Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 11:02 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 06:33 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Good! Please define the axiom i.e. the calibrations on the scale (or multiple scales) and we'll be on our way.

Looking forward to it.

Thumbsup
Please rephrase in English...

Temperature is objectively measurable, you just need a thermometer set to a measurement system (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, etc.).

So we're now waiting to be provided with the tools to make such measurements in regards to 'objective morality', and the justification for their use and how they work. We can already do this with temperature; and if morality is just as objectively quantifiable and measurable, we should be able to do likewise to morality.

Claiming morality is objective does you fuck all if you cannot also measure it objectively.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-04-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 12:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Temperature is objectively measurable, you just need a thermometer set to a measurement system (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, etc.).

So we're now waiting to be provided with the tools to make such measurements in regards to 'objective morality', and the justification for their use and how they work.
A moral compass would do the trick, but I seem to have lost mine.

When I did have one, it was faulty. Well, actually, mine was perfect, everyone else's was faulty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
02-04-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 01:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A moral compass would do the trick, but I seem to have lost mine.

When I did have one, it was faulty. Well, actually, mine was perfect, everyone else's was faulty.

Get enough people to believe that and you can start a cult. If it gets big enough and you're dead, you've got a religion on your hands.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-04-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Objective Morality
Morality cannot be objective because it is a differentiation that WE make about intentions, actions & decisions. We are the ones who label an action, intention or decision as good or bad. We are the ones who must weigh the costs and benefits, the harm vs the well-being. People are complicated and our decisions aren't always rational. We make the best decisions we can based on the available information.

The standard we set can change over time because we change over time. Our circumstances change and sometimes so do our values.

Because of this, morality can't be objective. It will always be subjective.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
02-04-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 01:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 12:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Temperature is objectively measurable, you just need a thermometer set to a measurement system (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, etc.).

So we're now waiting to be provided with the tools to make such measurements in regards to 'objective morality', and the justification for their use and how they work.
A moral compass would do the trick, but I seem to have lost mine.

When I did have one, it was faulty. Well, actually, mine was perfect, everyone else's was faulty.

Mine works GREAT!




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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
03-04-2014, 02:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 02:43 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Morality cannot be objective because it is a differentiation that WE make about intentions, actions & decisions. We are the ones who label an action, intention or decision as good or bad. We are the ones who must weigh the costs and benefits, the harm vs the well-being. People are complicated and our decisions aren't always rational. We make the best decisions we can based on the available information.
We don't label an action, intention or decision as good or bad on a whim but because we are hard-wired by evolution to see an action, intention or decision as good if it leads to well-being and survival. It wasn't our decision to put that hard-wiring in there it evolved since people with it had a better chance of surviving in communities. Hence well-being and survival is objectively right.
"Humans are born with a hard-wired morality, a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone." http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/opinio...ght-wrong/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Artie's post
03-04-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(02-04-2014 01:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A moral compass would do the trick, but I seem to have lost mine.

When I did have one, it was faulty. Well, actually, mine was perfect, everyone else's was faulty.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/...rers-brain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 02:33 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 02:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 02:11 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 02:43 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Morality cannot be objective because it is a differentiation that WE make about intentions, actions & decisions. We are the ones who label an action, intention or decision as good or bad. We are the ones who must weigh the costs and benefits, the harm vs the well-being. People are complicated and our decisions aren't always rational. We make the best decisions we can based on the available information.
We don't label an action, intention or decision as good or bad on a whim but because we are hard-wired by evolution to see an action, intention or decision as good if it leads to well-being and survival. It wasn't our decision to put that hard-wiring in there it evolved since people with it had a better chance of surviving in communities. Hence well-being and survival is objectively right.
"Humans are born with a hard-wired morality, a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone." http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/opinio...ght-wrong/


Rape is conducive to the continuation and survival of my genes. Facepalm

If survival is objective right, and you're in a situation where you must make a decision that will either ensure your survival at the cost of another's life or the reverse; which is the objectively better option? Either choice will result in the death of one and the survival of the other. Which is objectively better and why, if survival and well-being are the objectively hard-wired deciding factor here?


We have evolutionary preferences, none of which are absolute, universal, or uniform; thus none of them are objective in any philosophical sense. Not everyone is born with empathy, and we label these individuals as psychopathic.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-04-2014, 02:46 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 02:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Rape is conducive to the continuation and survival of my genes. Facepalm
That would be the answer of a sociopath with faulty hard-wiring who doesn't understand that in a society the negative consequences of rape such as the act of violence, producing an unwanted child etc is detrimental to well-being and survival for everybody and hence immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Artie's post
03-04-2014, 03:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 02:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If survival is objective right, and you're in a situation where you must make a decision that will either ensure your survival at the cost of another's life or the reverse; which is the objectively better option? Either choice will result in the death of one and the survival of the other. Which is objectively better and why, if survival and well-being are the objectively hard-wired deciding factor here?
That would depend on the situation. A mother might give her life for the survival of her children for the survival of her genome and species, a soldier might give his life for his country. In a social species it's about the survival and well-being of the group not necessarily the single individual. Just like a bee gives up his life on pure instinct for the hive. This is what a sociopath has trouble understanding.
Quote:We have evolutionary preferences, none of which are absolute, universal, or uniform; thus none of them are objective in any philosophical sense.
Can you find me a definition of "objective" saying something objective needs to be "absolute, universal, or uniform"?
Quote:Not everyone is born with empathy, and we label these individuals as psychopathic.
Yes we do. They can most often be shown to have faulty hard-wiring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agPUoKB8eEk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: