Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2017, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2017 04:43 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 12:50 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  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.

At the beginning you wrote: "This is a challenge to anyone who thinks that morality is objective, whatever morality may mean to them."

So no, I don't have to try to justify what other people think is "objective morality."

I have offered the criteria of human suffering, which is not just a matter of opinion. Where human suffering is similar between cases, you can just flip a coin or opt out of any moral decision because the information isn't there to support one. This is because moral actions depend on an awareness of the problems and the ability to solve them. People actually apply this criteria all the time, and the differences between their applications has largely to do with their different levels of awareness and different abilities to deal with the problems in question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 05:51 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
There is suffering beyond morality. Illness hunger etc.

So is suffering separate from morality?

In my youth I read much philosophy. From the Greeks up through the 21st century. I consider it to have been interesting. I got to meet characters like Voltaire, Descartes etc. When I say I read them, I am talking even people such as Max Stirner. Many people have never even heard of him.

However, much of it I now consider a waste of my time. I should have studied science.

Reading etymology was interesting.

Morals differ. Genghis Khan had his own morality. Was it wrong? Considering the expanse of land he ruled, one could say he was a success. His empire did not fall during his life. Unlike Hitler who is a minor character when compared to The Great Khan.

Whose morals at what point in history and circumstance?

The question is meaningless to myself.

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
18-08-2017, 06:03 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2017 06:22 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 05:51 AM)Banjo Wrote:  There is suffering beyond morality. Illness hunger etc.

So is suffering separate from morality?

Suffering is certainly separate from our ability to deal with it morally. We all only have so much wherewithal.

Considering moral questions, we try to minimize suffering and especially unnecessary or unwarranted human suffering. We do this all the time. It's built right into our laws and into many of our endeavors as well. There is nothing useless or meaningless about our moral goals, since we are so often successful. This demonstrates they bear on real, objective facts.

I don't think moral considerations were foremost in the mind of Genghis Khan, so he may be irrelevant. As for the philosophers, there has been real progress over time. That's part of the reason why we have enjoyed real advances in science. And the progress of science hand-in-hand with moral considerations continues. Climate change research and activism make this clear, for example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 06:20 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:03 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(18-08-2017 05:51 AM)Banjo Wrote:  There is suffering beyond morality. Illness hunger etc.

So is suffering separate from morality?

Suffering is certainly separate from our ability to deal with it morally. We all only have so much wherewithal.

Considering moral questions, we try to minimize suffering and especially unnecessary or unwarranted human suffering. We do this all the time. It's built right into our laws and into many of our endeavors as well. There is nothing useless or meaningless about our moral goals, since we are so often successful. This demonstrates they bear on real, objective facts.

I don't think moral considerations were foremost in the mind of Genghis Khan, so he may be irrelevant. As for the philosophers, there has been real progress over time. That's part of the reason why we have enjoyed real advances in science.

I have no problem with your answer and find your ideas interesting.

I would hesitate to know the mind of the Khan. We both never met him. Nor do we even know where he was buried.

I therefore tend to leave my question open and consider it unanswerable. I did mention time. And place. Considering that it is through Khan's DNA exists in many humans, we are directly affected by his time and rule.

We exist. Therefore, is Khan's morality important? Had he not existed, chances are nor would any of us. History would be different. As such, moral ideas may then differ.

We can also take Cato and his railing against Carthage. Had Rome not defeated Carthage and spread it's empire, today's ideas and morality may differ in the west.

Remembering of course it was the Romans who defeated the Mongols and halted the Mongolian empire entering into western Europe.

There are many ideas of mine that tell me I wasted much of my life reading philosophy. Reading history in depth helped me doubt moral value definitions.

Is one song good or bad? I recall a recording being played by a GREAT band and a muppet (non pro' musician) hearing it who said it was "Shit!"

To my ears the band was burning and the music killing.

Which of us was correct?

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
18-08-2017, 06:29 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:20 AM)Banjo Wrote:  We exist. Therefore, is Khan's morality important? Had he not existed, chances are nor would any of us. History would be different. As such, moral ideas may then differ.

There are many ideas of mine that tell me I wasted much of my life reading philosophy. Reading history in depth helped me doubt moral value definitions.

Is one song good or bad? I recall a recording being played by a GREAT band and a muppet (non pro' musician) hearing it who said it was "Shit!"

To my ears the band was burning and the music killing.

Which of us was correct?

Whether we exist or never existed is not itself a moral consideration in my estimation.

People no doubt had different opinions at different times, and we are no doubt subject to our own biases and lack of information in the present. However, I do not doubt humanity has also made real moral progress over time. Just reading the Old Testament makes this clear, as most atheists should agree.

Our tastes are not a moral consideration either, unless they cause human suffering in some context.

Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
18-08-2017, 06:31 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:29 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(18-08-2017 06:20 AM)Banjo Wrote:  We exist. Therefore, is Khan's morality important? Had he not existed, chances are nor would any of us. History would be different. As such, moral ideas may then differ.

There are many ideas of mine that tell me I wasted much of my life reading philosophy. Reading history in depth helped me doubt moral value definitions.

Is one song good or bad? I recall a recording being played by a GREAT band and a muppet (non pro' musician) hearing it who said it was "Shit!"

To my ears the band was burning and the music killing.

Which of us was correct?

Whether we exist or never existed is not itself a moral consideration in my estimation.

People no doubt had different opinions at different times, and we are no doubt subject to our own biases and lack of information in the present. However, I do not doubt humanity has also made real moral progress over time. Just reading the Old Testament makes this clear, as most atheists should agree.

Our tastes are not a moral consideration either, unless they cause human suffering in some context.

Wink

I both agree and disagree.

Which of us is correct? Smile

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
18-08-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:31 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I both agree and disagree.

Which of us is correct? Smile

You are right when you agree with me.

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
18-08-2017, 06:41 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:34 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(18-08-2017 06:31 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I both agree and disagree.

Which of us is correct? Smile

You are right when you agree with me.

Hobo

Just as the opposite is true.

I notice you did not mention Cato and Carthage. Wink





BTW. You're cool. Smile

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
18-08-2017, 06:46 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:41 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I notice you did not mention Cato and Carthage. Wink

I think we would have ended up in something like the same place we are today regardless of some of the seemingly important events of history. Different people, same problems.

Thanks for the compliment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
18-08-2017, 06:50 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-08-2017 06:46 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(18-08-2017 06:41 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I notice you did not mention Cato and Carthage. Wink

I think we would have ended up in something like the same place we are today regardless of some of the seemingly important events of history. Different people, same problems.

Thanks for the compliment.

No worries.

However, the world today.

North Korean morality.

Islamic fundamentalist morality.

Christian fundamentalist morality.......

There's an awful lot of different morals existing today.

Which is the correct morality?

It seems to me it matters who one is.

The question in the OP is to me a dog chasing it's tail.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: