A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 09:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Objective morality, if existed, could exist as the forces of nature exist. Or in some cosmic order of layers that exists without any creator at the start of it.

If that were true, that objective morality existed the way the forces of nature exist, the way that perhaps the Buddhist monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, put's it "as intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.", you'd have an excellent design argument, far more compelling than anything else currently offered, like irreducible complexity. If teachers were to teach their students that such a reality existed, we'd likely have to redo the Dover trials all over again.

But that's besides the point. Sure I guess you could hypothetically still classify yourself as an atheists and believe this, but you'd likely fall into a minority among other self-identifying atheists. It probably wouldn't be a very comfortable position for your run of the mill self-identifying atheists, because in a lot of ways this view would be somewhat indistinguishable from certain theistic perspectives. I'd have all sort of questions for such an atheists.

I don't quite know the motivations for this view you've brought up so frequently. It's as if appearance and fitting in with others views are the things you are focused on. It's not about believing something because one could believe it, but not dismissing things without reason to.

At least moreso than simply attempting to parse the most definable proof at the moments. What self identifying anything was, wasn't relevant to the case of fitting in if I could demonstrate repeatable testable proofs to various enough views to corroborate it as something proven.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 07:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 01:34 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Proof for universal morality;

You still have not defined what you mean by a universal morality

Quote:Core scripture spanning the globe and time is the same in regard to goal, reason, and often, means of attainment, or adherance.

Your superficial interpretation of scriptures is laughable. That you can read them in such a way to find similarities is hardly surprising; they were all written by humans so they are all going to reflect some commonality. That does not at all point to anything more than human evolution.

Quote:The conscience. Everyone has one. It's not strictly effected by the chemical changes of the brain, as it also causes them, resulting in more in-depth cognition and emotion, which is also causal to thought in cases.

As has already been pointed out, your ignorance on scientific subjects is nearly unbounded. Please provide evidence to support your claims or stop trying to claim that you understand psychology or neurology. Your ignorance on those subjects is not an argument.

Quote:Advanced social mammals. Do dolphins and arcas fight within their respective species?

So you know little about animal behavior. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.

So you know little about child psychology and development. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:Again, it is selfishness and want of reward that has to be removed. If this can be done, then you can see the objective nature of wanting to advance life and better life in general for the sake of continued existence.

Selfishness and desire for reward is a motivating factor and a drive towards improvement. Your simplistic nonsense denies human nature. Your ignorance is not an argument.

Quote:If you can see all life as one being or thing made up by the whole then evolution would also be able to be objective.

The words are English, the sentence is not. I have no idea what you think evolution being objective means. It conveys nothing.

Quote:Does that mean it is now...not in an obvious and honest way, but I think it is a potential that involves things we all have so it's really close.
Morality is for the sake of betterment. Of course without self being input within the equation at all, or to the extent possible, subjectively.

I've read that several times and it is just incoherent.

Pops, none of what you wrote comes close to being proof of anything except your own superficial, and often erroneous, understanding of things. You need help. Get some.
I tell you what; according to you everything I just stated is false so why don't you go ahead and provide some evidence to refute a single rung I said. Then accuse it of being wrong. As if you have a fucking clue. I've done the research. What have you done?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:31 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If that were true, that objective morality existed the way the forces of nature exist, the way that perhaps the Buddhist monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, put's it "as intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.", you'd have an excellent design argument, far more compelling than anything else currently offered, like irreducible complexity. If teachers were to teach their students that such a reality existed, we'd likely have to redo the Dover trials all over again.

But that's besides the point. Sure I guess you could hypothetically still classify yourself as an atheists and believe this, but you'd likely fall into a minority among other self-identifying atheists. It probably wouldn't be a very comfortable position for your run of the mill self-identifying atheists, because in a lot of ways this view would be somewhat indistinguishable from certain theistic perspectives. I'd have all sort of questions for such an atheists.

I don't quite know the motivations for this view you've brought up so frequently. It's as if appearance and fitting in with others views are the things you are focused on. It's not about believing something because one could believe it, but not dismissing things without reason to.

At least moreso than simply attempting to parse the most definable proof at the moments. What self identifying anything was, wasn't relevant to the case of fitting in if I could demonstrate repeatable testable proofs to various enough views to corroborate it as something proven.

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. Earlier you claimed: "There is no logical connection to connect objective morality and Deity/God figures"

But let's ask this a different way, do you believe there's a logical connection between an objective morality that exists in the way the forces of nature exists and teleology, or design? Do believe there is a logical connection between such an objective morality and a universe with inherent purpose?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:28 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ......

Okay.

I'm going to ask a question.

It's going to probably be a dumb question.

Whether the question is dumb, actually ASKING it is dumb, because it will involve me in this thread.

To people on both sides of this debate, I have to ask:

What difference does it make?

Seriously. Let us say we ever arrived at a definitive answer of "objective" or "subjective".

Then what?

In what way would that knowledge actually change.... anything?

Would we approach morality differently?

If we went from a model of two groups holding subjective opinions engaged in shoulder-jostling to dominance in society and/or to persuade each other on points of moral difference, to a model of two groups with (at least) one in error over their understanding of objective morality engaged in shoulder-jostling for dominance in society and/or to persuade each other on points of moral difference... what would change? If we went the other way, what would change? Would we go about these moral arguments in a different way? Would different techniques become more successful or less in persuasion if morality was objective, or subjective?

If we went from a model of somewhat ad-hoc production of a human construct of social behavior to a slowly growing collective awareness of an objective standard, or if we went the other direction, what would change? Would our current methodology of society's moral development (which seems to be mostly about pitting existing inconsistencies in moral standards against each other, eg, the "immorality" of homosexuality versus the immorality of unequal rights and persecution of minorities) change in the slightest?

What difference does it make?

Yes.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
31-12-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I tell you what; according to you everything I just stated is false so why don't you go ahead and provide some evidence to refute a single rung I said. Then accuse it of being wrong. As if you have a fucking clue. I've done the research. What have you done?

Your poor reading comprehension is shining through again. You did nothing but make unsupported claims and a link was already provided showing one of them is simply wrong. I have no reason to believe you have done ANY research as it is clearly obvious that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You have no clue what constitutes evidence or proof, you apparently just latch onto whatever feels good to you. You are a sad, pathetic little man who needs serious help.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
31-12-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 10:31 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't quite know the motivations for this view you've brought up so frequently. It's as if appearance and fitting in with others views are the things you are focused on. It's not about believing something because one could believe it, but not dismissing things without reason to.

At least moreso than simply attempting to parse the most definable proof at the moments. What self identifying anything was, wasn't relevant to the case of fitting in if I could demonstrate repeatable testable proofs to various enough views to corroborate it as something proven.

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. Earlier you claimed: "There is no logical connection to connect objective morality and Deity/God figures"

But let's ask this a different way, do you believe there's a logical connection between an objective morality that exists in the way the forces of nature exists and teleology, or design? Do believe there is a logical connection between such an objective morality and a universe with inherent purpose?

I don't see the connection their either way.

People tend to just conclude the concept of objective/intrinsic morality as needing a creator god or purpose. Yet there is no demonstration to why at it, it's just a proclaimed connection. There isn't even established arguments of it often. People want to make that connection because it's the supposed established though process. The school of thought in that way is, God=Objective morality & God=purpose. There isn't a set claim that really makes these things needing to be tied to a creator being.

Then the bit you often bring up about "those atheists" wouldn't be like most self proclaimed atheist ... so what? Like anything along these lines of what people are like what other people aren't the points of whats being sussed out.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 12:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't see the connection their either way.

People tend to just conclude the concept of objective/intrinsic morality as needing a creator god or purpose.

I don't think objective morality needs a purpose, it is a purpose. A supposed moral arc to the universe, that exists the way forces of nature exist, is a purpose. It's reality endowed with intrinsic meaning, not one that needs it but is true in and of itself. You can say reality existed in such away eternally, that there was no initial creative act that brought this into being, but that doesn't change the fact. We wouldn't we talking about a purposeless universe anymore, but a purposeful one.


Quote:People want to make that connection because it's the supposed established though process. The school of thought in that way is, God=Objective morality & God=purpose. There isn't a set claim that really makes these things needing to be tied to a creator being.

Where those connections reasonably follow, is when we contemplate the conditions of possibility. This is possibly easy to ignore when you don't actually subscribe to this view of morality yourself, when you're just speaking in hypotheticals, but if a person really did believe such a thing, there would be a great deal to say about this, and it's implications. The variety of things we'd be saying about such a reality, if this were in fact true, or believed to be true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
I was thinking about this yesterday. What I would consider morality.

I think it as being a human construct. One built by social circles, and customs. One can feel things being morally wrong even when society would say other wise. If you visit the KKK's web-sight you can see they talk about how it's their moral right to keep this country white. And for a long period of time this country accepted that. They we're seen as heroes. (Fun fact: Superman beat the KKK, and brought their injustice to light.)

The Mayans felt it moral to sacrifice citizens to their gods.

Early Americans thought it moral, to wipe out Native Americans to take their land.

And ancient Jews thought it moral to rape woman so long as no one saw you.

An interesting case is about a girl named Genie. For the first 13 years of her life she was locked in a room chained to a toilet. she had spent her whole life with no human interaction. When she was found, she couldn't speak, she didn't have any concept of the outside world, her walking patterns were animalistic, and she was pron to emotional outburst.

[Image: Genie_(feral_child).jpg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmdycJQi4QA

It wasn't until she was found a nurtured did she start showing signs of recovery. And even then, she couldn't grow out of it. She now lives in a mental institution at age 58.

To see how society's grow outside of our modern culture we can look toward tribes that have been removed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi2TsQUf62o

That Amazon tribe, finds it acceptable to kill handicapped children. Even allow children to take strong drugs. And when they reach an age they kill themselves. Many acts that our society would deem immoral

Psychopath will not have the same moral walls that many of us have. Or even a Sociopath like Ander Behring Breivik. The man that kill 77 people in Norwegian youth camp. The youngest being 14. He saw himself as a "white knight of justice" and was guide by his belief system.

The stories of history are depicted by the victors. Had Hitler won the war, the face of the world may be very different. We may never know for sure. And what we call ethical or moral would change with the territory.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
31-12-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

It can be used to indicate when taken as a whole, one of two things that either morality is objective, or that objective morality is an illusion, like we might say of personal autonomy, or free-will.

Not really. Free will is likely not quite what people think it is, that is we may have some but it is not absolute.


To be objective, morality must be visible to all, testable, measurable. It's not.

Quote:It would be to say that we are wired by evolution to perceive morality as objective, that we have moral obligations and duties, that right and wrong are not merely a matter of personal preferences, or our individual feelings.

No, it wouldn't. We are wired by evolution to value our own survival. We are wired by evolution to have feelings of empathy for those close to us and to care about their survival. We are wired by evolution to think and perceive patterns. Our ideas about right and wrong are based on our feelings.

Quote:If you're going to account for our moral perceptions by appealing to an evolutionary base, it would have to be one that accounts for a perception of objective morality all together.

Why? We don't perceive objective morality at all. You dream it up thinking that everyone feels the same as you. They don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
31-12-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:28 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  What difference does it make?

Those who believe in an objective morality always try to impose their view of morality on everyone else. Hilarity ensues.


And by 'hilarity' I mean war, torture, subjugation and the like. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: