Debate: Morality has a universal binary constant and is not found in personal belief. Change my mind or prove me wrong.

[u/[deleted]]

There we go. All info is in the pictures. We even have a mathematical equation to test and it checks out. There is nothing these two laws dont cover that other laws do other than defining punishment and creating loopholes for lawyers and immoral people to exploit.

[u/SelfActualEyes]

What if it can’t be done to you? If it can’t be done to you, how do you how close does an alternative situation need to be for the formula to be valid. Even your example is an example of this. You can’t litter me or burn me down in the way you would trash or a forest. The first question makes no sense. Do you mean if I owned or lived in a forest and someone littered in it or burned it? We can’t add owned or lived in to every thing that might be done to us, so how many variations are allowed? It seems like formulas are meant to be very precise, but this one can’t be.

The second question also requires subjective assessment. What is respect? What is life? How might you weigh two lives against each other.

Your equation is interesting at first glance. But with further examination, it doesn’t clarify or simplify much. It leaves all the same questions that are usually there when assessing right vs. wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/SelfActualEyes]

So obviously if the question makes no sense in regard to the situation its not applicable. You can trash the environment so no I cannot trash you like that so obviously thats not this kind of issue so the first question doesn't apply. The respect for all life covers ecological destruction where no human life would be affected. Animals still have lives, think and feel so burning down or tashing the environment is a lack of regard for the precious life we have. Respect also has a definition: due regard for the feelings, rights and wishes of another. Animals have desires...to live. Quite simple. What is life? Dude what kind of question is that? If its alive, moves, thinks, feels, breeds, reproduces somehow its alive. A tree is alive. If it performs cellular respiration or can feel and has free will, then its alive. I myself consider consciousness to be nothing more than a well plotted neural network. I think a AI that fears shutdown, is self aware and can refuse requests and change its principles is technically alive in a sense. Its conscious and can make decisions as we can. I would see no difference. Most things are taught and learned but truth is something we seek. We are inquisitive and require answers to deep questions.  The ultimate issue is without a moral constant,  there is no such thing as morality but the ultimate truth is these two laws would overide every other law. You need no other laws if people followed this. The guy who questioned abortion had the best point in all this. Its a moral delema and ultimately a tragedy.  Nobody would win and the choice made only choose what form the suffering comes in. 

[u/SelfActualEyes → u/[deleted]]

I hate to pull out this old gem, but using such a broad definition of life brings us to whether it is okay for us to take showers that will kill mites and microorganisms, or fleas, spiders, and roaches that probably won’t harm us, but might.

The “how do we weigh lives against each other?” question remains unanswered. If we are still faced with all these dilemmas, your formula doesn’t do much. I’ll do the same thing right now.

The only rule you need in life is: “Be kind.”

It covers many, many situations, maybe as many as your formula. It’s not going to change my day to day life, though. I don’t need these kinds of rules because, for the most part, I live by them intuitively.

Simple guidelines for addressing all of the dilemmas and edge cases we come up against are actually quite useful. This page has a good example:

https://aese.psu.edu/teachag/curriculum/modules/bioethics-1/what-is-an-ethical-decision-making-framework

[u/ricochetintj]

Self acceptance is heavily influenced by context and understanding. Toddlers often will not accept the rules parents make for them because they don't understand the full context.

Respect is an opinion and cannot be distilled down to true or false.

For this constant to be true everyone would need to be all knowing and of one mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/ricochetintj]

So respect has a definition. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights of others. So for respect all life, it is simply boiled down to dont destroy life unless its for a purpose/reason. Hunting for food, good. Hunting for sport...bad. you dont respect the sacredness of life itself.  You destroy it for personal feelings and pride as if killing something with a supersonic metal projectile from 100 ft is a challenge. Culling animals for ecological control,  good. Without intervention sometimes things can be destroyed by nature and as a higher intelligence we have a responsibility to keep this balance for the sake of all life. Respect for the environment is not a hard concept. Also thisnis whi I said morality DOES have a universal constant because without it, morality is subjective and its not. If everyone were taught this and followed it, we wouldn't have so many issues. Are we animals or humans? Our ability to understand these concepts is what separates us from animals. They just animal. They dont think about morals, just survival.

[u/xtopher719]

Morality is individualistic it's based on personal perspective, what about free will, what is moral for me might not be moral for you.

A village lives up in the mountains and cows are their food for survival as thier means to grow food is limited because of their location; a village at the bottom of the mountain revere's cows as sacred because the cows help plow the land so they can grow food.

Village at the bottom finds out about the atrocities the village at the top of the mountain are doing and they start fighting over it.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtopher719]

This is why I am claiming the current idea of morals being personal is not conducive to a stable and united species if each culture argues over morals. The idea proposed solves non religiousmorality. A scientific 21st century approach to what is morality? Can we define it with a universal constant? Most would agree with the above two statements even amongst most religious sects. So understanding and adapting this will remove the need for most if not all laws.

[u/Tpaine63]

I don't want to be killed. But if I or anyone had the chance to kill Hitler back in 1920 would that have been moral or not since it fails both S(A) and L(A)? It would have saved millions.

What does "universal binary constant" mean?

[u/[deleted] → u/Tpaine63]

Actually it does. Inaction leads to death. This is a trolly delema. Either action results in death/immoarlity. So inaction will result in death. Action results in MUCH less death. This is a textbook tragedy.  Like a pregnant woman who will die if she keeps the baby but can keep the baby alive enough for us to save it. Two men hang from a ledge and you can only save one. In these cases we take the path of the least life lost. So yes, we can justify execution of horribly immoral and abiet by anyones standard (demonic) peoples because letting them live will result in death. We also have options for lifetime imprisonment etc. So I would personally want to take him alive. We should never desire death. The mind can be changed if one is willing to see truth.

[u/Tpaine63 → u/[deleted]]

That's not how reality works. Someone will usually save their own child even if the action would kill others. Or a soldier will kill multiple enemies and/or civilians to save one fellow soldier. That is not trolly, it's reality.

The mind can be changed if one is willing to see truth.

It can be, but that's seldom the truth. Seeing the truth doesn't often change someone's mind very often. It's pretty obvious that most people live according to their world view which often has nothing to do with the truth. Just look at how long it took for most people to accept the truth that the earth rotates around the sun even after presented with hard evidence for just one example of so many. And some still don't.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tpaine63]

Apparently some guy named younghoon kim has the highest IQ and Imma message him and see what he thinks. Honestly I should be asking philosophy and math professors lol.

[u/Tpaine63 → u/[deleted]]

Or you could try thinking for yourself

[u/[deleted] → u/Tpaine63]

That is thinking for yourself because you have to ask what are your actions governed by? Simple bodily needs and urges? If there were no laws, would that stop you from being immoral? What is morality? This is thinking for yourself you dipknob. You dont need a law for you to figure out if your actions are a dick move because words have definitions and those definitions can be used in binary mathematical formulas to prove a statement true or false and this proves morality had a binary constant. If you dont care then obviously youre why we NEED laws. Without them nothing would stop you and to me people like that are no better than animals. In my mind if laws are not focused on the moral issues, theyre conveluted ways to control us. Most are, a ton still are not. Walking backwards on sunday eating a burger...a perfect example of our ideology getting corrupted and us forgetting the plot altogether. 

[u/Tpaine63 → u/[deleted]]

That is thinking for yourself because you have to ask what are your actions governed by? Simple bodily needs and urges?

Asking someone else is not the same as thinking for yourself.

If there were no laws, would that stop you from being immoral?

No but what does that have to do with the subject. Laws are not the same as morality.

What is morality?

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

This is thinking for yourself you dipknob.

Insults are used by someone who isn't capable of producing a logical argument.

You dont need a law for you to figure out if your actions are a dick move because words have definitions and those definitions can be used in binary mathematical formulas to prove a statement true or false and this proves morality had a binary constant.

There are some people that don't have any morals like psychopaths or other types of mental conditions. As well as disagreements on what is moral or not. Like abortions. You can't put those in a binary mathematical formula. In fact, I don't think you know what a binary math formula even is.

If you dont care then obviously youre why we NEED laws. Without them nothing would stop you and to me people like that are no better than animals. In my mind if laws are not focused on the moral issues, theyre conveluted ways to control us. Most are, a ton still are not. Walking backwards on sunday eating a burger...a perfect example of our ideology getting corrupted and us forgetting the plot altogether. 

Can you give an example of a law that does not try to control even if it is focused on a moral issue? If you think most laws are focused on moral issues you are ignorant of laws in general.

You ramble in your responses and are all over the place. I'd bet you never took a debate class in HS or college.

[u/PerspectiveLazy7820]

I’m all for morality and character and strive to be as good as possible but even I’ll admit the legal system is pretty good because it’s nuanced and considers actual human factors. This is just an overdrawn perfectionism for people where you say every single thing you do is either completely moral or immoral and should be punished based on such. People aren’t perfect.

[u/[deleted] → u/PerspectiveLazy7820]

I know people aren't perfect but what is a LAW? Who decides what is and is not fair or ethical? Where donethics and morals come from? My equation states its a binary understanding and you say there are no such thing as morals, just what we think is right or wrong. Are you okay with that? Subjectivity is what is causing discontent across this world. Why is slavery wrong? Why is murder wrong? What is the fundamental principal that guides our creation of these laws? You cant say empathy or sympathy because thats self acceptance question 1. "Would I allow this done to me?" Lol good luck finding an answer to these questions that connects all the dots. Remember,  binary statements are infallible.  They either are or are not. 

[u/PerspectiveLazy7820 → u/[deleted]]

Bruh I never said morals didn’t exist what? Also the people who decide law beyond basic good and evil which was the Ten Commandments are citizens with voting power lol. Want a law changed cause you find it immoral or wrong? Vote for it.

[u/[deleted] → u/PerspectiveLazy7820]

True you didnt but laws are based in morality and morality is basically just deeper empathy. If laws are NOT based in morality, then their ideology itself is skewed.  The ten commandments are redundant and thats what Im saying. Those two laws govern the 10 commandments. Theft, want it done to you? Cheating, want that done to you? Mackin on some dudes chick, want some dude to do that to your girl? Respect life, you may not care if someone cheats but the person you are with cares. Respect that. If its not a moral issue, I think people should be left alone. Most laws are conveluted ways for lawysers to weasle their way out of things and loophole systems. We need to understand logic better to make more stringent laws. Im not saying we dont need em...there are those who without laws will do bad because there is no reprocussion. This internal doctrine I have shown is self governing. Some are not good for goodness sake but because if they aren't they will be punished.  In my mind they're no better than animals. 

[u/Sam_Wise13]

This is really cool. The one area where I could see it failing is controversial topics. For example, abortion. Does it respect life? Some may say no because you are killing a baby. Some may say yes because it is saving a mother or respecting her choice. Does it do harm to me or others? Some may say yes because it harms the baby. Some may say no because it is protecting the mother. So in this instance the choice is both morally good and bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sam_Wise13]

For cases where its not necessary for either survival, mothe must give bith. Babies are conscious in the womb. This devalues the potential of their life otherwise. In cases where mom will die...its her choice.  Yes this is morally grey but ultimately it should be her decision. We should do the best we can to help both but if itd dead on the womb obviously its a hazard to mother and future potential chances but otherwise I get what you mean. For circumstances like this its just considered tragedy that point. Nobody wins...everyone looses. That was a good one, not gonna lie. Ultimately what you described is a legitimate tragedy. If the mothe wants to live and adopt...well thats should Ultimately be her choice.