Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2017, 06:23 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 03:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I think another question is: Were humans to become extinct, would morality exist?

(17-08-2017 06:08 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 03:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I think another question is: Were humans to become extinct, would morality exist?

Not articulated as such, no.

But at least a primitive cost/benefit analysis common to moral thinking would still be represented in certain species.

I concur.

It's an evolved system. The only missing part would be the cognitive / knowledge / wisdom / representation part. The important bits i.e. the processes (Event > Incident > Problem > Change) would still be present.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-08-2017, 06:29 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 03:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I think another question is: Were humans to become extinct, would morality exist?
What about sentient alien morality or a future offshoot of hyper intelligent Dolphins? Or the overload AI who killed all humans morality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"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
17-08-2017, 03:11 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(08-08-2017 08:05 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Agreement is not the problem; it's coming up with some sort of criteria. Who draws the lines in the sand? At best it can be an average of opinions.

Who draws the line in the sand for the criteria of what it means for something to be objectively true outside of morality? Clearly we all don't agree on what's objectively true. So who draws the line?

"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
17-08-2017, 08:56 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 02:57 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  About the subjectivity of words:

This is certainly the case. However, some questions can be posed so that they can be interpreted in a well-defined, objective manner. Sam Harris, in his Moral Landscape talk, mentioned "the number of birds in flight over Africa" or something similar. He said that just because we don't know what the answer is, it doesn't mean there isn't an answer. This is true, but irrelevant. His question deals with well-defined concepts, and is formatted to produce an exact answer. The answer isn't a matter of opinion. But this doesn't mean all questions have such an answer.

In Harris's example the question is, or rather can be, objective because it references an objective real-world thing -- a quantity which could (at least theoretically) be empirically determined somehow.

But the question isn't necessarily objective -- it just could be. I could, for example, ask "how many birds are in flight over Africa" with only the expectation of getting an educated guess, a statistical estimate, or even a wild guess response -- any of which are going to be matters to greater or lesser extent of subjective judgment. The question itself is therefore only "objective" if the intent in asking the question is to elicit an objective response; else ... not. Smile

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
17-08-2017, 09:04 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 06:15 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 02:53 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Objective morality would be something like, "it is always wrong for one human being to deliberately kill another human being." And then it is always (objectively) wrong, regardless of whether the person being killed is Florence Nightingale or Joseph Mengele.

And my point has been that to use the word "objective" to describe fixed moral principles such as your example is inappropriate because they are not fact-based at all.
I don't fundamentally disagree with that. Indeed, they cannot be fact-based, because "right" and "wrong" are subjective constructs, and not objective facts.

Quote:From my perspective, that is just the opposite of objective, because objectivity requires dropping such fixed biases and evaluating each situation on its own merits in terms of the amount of suffering caused. Circumstances always alter cases.
Any bias in judgment is subjective, whether it's "fixed" or flexible.
The notion that 'circumstances should alter cases' in such matters is, itself, a subjective judgment.

Quote:So you are right that such "objective morality" is really subjective, but only with your stipulated definition. The question was whether there is any morality which can be defended as objective. I still think there is.
Well, we could try another definition for "objective", but I would want to see it supported by something in the world -- in "reality" -- that doesn't depend on human judgment -- something that would still be there if humans were not, and which would still predicate some "preferred" outcome to events.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2017 09:19 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Who draws the line in the sand for the criteria of what it means for something to be objectively true outside of morality? Clearly we all don't agree on what's objectively true. So who draws the line?

You do. And the God you choose judges your line-drawing capability. Choose wisely. ... I draw vulgar drunk hairless pirate monkey lines. The Monkey God is bemused. The Monkey God is always bemused.

[Image: PYdaJCD.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 10:57 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 03:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I think another question is: Were humans to become extinct, would morality exist?

Of course not. At least not human morality. The only way for another form of morality to exist would be another lifeforms developing it.

Then again many lifeforms have a pseudo morality, like monkeys and fairness, if you include that then yes it would exist as long as such lifeforms existed that possess some form of morality.

That's what I think anyway.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 11:03 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 09:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The Monkey God is always bemused.

[Image: PYdaJCD.jpg]

Plus he had a good TV show.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
17-08-2017, 11:31 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(17-08-2017 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 08:05 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Agreement is not the problem; it's coming up with some sort of criteria. Who draws the lines in the sand? At best it can be an average of opinions.

Who draws the line in the sand for the criteria of what it means for something to be objectively true outside of morality? Clearly we all don't agree on what's objectively true. So who draws the line?

If someone claims something is true, it's up to them to demonstrate that it's true. They draw their line in the sand, and then give evidence for why the line should be there. We then evaluate the evidence. For anything beyond the trivial, the scientific method has been the only reliable way of doing this.

Would you like to answer my original challenge and produce a non-trivial scenario you can resolved with "objective morality", however you define it to be? Or you could tackle one of my scenarios, such as a train car killing a person or else cuttings the legs off three people.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
18-08-2017, 12:50 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Coming back to the point about basing morality on reality:

Of course, I agree that this is a good thing to do. However, there's nothing stopping people basing their morality on things that aren't real.

Also, I doubt there are very many people who base their morality on something they themselves think isn't real. Most people in the world think that they have some reliable way of finding out what "God" wants them to do (what their mum tells them), but since not even people in the same sect of the same religion can agree, I suspect they are just rationalizing the morality they already have.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: