What do you believe?

[QuantumT]

What exactly qualifies as 'pain' to me? If something just takes away from me financially somewhat, does that count as pain? What if it's just inconvenient?

Do you know what hedonism is? Look is up. "Pain" is basically anything that you don't want, anything that you feel negatively toward.

Just fyi, that came off as unnecessarily condescending.

If that's what qualifies as pain, then I think it answers your question. Since we'll never be in a position where being required to help someone won't cause us pain, so unless we weigh the respective amounts of pain, it won't really matter.

[OldTrees]

@Bloodshadow

I think your belief might be simplified to

An act is immoral if the act would cause foreseeable likely pain to others.

I would also recommend a threshold at which point something becomes pain.
(If pain is everything we dislike then it becomes hard or impossible to act without being apathetic towards the pain of others)

With your moral theory as I understand it
You have an obligation not to inflict foreseeable pain in others.
However it is supererogatory (above the call of duty, morally praiseworthy) to eliminate the pain of others even if it causes you pain. (assuming such actions do not create more foreseeable pain in others)

So
"If you're suffering, but someone else is suffering more than you, does that take away your right to think "my life sucks"?"
Yes provided it does not cause foreseeable pain in others. Thinking rarely does directly. Usually thought change behavior which might cause pain. As long as the thoughts do not create behavior that cause pain in others then they are acceptable. In fact if specific thoughts cause you to try to eliminate the pain of others, those thoughts would be morally praiseworthy.

"If you're happy, but someone else is suffering, does that make you selfish because you're gloating in your own happiness instead of trying to help the suffering person?"
Yes, it makes you selfish and greedy but selfishness and greedy are not immoral on their own and the actions they are causing in the example are permissible. However if you stopped to help remove some of the suffering that would be morally praiseworthy.

[Bloodshadow]

An act is immoral if the act would cause foreseeable likely pain to others.

No, no, you're missing a very important point here. The intention matters more than the outcome. Accidentally killing someone in self-defense isn't immoral, but merely thinking about murdering someone is.

[OldTrees]

@Bloodshadow

I worded it in a way that is translatable across metaethical divisions.

(The pronoun you is not used in an accusatory manner)

If you think about an act but have no intention of performing the act can there be immoral intent?
If you intend to do an act with foreseeable (ie you foresaw) likely (not some tiny risk you could statistically ignore) pain then was there not intent to cause that pain?


In the self defense example you are trying very hard to minimize the risk that the other person will be killed. Hence since the probability of their death is low as a result of your actions you are not intending their death but rather you are intending to risk their death which is another thing entirely.

[Bloodshadow]

There is another thing that I believe: It's OK to respond to an immoral act with another immoral act, as long as your responsive immoral act doesn't cause more pain than the pain inflicted by the initial immoral act. Thus, self-defense is not completely immoral even though you know it will inflict pain onto your attacker.

Yes, I believe we should have capital punishment. Personally, I think that doing enough immoral rights (e.g. killing in cold blood) removes your status as a human being. If a man rapes and mutilates several women, then I will no longer consider him to be human; I will not hesitate to conduct horrible experiments on him, or do any other inhumane things to him.*
*I'm just saying that... In real life I'm way too squeamish to conduct horrible experiments on people.

[OldTrees]

I am not sure how an eye for an eye is consistent with your not intend to cause pain belief. Both are valid ideas but I do not see how they can coexist.

Also something to think about. Animals feel pain.

[Dragoon1140]

Yes, I believe we should have capital punishment.

Just a little tidbit I'll share:  Everybody believes in capital punishment existing.   It is just a matter of how often it should be used, and whether or not those convicted of such a punishment are truly guilty for what they've done.

Of course, this is a discussion for another topic.

[OldTrees]

Yes, I believe we should have capital punishment.

Just a little tidbit I'll share:  Everybody believes in capital punishment existing.   It is just a matter of how often it should be used, and whether or not those convicted of such a punishment are truly guilty for what they've done.

Of course, this is a discussion for another topic.

Not true. Many people do not agree with capital punishments due to various philosophical beliefs. However the majority does favor capital punishment.

But you are right. The morality of capital punishment is another topic.

[Bloodshadow]

I am not sure how an eye for an eye is consistent with your not intend to cause pain belief. Both are valid ideas but I do not see how they can coexist.

My philosophy is that an act is immoral if the person intends to or is apathetic about inflicting pain with such an act, unless said act is a response to another immoral act. Otherwise, merely defending myself is immoral. I've had people hurting me more than often enough, and I don't want to think that fighting back is as bad as the act of hurting.

[OldTrees]

@Bloodshadow
I understand that you believe that.

However I do not (in my imperfect collection of knowledge) know of a way to derive that pair of ideas from the same base principles. Note: this is my failing not yours.

[Malduk]

I believe there is a god (or God). By my definition, god is the absolute, and by that definition, its pretty silly to think there isnt a god. Many religions share the definition of a god being the absolute, but they try to describe the absolute by non-absolute adjectives. Absolute is neither good nor evil, its not vengeful or forgiving. Humans cant perceive the absolute as we're fairly limited in... everything.

Many humans do not bother with absolute as its beyond their imagination. They cant test it, measure it, prove it. If they could, it wouldnt be the absolute, would it?

[OldTrees]

@Malduk

Is and if so how is absolute different from perfect?
How does this belief shape/interact with your other beliefs?