Objective Morality ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 11:23 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:11 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:09 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  It's not beneficial to the poor gazelle that gets torn to shreds by the cheetah. Smile

Which is why when we talk about objective morality we should limit it to one species.

But my problem with this is we are all animals, or do you not believe in evolution? Did I just derail this thread? Shocking

You see, at what point does your god inject objective morality into our "species?" When we were Neanderthals? Australopithecus?

This is the problem Catholics faced when they were forced to accept evolution as fact and then had to twist creation to include the soul. We of course asked when the soul was inserted and they dance around it like a maypole.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:48 PM)fmudd Wrote:  I will say those values should be considered "Good" and have "intrinsic merit" BECAUSE they are beneficial to all beings.

Are they? how would you prove such claim? remember you're trying to be objective here.

Then we would be able to get into specifics of which activities, beliefs, etc. improved the lives of humans (if we talked about one species).

But once the basic premise of "GOOD" = whatever makes the most people live longer, reproduced more, and lived more fulfilling/less painful lives.

And of course "BAD" being the opposite.

(13-02-2014 11:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
Quote:For example; promoting activities defined as "GOOD" allows human beings at least to live longer, reproduce, and lead more fulfilling lives.

That's tautological, doing things defined as good is, by definition, good. But a definition is not an objective fact.

I agree, hence what I am saying is that objective morality is defined by the delineation of "GOOD" = whatever makes the most people live longer, reproduced more, and lived more fulfilling/less painful lives.

"BAD" = opposite.

(13-02-2014 11:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
Quote:This is where it get's complicated but the short answer is no, as long as we all engage in the said activities we all consider "GOOD".

For example, if NO ONE murdered, that would be "GOOD".

That extreme situation in which everyone acts in a way that it improves everyone's chances to live longer and reproduce more would certainly lead to overpopulation, which it would be really unpleasant.

Ahhh, but that would be one sliver of what I would classify as what is objectively good based on what I am saying.

For example, I can say that it is objectively "GOOD" to not commit murder AND it is objectively "GOOD" to not coerce women to have more children that they want AND it is objectively "GOOD" to let people decide whether they want to have kids in the first place.

I don't see how anything would be contradictory in that context,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:30 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
The only thing I looked at is the first page.
Morality can be slightly subjective, in the sense that, someone says:
"If you find something, that is not yours, but you want it, and it is clear that it is abandoned or unoccupied, it's okay to take it."
And then someone argues that:
"No, you shouldn't steal anything, even if it's clear it's abandoned."

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
13-02-2014, 11:32 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:23 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  But my problem with this is we are all animals, or do you not believe in evolution? Did I just derail this thread? Shocking

You see, at what point does your god inject objective morality into our "species?" When we were Neanderthals? Australopithecus?

This is the problem Catholics faced when they were forced to accept evolution as fact and then had to twist creation to include the soul. We of course asked when the soul was inserted and they dance around it like a maypole.

As mentioned before I am not even talking about the supernatural (I haven't even decided for myself whether I believe in God or not) and I plan on talking about this from purely secular grounds.

But to answer your question we are indeed all animals but I don't see how when a "species first helps themselves, then they help others" contradicts a platform of objective morality as I laid out.

If the Lion CANNOT survive without eating the zebra then in no way can we judge the Lion for doing evil by eating the Zebra as it fits in completely with the paradigm I laid out above (previous posts).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:27 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Are they? how would you prove such claim? remember you're trying to be objective here.

Then we would be able to get into specifics of which activities, beliefs, etc. improved the lives of humans (if we talked about one species).

But once the basic premise of "GOOD" = whatever makes the most people live longer, reproduced more, and lived more fulfilling/less painful lives.

And of course "BAD" being the opposite.

Alright, when you bring the objective evidence that your objective values are objectively good then we can objectively talk about your objective morality. Until then there's no point on keep talking about it.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
13-02-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:30 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  The only thing I looked at is the first page.
Morality can be slightly subjective, in the sense that, someone says:
"If you find something, that is not yours, but you want it, and it is clear that it is abandoned or unoccupied, it's okay to take it."
And then someone argues that:
"No, you shouldn't steal anything, even if it's clear it's abandoned."

Well sure, there are nuances which don't contradict the underlying principal.

For example, objectively there are even numbers and odd numbers.

Whether I pick 2, 60, 10000, or 6598354 I have picked an even number.

In the same sense, there are multiple decisions that one can make that fits in with what is objectively good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:36 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:33 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Alright, when you bring the objective evidence that your objective values are objectively good then we can objectively talk about your objective morality. Until then there's no point on keep talking about it.

So saying something as basic as not committing murder = more people living longer lives = less people living in fear = objectively good isn't true?

What would constitute objective evidence that proves that morality is objective?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:41 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:36 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:33 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Alright, when you bring the objective evidence that your objective values are objectively good then we can objectively talk about your objective morality. Until then there's no point on keep talking about it.

So saying something as basic as not committing murder = more people living longer lives = less people living in fear = objectively good isn't true?

What would constitute objective evidence that proves that morality is objective?

I don't know, you're the one who wants to prove something immaterial as morality is objective. If someone lead you to believe that arguing the objective truth of abstract concepts in an atheist forum would be as simple as some wordplay, I'm sorry to inform you that you've been mislead.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:43 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:32 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:23 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  But my problem with this is we are all animals, or do you not believe in evolution? Did I just derail this thread? Shocking

You see, at what point does your god inject objective morality into our "species?" When we were Neanderthals? Australopithecus?

This is the problem Catholics faced when they were forced to accept evolution as fact and then had to twist creation to include the soul. We of course asked when the soul was inserted and they dance around it like a maypole.

As mentioned before I am not even talking about the supernatural (I haven't even decided for myself whether I believe in God or not) and I plan on talking about this from purely secular grounds.

But to answer your question we are indeed all animals but I don't see how when a "species first helps themselves, then they help others" contradicts a platform of objective morality as I laid out.

If the Lion CANNOT survive without eating the zebra then in no way can we judge the Lion for doing evil by eating the Zebra as it fits in completely with the paradigm I laid out above (previous posts).

Ok, taking god out of it (I forgot you kept it secular), when did we achieve this objective morality? You said keep it to one species, but we evolved to be Homo sapiens, so when does this type of morality kick in?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:46 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:36 PM)fmudd Wrote:  So saying something as basic as not committing murder = more people living longer lives = less people living in fear = objectively good isn't true?

What would constitute objective evidence that proves that morality is objective?

Take into account overpopulation and the abysmal state of food distribution and see if more people living longer (or just more people living) still sounds like an objectively good thing. You living a longer life means that someone lives a shorter one, right now.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: