Is innate morality objective?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2014, 02:07 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 01:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thread Split on request. Apologies, I had to close the thread to prevent posts that would need more splitting.
Thanks, Mom. Smile

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
02-02-2014, 02:08 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
We've already gone over this with Stevil in another thread.

Stevil wants a minimalist state that is concerned only with preserving stability, private property and personal safety because that is the most that all parties are likely to agree to. Anything that is outside of these concerns goes into the private sphere. It is essentially a form of micro-state libertarianism.

It sounds ok in principle but no state like that has ever existed, it could be just as fanciful as the socialist Utopias that were proposed before the Russian Revolution, i.e. a bad idea destined for the rubbish pile of bad ideas.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2014 02:33 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 01:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thread Split on request. Apologies, I had to close the thread to prevent posts that would need more splitting.

Thank you.

And to answer your earlier question... I was being flippant (who me? I know, shocking, isn't it)

Consensus Morality implies but does not necessarily equate to anthropocentrism.

It assumes that humans are a good idea. I'm still not convinced of that.

The universe doesn't think we are that important.

This view reveals the flaw in utilitarian / consequential models... we don't know the ultimate outcome of the universe (in terms of good/bad/right/wrong).

There are only two ways of knowing this:
1. Divine command
2. Hindsight

This does not mean, however, that we can't create an open-ended scale and plot stuff on it i.e. one thing is more objectively good or bad than another thing.

But we can only do this if first we make some assumptions i.e. that human well-being is valuable to the universe.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
02-02-2014, 02:09 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 01:58 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 01:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  My issue with your stance is always at a more mundane level.

That he moralizes amorality? No, wait, that's my issue. Tongue
Really depends on your definition of morality.
I have no shoulds and oughts, I have no right and wrongs.
I have no moral beliefs and I feel no moral obligations.

This doesn't, however change my view that I want to survive and I personally don't want to be oppressed.

On a philosophical standpoint I also strive to be consistent, so if you classify my position as being a moral stance then I'd be keen to take you up in a one on one discussion in an attempt to define morality in a consistent manner with enough detail such that it can be objectively applied to various scenarios in order to ascertain if the scenario classifies as being morally significant.
We could then run my viewpoint through that definition and see if it can be assessed as a moral stance or an amoral stance.
Up to you. I'm keen to put my stance to the test.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 01:29 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But the moment it is used to force people to conform, that is the moment I oppose it.

That's not completely true. You will still have a state and that will still police and enforce conformity to its laws; all you are proposing is that the public sphere is to be as small as possible not that there is to be no coercive state.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 02:09 AM)Stevil Wrote:  ...
so if you classify my position as being a moral stance then I'd be keen to take you up in a one on one discussion in an attempt to define morality in a consistent manner with enough detail such that it can be objectively applied to various scenarios in order to ascertain if the scenario classifies as being morally significant.
We could then run my viewpoint through that definition and see if it can be assessed as a moral stance or an amoral stance.
Up to you. I'm keen to put my stance to the test.

OK. No need to be just one on one but let's try this:

Here's the current list of 'moralities' (from Jonathan Haidt)

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

1. Harm / care (empathy)
2. Fairness / cheating (reciprocity)
3. Liberty / oppression (freedom)
4. Loyalty / betrayal (in-group)
5. Authority / subversion (respect)
6. Sanctity / degradation (purity)

Tests show that the liberal-minded are more in tune with 1. 2. and 3. whereas conservatives value all six.

You say "I want to survive and I personally don't want to be oppressed."

"I want to survive..." is a moral position regarding #1.
"... I personally don't want to be oppressed" is a moral position regarding #3.

How dya like them apples?

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-02-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 02:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It sounds ok in principle but no state like that has ever existed, it could be just as fanciful as the socialist Utopias that were proposed before the Russian Revolution, i.e. a bad idea destined for the rubbish pile of bad ideas.
Moral beliefs are eroding.
This is a known fact.
Governments are becoming less and less concerned with moral control. People are being given more and more empowerment with regards to living the life they choose for themselves.

In part this is due to globalisation, with an intermingling of different cultures, and beliefs. Also in part due to a maturing attitude and respect for the individual's choice.

Woman's lib happened, they got the vote and equal rights.
Woman are allowed to grow up before marriage, Woman are no longer scorned for sex outside marriage or even motherhood outside of marriage.
We stopped killing and locking up gays.
We now let them marry.
We allow inter-racial marriage.
In mature countries we allow prostitution and some recreational drugs.

A lot of the above had been deemed (historically) moral matters.
Governments are eroding the ideas of morality until at some point what is left will be indistinguishable from what I am touting, Government concerned with stability of society and respecting people's choices and beliefs rather than to coerce conformance by force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:28 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  A lot of the above had been deemed (historically) moral matters.
Governments are eroding the ideas of morality until at some point what is left will be indistinguishable from what I am touting, Government concerned with stability of society and respecting people's choices and beliefs rather than to coerce conformance by force.

Yes that does have some truth to it but I don't know if all the liberal democracies of the world are heading heading towards what you are proposing. But even if they were that is a separate matter from if they should be heading that way.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:30 AM
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 02:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It sounds ok in principle but no state like that has ever existed, it could be just as fanciful as the socialist Utopias that were proposed before the Russian Revolution, i.e. a bad idea destined for the rubbish pile of bad ideas.
Moral beliefs are eroding.
This is a known fact.
Governments are becoming less and less concerned with moral control. People are being given more and more empowerment with regards to living the life they choose for themselves.

In part this is due to globalisation, with an intermingling of different cultures, and beliefs. Also in part due to a maturing attitude and respect for the individual's choice.

Woman's lib happened, they got the vote and equal rights.
Woman are allowed to grow up before marriage, Woman are no longer scorned for sex outside marriage or even motherhood outside of marriage.
We stopped killing and locking up gays.
We now let them marry.
We allow inter-racial marriage.
In mature countries we allow prostitution and some recreational drugs.

A lot of the above had been deemed (historically) moral matters.
Governments are eroding the ideas of morality until at some point what is left will be indistinguishable from what I am touting, Government concerned with stability of society and respecting people's choices and beliefs rather than to coerce conformance by force.

Yup. We see that in business governance too. Less about compliance and more about best practice regarding continual improvement (plan-do-check-act; the Deming cycle). But 'compliance' is still desirable (cue Girly's 'burning lake' pic).
It's just that the methods to enforce compliance are evolving too.

I noticed your above comment was more 'is' and less 'ought'. Are you recommending evolution rather than revolution (continual rather than continuous improvement)?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2014 01:30 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
RE: Is innate morality objective?
(02-02-2014 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 02:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It sounds ok in principle but no state like that has ever existed, it could be just as fanciful as the socialist Utopias that were proposed before the Russian Revolution, i.e. a bad idea destined for the rubbish pile of bad ideas.
Moral beliefs are eroding.
This is a known fact.
Governments are becoming less and less concerned with moral control. People are being given more and more empowerment with regards to living the life they choose for themselves.

In part this is due to globalisation, with an intermingling of different cultures, and beliefs. Also in part due to a maturing attitude and respect for the individual's choice.

Woman's lib happened, they got the vote and equal rights.
Woman are allowed to grow up before marriage, Woman are no longer scorned for sex outside marriage or even motherhood outside of marriage.
We stopped killing and locking up gays.
We now let them marry.
We allow inter-racial marriage.
In mature countries we allow prostitution and some recreational drugs.

A lot of the above had been deemed (historically) moral matters.
Governments are eroding the ideas of morality until at some point what is left will be indistinguishable from what I am touting, Government concerned with stability of society and respecting people's choices and beliefs rather than to coerce conformance by force.

I disagree that moral beliefs are eroding. Aren't they slowly being replaced with a revised standard of morality? This has always happened throughout history, societies as a whole decide what's important to them.

With such great change usually comes fear, which probably causes governments and people to try to over-step.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: