Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 07:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 11:29 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  "Objective" is based on measurable or observable criteria, like say mandating the wearing of red shirts to school.

With that example, I'm guessing you are from Thailand, right?

WARNING: Target acquired. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
05-12-2013, 09:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality
How can morality not be objective?

It will always be moral to tell the truth for example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 09:27 PM)Istic Wrote:  How can morality not be objective?

It will always be moral to tell the truth for example.

How so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 10:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 01:52 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 01:36 AM)Juv Wrote:  ...
The question was what's the difference between absolute morality and objective morality.

They have different letters?

Drinking Beverage

Of course! The answer was so obvious.Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 09:26 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Thanks for hanging in there with me, guys. So would this statement be correct?

According to moral realism, moral objectivity is subjective.

With all humility and putting humor (humour for you weirdos) aside. I was serious about this question. Is the statement correct?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 10:25 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 09:26 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Thanks for hanging in there with me, guys. So would this statement be correct?

According to moral realism, moral objectivity is subjective.

With all humility and putting humor (humour for you weirdos) aside. I was serious about this question. Is the statement correct?

What is objective in relation to Harris' proposal is the measure of well-being. Harris is arguing that technologies such as fMRI, brain PET, EEG will allow objective measures of well-being. Well-bing is a subjective concept but--argues Harris--with technology it can be measured objectively. The objective measure of subjective experience is what so-called neuro-marketing is about.

DLJ--if I have understood him--is arguing that the valorisation of well-being, making well-being the point of our existence is a subjective valuation presumably because someone can decide that well-being should not be the point of existence. Harris objects to this line of argument and argues that well-being should be reasoned about the same way as health. That is to say that just because some people--with certain mental illnesses--don't want to be healthy we haven't decided that health is a subjective concept. Those with Munchausen syndrome aren't treated as exponents of a new model of healthcare and invited to medical practitioner conferences to be speakers. I am inclined to agree with Harris on this. I think the valorisation of well-being is an objective feature of normally functioning human beings.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:13 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-12-2013 01:53 AM)Chippy Wrote:  What is objective in relation to Harris' proposal is the measure of well-being.

That is not objective in the least. Show me an handful of your fucking well-being.

Gawd, but you are an idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-12-2013 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What do you mean by consensus?
Majority, Unanimity, the ruling power?
Is this limited to my family, my town, my country, the world?

The notion of (secular-humanistic) morality only appears in social contexts, there is no moality if you are alone on an island.

Harris has given us only a theory of value not an ethical theory or theory of action so we don't know how he would resolve conflicting demands. I can only speculate how he would answer your question.

It is safe to say that the scenario in which you kill all the members of your family to get at their wealth would be one of the low points in Harris' "Moral Landscape". Your behaviour would not be consistent with seeking to maximise well-being. You behaviour would be objectively wrong because it was--somehow--decided in your social unit that well-being is the highest good. How it was decided that well-being is the highest good is a separate matter and that is why DLJ offered you several options. Assume it was decided by plebiscite which provided a 80% majority in favour of well-being and it was consequently legislated if that helps.

Quote:So if I were a Jew living in Hitler's Germany and the vast majority of Germans think Jews have negative value, does this mean that the moral thing for me to do would be to kill myself and my family/relatives, even though I myself might value Jews higher than any other race on the planet?

Harris answers this sort question in relation to Islamist regimes. On the basis of what he says about Islamist regimes I conjecture that he would say that Hitler was wrong about how to constitute a society to maximise well-being, that (almost) everyone would be happier if things were done differently. Harris argues that the Taliban are just plain wrong about how to arrange society so that humans flourish.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:33 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-12-2013 02:13 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That is not objective in the least. Show me an handful of your fucking well-being.

It is entirely objective because it is based on objectively measured brain states.

You are confusing tangible with objective.

Subjective experience is measured objectively using fMRI, PET and EEG.[1]

Quote:Gawd, but you are an idiot.

It is you that is the ignorant idiot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:49 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-12-2013 02:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 02:13 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That is not objective in the least. Show me an handful of your fucking well-being.

It is entirely objective because it is based on objectively measured brain states.

A totally ABSTRACT idea such as "well-being" is not measurable by electrical currents in a brain.

Quote:You are confusing tangible with objective.

Not in the least.

Quote:Subjective experience is measured objectively using fMRI, PET and EEG.[1]

SUBJECTIVE experience does not support an assertion of a claim to quantify a fallacious ABSTRACT idea of OBJECTIVE "well-being".

Quote:
Quote:Gawd, but you are an idiot.

It is you that is the ignorant idiot.

[Image: NO_U_cycle.gif]


Pathetic trolling bitch.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: