Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2015, 03:42 AM
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 02:47 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 02:36 AM)Hambone Wrote:  Correct. If I say chocolate cake is better than banana bread, is that a FACT? of course not. Taste is subjective, not factual.

If I say blonde haired woman are better than brunettes, is that a fact? of course not. Beauty is subjective.

If I say Taken 1 is a better movie than Taken 2, is that a fact? Of course not. Movies are subjective.

If I say the earth is in the shape of a ball, is that a fact? Yes, because the shape of the earth wether its flat or a ball is a fact.

How bout saying you prefer chocolate cake to banana bread and that is a fact? It is true that I prefer football to baseball but that does not mean football is objectively better than baseball.

Morality isn't one side of the coin or the other. Why you're trying to make it such a simple concept I am not sure, but morality is a testament to the impressive complexity of the human brain and its evolution.

Exactly my point.

It is a fact that 80% of Singaporeans are conservative (based on repeated polling data) and will not take lightly the plans to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code that makes homosexuality illegal.

Even though science tells us that mammalian homosexuality is natural (an objective fact) the governance decision is to leave the law unchanged but to ignore any reported 'offences'.

In other words, the right decision (based on a risk assessment) is to align to the subjective fact not the objective fact.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
30-07-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 08:37 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 08:28 PM)epronovost Wrote:  hmmmm... to whom are you sending this challenge? Are we supposed to debate on your biased statement or can we debate the real ones underneath? You are aware that ethics and morality have more declination than subjectivism and objectivism.

PS: Nitpicking, but important, 3000 persons died during the attack on the World Trade Center not 5000.

Nope, I just want people that talk the talk to walk the walk....If morality was truly subjective, then to be consistent, the only reaction to this post would be something along the lines of "I disagree with your view, but you aren't wrong, it is just your opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's and has to be respected".

What makes you think opinion have to be respected? Why such an absolute? Why would you not say that some opinion have to be respected. What don't you understand in the following fact: «Morality isn't separeted in two branchs subjectivism and objectivism.».
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 06:13 AM
Morality
(29-07-2015 07:25 PM)Hambone Wrote:  Ok, if morality is not objective, then put your money where your mouth is.....

In my opinion, I think what those Sept 11 hijackers did was right, killing those 5000 people in the World Trade Centre and inflicting the misery on all there family and friends and putting fear into every passengers and America in general. Good on them, I really support what they did.

I also support what ISIS do, cutting off the heads of innocent people, I think what they are doing is right.

You don't agree with me? So what. You are not saying I am factually wrong to think those things above are right or good are you? Sure you can disagree with me, but most people disagree with my choice of woman that I like, same thing, so what. I am not factually wrong am I?

Oh, I also think thick crust pizza tastes better than thin crust pizza.



You're still missing the point. You're asking for an objective answer when an objective answer doesn't exist. You're desire to paint everything as black and white leaves you unable to see every other color and hue.

Some people clearly did see the actions of the 9/11 hijackers as morally correct/good/justified. Most people in the U.S. did not.

There are people who like ISIS and what they are doing, and people who do not. There are some international laws that have been agreed upon by members of organizations like the UN, but none of them agreed upon a worldwide objective set of moral standards.

Is ISIS wrong to do what they do? There is no objective answer, but you won't accept anything less than one. Which makes even trying to explain it any further, pointless. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
30-07-2015, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2015 08:57 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 02:32 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 12:08 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First, a nitpick, but one that might turn important... is it only HUMAN taste, preference, and opinion? If there's some hypothetical extraterrestrial civilization out there of beings similar to us, would objective morals also hold true independent of THEIR taste, preference, and opinion? I'm GUESSING you'll say it's still independent, but I want to be sure.

This depends, if the moral law giver has assigned the same duties to this extraterrestrial civilization. If so, then yes.

So your version of objective morality DOES, BY DEFINITION, require a moral law-giver, if you can only discuss objective morality in those terms. It's not that you even think that you can deduce the existence of a moral law-giver from the existence of an objective morality. If there is no law-giver, than morals are not objective. It doesn't matter if we think or feel that they are objective, or approach them as if they are objective, or attempt to argue them as if they are objective. All that could hold true and yet without a moral law-giver they would NOT, by your definition, be objective... we would just be deluding ourselves on the topic. Correct?

This would make the argument from morality inherently circular. The major premise that objective morality requires a moral law-giver would, under this definition, become a definitional tautology. However, you would simply have moved the task of proving an objective law-giver into the minor premise, the claim that objective morals exist. Until the objective law-giver is demonstrated, AND shown to have laid down some sort of objective morality, then the claim as defined would not be established.

This, by the way, is a modification of the definition you provided a couple of posts ago -- a set of moral duties that is factual, holding true independent of human preference or taste. There, you had no definitional requirement of a moral law-giver, though there might be room to argue a necessary implication for one.

(30-07-2015 02:32 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 12:08 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  But mostly, I have to ask what it means for moral rules and duties to hold true.

I know, it sounds pedantic, but it's a very different sort of truth claim than most claims about objective truth, isn't it? I mean, if I claim I have red hair, I can get a bunch of people to look at it, and they'll see pretty much the same color. We could get a camera to measure the hue. We could see whether it reflects different wavelengths of color. That's what that truth claim means.

If I claim that acceleration of a falling object near the surface of the Earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared, barring air resistance, we can set up a vacuum and observe the acceleration of falling objects, measure their speed, and confirm this objectively. We could have computers make the observations. We can have people make the observations. They'll all match up, objectively. That's what that truth claim means.

Same for the claim that there are five oranges in a bowl rather than three. Same for the claim that 8th street comes after 5th street when you're going along Chelsea Avenue. Same for the claim that the ancient Greek civilization existed, that the moon landing happened, and so on.

But... none of that's the case with objective morality, is it? This isn't a truth claim that's saying the same sort of things that the other sort of things are saying. So, what IS it saying? How is a "should" true? How is an "ought" also an "is"?

Ok, so are you asking how we can know these exist?

No. I'm asking what the claim of existence of objective morality is actually claiming.

I think the disconnect is a result of us approaching the philosophical notions of truth and existence in two fundamentally different ways. I'm approaching it as corresponding to (truth) or being actualized in (existence) some reality which underlies our shared experiences. In my framework, claims of truth and existence are claims about things that in some way shape our shared experience, and without a way that they shape that shared experience claims of truth or existence become meaningless because they are disconnected from experiential reality. You seem to view these concepts more in the sense of Platonic Realism... or maybe in the sense of Leibniz's book of facts? Something where truth and existence are more elemental and atomic in nature, rather than something defined from more fundamental elements. It's kind of hard to pin down since you keep dancing around it, but your philosophical framework for existence doesn't seem to have to do with actualization in a reality that underlies shared experience the way that mine does. There's no actual actualization happening there, at least not in experiential reality.

(30-07-2015 02:32 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 12:08 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  It sounds like what you're saying is that whether morality is objective comes down NOT to the strength of our convictions in a certain moral principle, NOT to whether we feel this principle should be binding upon others, but whether there is an independent arbitrator on the subject?

If that's what you're saying, then why ask us about our feelings on 9/11 and ISIS? If the arbitrator is what makes morality objective, then our feelings on those subjects will not provide one iota of proof for objective morality. Our feelings on the subject would be completely irrelevant to the topic, and would also (as strong emotions tend to do) cloud the issue rather than clarify it. The entire line of questioning is counterproductive, if this is the definition. It would seem that the only way to demonstrate that morality was objective would be to demonstrate the existence of the arbitrator in its role as arbitrator.

As I said previously, we refer to our experience and intuition. Suppose I say the earth is flat. You will then see this claim and attempt to correct me on it, simply because you realise I am making to fact. Notice how you will tell me I am wrong for that statement/claim. This only occurs because whether the earth is flat or not is an objective claim/truth.

Now, when we discuss morality, in our experience, like in the example of ISIS, if I say I think what ISIS are doing is right, you will attempt to correct me and say no its not, ie, its wrong to harm others for fun or for an ideology etc etc. You will make a claim to fact, just like in the flat earth example but the methodology is different (we can discuss this later).

You will not respond to me in the same nature as if you disagree with me on my choice of woman, will you? This says to me, that though our experience, we are all appealing to moral FACTS, and don't treat these as merely opinions.

So intuitively regarding certain claims as objective is evidence that they are objective? And our intuition cannot be flawed in such matters?

I once dated someone who claimed that savory and sweet should not be mixed in the same dish -- as an objective fact, not as a matter of taste. Would her intuitive treatment of the subject as objective rather than subjective make the matter objective? Would my intuitive treatment of it as subjective rather than objective make it subjective? (If you want another example, perhaps one related to preference for women, I have it on good authority that some people regard women who are virgins until marriage as objectively better than women who aren't. Seriously, they regard this as an objective moral fact.) You're hinging your argument on people not doing this sort of thing, when some people actually do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 09:33 AM
Morality
(30-07-2015 03:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 02:47 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  How bout saying you prefer chocolate cake to banana bread and that is a fact? It is true that I prefer football to baseball but that does not mean football is objectively better than baseball.

Morality isn't one side of the coin or the other. Why you're trying to make it such a simple concept I am not sure, but morality is a testament to the impressive complexity of the human brain and its evolution.

Exactly my point.

It is a fact that 80% of Singaporeans are conservative (based on repeated polling data) and will not take lightly the plans to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code that makes homosexuality illegal.

Even though science tells us that mammalian homosexuality is natural (an objective fact) the governance decision is to leave the law unchanged but to ignore any reported 'offences'.

In other words, the right decision (based on a risk assessment) is to align to the subjective fact not the objective fact.

Why would the decision be the right one?

"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
30-07-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Morality
[Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif][Image: J8tpU10.gif]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
30-07-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 09:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 03:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Exactly my point.

It is a fact that 80% of Singaporeans are conservative (based on repeated polling data) and will not take lightly the plans to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code that makes homosexuality illegal.

Even though science tells us that mammalian homosexuality is natural (an objective fact) the governance decision is to leave the law unchanged but to ignore any reported 'offences'.

In other words, the right decision (based on a risk assessment) is to align to the subjective fact not the objective fact.

Why would the decision be the right one?

Why would any subjective decision be the right one?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 09:49 AM
Morality
(30-07-2015 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 09:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why would the decision be the right one?

Why would any subjective decision be the right one?

Or to put it another way. There are such things as stupid questions. For instance, when you ask questions that assume incorrectly about the subject.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: Morality
Wow, KC. Way to beat a dead horse on the subjecting of beating a dead horse. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
30-07-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 03:51 AM)Hambone Wrote:  Is morality objective (factual) or subjective (preference/opinion)?

If something is objective, then it is factual, that is, it is true/false independent of human taste preference or opinion. It is DISCOVERED. For example, the earth is not flat is an objective truth. It is factual. It is true regardless of human opinion. This was discovered. Even if their were no conscious beings in the universe, the earth would still not be flat, rather, the shape of sphere/ball.

If something is subjective, then its based on personal taste, preference or opinion. These are not factual. They are mind dependent. These include, food, drinks, movies, music, clothes, holiday destinations etc etc etc. There is NO RIGHT or WRONG.

Where is morality? Is it objective or is it subjective?

Lets first put it in the subjective basket. You will notice that when we look at subjective items, they all result in the same conclusion. No right or wrong. For example, if I say I prefer thick crust pizza to thin crust pizza, am I wrong for preferring that or thinking one is better than the other? No. We all know taste in food is subjective, therefore, there is no right or wrong. Its just opinion.
If I say I prefer hip hop R&B to heavy metal music, am I right or wrong to suggest one is better than the other? Neither, because they are just preferences.
These are just 2 examples. But if you put any item in the subjective basket, you will notice the conclusions are the same, that is, their is no right or wrong.

Now, lets put morality in this subjective basket. If I say I prefer to rape and cause harm to others, is this right or wrong? Well, if you are consistent, then its neither right or wrong, just like in the case of food and music.

Lets look at objective items. I gave the example of the flat earth above. Another example is the sun. The claim the sun exists is an objective truth, it is factual. If their are no conscious beings in the universe, it is still true that the sun exists.
If I say the sun doesn't exist OR the earth is flat, then I am WRONG. I am only WRONG because rights and wrongs ONLY exist in relation to objective items/facts.

Now lets put morality in the objective basket. If morality is objective, then rights and wrongs exist morally.
So, if someone says that raping a person for fun is right, then they are wrong. They are only wrong because we can compare their claim to an objective fact, ie, rape is wrong.

So, what is it? Based on experience, it appears to me, that morality is actually objective.

Lets look at an example....ASSUMING i like rape and you don't. IF I say for the past 6 months, I have had a person in my garage whom I have been raping, torturing and treating woefully, then if morality is SUBJECTIVE, then you can only reply in the same way as if you don't like a food that I like. Their is no right or wrong. Just opinion. Is this really how it is based on experience? Would we treat this case the same way as in taste of food? Experience says we don't.

Now, based on the example, if morality is objective, then and ONLY then can you say my actions are wrong, because you are comparing my actions against an objective truth.

So which one is it?

Now, notice I am speaking ontology, not epistemology. This is not about HOW we know. I can discuss that later.

Secondly, how can objective morality exist in a godless world? Remember I said, if something is objective, it is true or false REGARDLESS of human taste preference or opinion. In fact, they are discovered. Therefore, in a godless world that came about by a mindless and unguided blind process, what are moral facts doing in such a world? Don't moral laws or truths come from a law maker or law giver?

My problem is, atheists often claim morality is subjective, but then go and criticise morality in the OT. If morality is subjective, then your claims that the morality in the OT is wrong is not factual, rather, just an opinion...no different to if I said vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate.....

The very fact atheists make moral claims, is testimony that they are claiming moral facts. But in a godless world, where do these facts come from?

Are atheists actually affirming a moral law giver everytime they make a moral claim?

I think there is a confusion about what morality is. Many people confuse the actions a person takes with morality. Morality is a set of principles to guide ones actions and choices. Principles are propositions and any proposition is either true or false based on it's correspondence to reality. A person is fully capable of acting on a false principle. I can go down to town right now and shoot someone based on the false premise that murder is right. Nothing will prevent me from doing this. But I have a well developed, fully integrated and validated moral code which tells me that this would be wrong.

It's also important to define what the concept Objective means. It means that something exists independent of anyone's likes, dislikes, wishes, demands, prayers or desires. It is what it is whether you like it or not. If we recognize that values are a species of fact, then these facts obtain independently of anyone's conscious thoughts or wishes. Food is a value whether you like it or not. You're nature demands that you eat if you want to live. Shelter is a must if you want to live whether you wish it were otherwise or not. You can't live as a fish no matter how much you would like to. Food, Water, shelter, clothing, a proper environment to live in, are all values that are objective and a moral code is what is needed in order to obtain these things.

In a godless world, facts come from existence. Facts are any entity, relationship, attribute or state of affairs that exist in reality. They are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity. They are discovered by reason, not manufactured by the mind.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: