Objective Morality ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 10:22 PM
Objective Morality ...
I wanted to respond to the question of objective morality separate from my Christian Friend (she just refuses to get her account and wants to use mine, whatever). I might just get my *own* own account.

Anyway, I am going to defend objective morality strictly from a secular point of view; if you want to ask questions on God/religious morality she'll respond to you from the other posts.

Simply put; objective morality exists because because all living creatures wish to reduce harm as much as possible for as long as possible.

Let's take a simple example; lighting a fire inside of a forest. When this is done; EVERY living creature tries to either (a) get away from the fire and/or (b) mitigate the harm of the fire and it's ensuing effects.

No living creature that I am aware of goes towards the fire to wilfully incinerate itself.

Now, building off of this and talking about human beings; we all engage in activities that either (A) reduce harm and/or (B) enhance pleasure for ourselves and other people (our species). Even people who inflict physical pain on themselves and others operate off of trying to reduce physiological pain for themselves or others.

So, if we can all agree that in any observed ecosystem of living beings that when "pain" or "death" is introduced that said living creatures run away from that introduction and that all living creatures perform activities which in part reduces said chance of "pain" or "death" can we not say that objectively this "pain" and "death" is bad?

And, if we agree to that premise, isn't that in and of itself a basic definition of objective morality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:25 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...



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
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
13-02-2014, 10:30 PM
Re: Objective Morality ...
I don't understand your connections.

Creatures aren't running to reduce harm, their motive is to survive. They seek survival in order to reproduce. Some creatures reproduction does involve them going into a situation of harming themselves or dying in order to reproduce.

To say pain and death would be objectively bad, you need to find how the opposite, mainly life, is something objectively good.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:25 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  [Video Snipped]

I see; thanks for sharing. I will say that the trees (Sequoias) have a built in protection against the fire and are designed to work with the fire.

So, while my example doesn't incorporate these trees the underlying point remains; these trees aren't killing themselves willfully. They are just utilizing what is around them TO live.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fmudd's post
13-02-2014, 10:33 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:31 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:25 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  [Video Snipped]

I see; thanks for sharing. I will say that the trees (Sequoias) have a built in protection against the fire and are designed to work with the fire.

So, while my example doesn't incorporate these trees the underlying point remains; these trees aren't killing themselves willfully. They are just utilizing what is around them TO live.

Goddamned immoral Sequoias... Dodgy

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
13-02-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:30 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't understand your connections.

Creatures aren't running to reduce harm, their motive is to survive. They seek survival in order to reproduce. Some creatures reproduction does involve them going into a situation of harming themselves or dying in order to reproduce.

To say pain and death would be objectively bad, you need to find how the opposite, mainly life, is something objectively good.

I don't see how you can say life *isn't* objectively good.

EVERY living creature is trying at all times to, at a bare minimum, stay alive and create more of it's kind to live.

How can we not define that as objectively good since we are one of the creatures trying to do this?

I'll get into other things like murder, theft, rape, etc. but before we get there we need to have a base point for objective morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:33 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Goddamned immoral Sequoias... Dodgy

Actually, I would say the trees in question ARE acting from a moral standpoint; they are not starting the fires but merely taking advantage of their existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
What does it mean for something to be good or bad? I can agree that reproduction is evolutionary useful, but to jump from that to say it is morally good is a stretch.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:36 PM)nach_in Wrote:  What does it mean for something to be good or bad? I can agree that reproduction is evolutionary useful, but to jump from that to say it is morally good is a stretch.

I am defining "GOOD" as, at a base level, letting us live longer, reproduce more, and reduce harm/increase pleasure.

Thus, anything "BAD" would be the opposite of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:37 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:36 PM)nach_in Wrote:  What does it mean for something to be good or bad? I can agree that reproduction is evolutionary useful, but to jump from that to say it is morally good is a stretch.

I am defining "GOOD" as, at a base level, letting us live longer, reproduce more, and reduce harm/increase pleasure.

Thus, anything "BAD" would be the opposite of that.

And why are those values considered good? is there an intrinsic merit to them or is it just something you consider beneficial?

Do you imagine any scenario in which those things could be considered bad?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: