad at predicting whether the consequences of their actions will be good or bad - but they're pretty good at hindsight. We can determine with some accuracy whether something we did was good or bad but we're not very good at determining whether something we're about to do will be good or bad. That's why whether something "is" good or bad is so complicated.

You keep skating away from the real issues and bringing up the silly example of coffee. Coffee has nothing to do with morality. Slavery does.Other people besides slaves and slave owners do take an interest in slavery. It was those other people who were entirely responsible for abolishing slavery. They were not directly effected by their own actions. In fact, that may be one reason why they took action. You might as well be telling the ducks that you have a better way for them to evolve. Instead of those big flat feet, they "should" evolve the ability to make guns so they can defend themselves. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

You still haven't answered the question.Even in hindsight, then... how do you determine when consequences were good or bad?What consequences are good?
Which consequences are bad?

Of course. Morality is dealing with people. Coffee doesn't deal with people, slavery does. Giving a coffee to my friend, however... does deal with people... and does deal with morality. Again, who cares?What does "abolishing slavery" have to do with whether or not slavery is good or bad?Are you saying that if slavery wasn't abolished... if the South won the war... then slavery would be a good thing?
That's an incredibly kindergarten, follow-the-rules, basic attitude towards morality. Might = right.Abolishing slavery doesn't have anything to do with why slavery is bad.
Anyone "taking an interest" in slavery... doesn't have anything to do with why slavery is bad.Slavery is bad because people don't want to be slaves.Unless, of course, you have another answer for why slavery is bad?
Or do you really think "Might = right" is the best moral system we can come up with?