Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 03:22 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 10:38 PM)Juv Wrote:  Good stuff. I think it's beyond dispute (scientifically) that morality is the product of natural selection, not supernatural beings.

Again, you just don't understand the problem. The issue isn't moral cognition which is an evolved capacity of normally functioning brains. The issue is the philosophical problem of whether these moral cognitions correspond to objective moral truths.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 03:25 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 10:42 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Objective implies universality to my mind.

So do primitive ideas about the cause of disease, e.g. witchcraft, evil spirits, etc. entail that modern medicine isn't based on objective truths about how the human body works, pathogens, etc.?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 03:27 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 11:03 PM)Juv Wrote:  This is impossible, though.

No it isn't.

Quote:We would have to be able to establish how something can be moral just because it is, and there is no way to do that.

No we wouldn't. That is not what a naturalistic axiology is concerned with.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 11:40 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yes you are, you're just arguing against it. Perception is all we have in the end, brother. Either you realize this and deal with it, or we continue on and end up debating what the definition of "is" is (which we most likely will be doing anyway).

No he isn't arguing about perception he is arguing about knowledge of moral truth. Think about the notion of health that I described in another post.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 03:36 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 11:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Do you have a specific method in mind which we could use to objectively determine the morality of an act without establishing a moral framework first? Consider

"Moral framework" is ambiguous. I think what you and DLJ are groping at is the idea of an axiology, i.e. a conception of what is morally good. That is the necessary starting point.

If you start with a naturalistic axiology that is concerned with human well-being or human flourishing then it will be objective (despite outliers e.g. Munchausen syndrome, psychopathy, sexual sadism, etc.) and it will be foundational to a objective system of ethics.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
04-12-2013, 04:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Objective morals vs absolutes morals .
Regardless whether they are are real, what is the difference ?.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 04:29 AM
RE: Objective Morality
We can create moral facts that are objectively true according to a naturalistic axiology, but independent of a system with which to judge them (the axiology), moral statements are neither true nor false. My point was that objectivity requires context. Moral truths only exist within a system for judging moral statements.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
04-12-2013, 04:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 04:33 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Objective Morality
Objective morals vs absolutes morals .
Regardless whether or not they are are real, what is the difference ?.
DLC's take on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUE4cwNu...ata_player

Oops double post for some reason. Probably Chippy & Taq Fraking the forum up with multi posts.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 05:10 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 04:23 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Objective morals vs absolutes morals .
Regardless whether they are are real, what is the difference ?.

Refer to my example of human nourishment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 05:22 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 04:29 AM)Elesjei Wrote:  We can create moral facts that are objectively true according to a naturalistic axiology, but independent of a system with which to judge them (the axiology), moral statements are neither true nor false. My point was that objectivity requires context. Moral truths only exist within a system for judging moral statements.

Yes, with reference to an axiology. I now understand you.

One of the few worthwhile ideas in Harris' book is that neuroscience will eventually permit us to arrive at an axiology that is thoroughly and objectively grounded in human (and perhaps non-human animal) well-being or to use the Aristotelian idea, in human flourishing.

This isn't a new idea, it was how Aristotle conceived of moral philosophy. This idea--which is central to Aristiole's virtue-based ethics--was extinguished with the spread of the Judaic idea that morality is not a humanistic concern but rather a means of pleasing an angry deity. The problem is that this theological idea persists even amongst those that say they are atheists. Rather than re-capture the humanistic concern of pre-Judaic morality they instead try to think of morality as some sort of prison with an absent warden. This is but one way that Jewish ideas have debased Western thought.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: