Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2014, 03:15 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 03:21 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 02:46 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(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.

Problem: All you've done is pit one of your proposed 'objective' standards (survival) against another (well-being), without justifying why one is 'objectively' better than the other. Both the rapist and the victim will gain survival benefit from their genes being passed on, and while the act is a violation of the victim's well-being, that's offset by the rapist's fulfillment of their desire, is it not? Outside of any other subjective considerations (which you didn't mention in your first post, but only brought up after the fact), why is rape objectively bad if we're only concerned with survival and well-being? When does group survival trump individual survival for moral objectivity?

Not only that, but if you are taking into consideration things such as subjective societal judgement (rape is not frowned upon in all societies), then your moral judgement is likewise subjective.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 03:19 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 03:11 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 02:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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"?

Objective Morality

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.

The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.
-Rational Wiki

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-04-2014, 04:22 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 03:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Problem: All you've done is pit one of your proposed 'objective' standards (survival) against another (well-being), without justifying why one is 'objectively' better than the other.
Are you kidding? Smile I'm not pitting them against each other. Well-being leads to survival because people who feel well want to survive, people who don't feel well jump off bridges.
Quote:Both the rapist and the victim will gain survival benefit from their genes being passed on, and while the act is a violation of the victim's well-being, that's offset by the rapist's fulfillment of their desire, is it not?
You are very good at arguing from a sociopath point of view. Being a child born and bred with love in a stable family and society obviously is better for the well-being and survival for all than being an unwanted child born out of violence without love and with unstable family relations. So the first option is morally good because it leads to enhanced chances of well-being and survival for all whereas the rape option doesn't because it leads to less chances of well-being and survival for all. Hence rape immoral.
Quote:Outside of any other subjective considerations (which you didn't mention in your first post, but only brought up after the fact), why is rape objectively bad if we're only concerned with survival and well-being? When does group survival trump individual survival for moral objectivity?
Did you for a second consider the well-being of the rape victim when you wrote "why is rape objectively bad if we're only concerned with survival and well-being?"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 03:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Objective Morality

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative;
Or evolution. Simple really. If people in societies helped each other they had a better chance of survival than if they murdered each other. Obviously. So we evolved with a brain hard-wired to help each other instead of murdering each other. Obviously. There are only a few hundred thousand murderers out of a world population of seven billion. QED.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 05:29 AM
RE: Objective Morality
The idea of objective morality is trite. I have heard it a lot lately and it is a pathetic argument for proving God exists. All it boils down to is wishful thinking.

Truth is there is no objective morality. Morality is subjective and has differed through time and place. The morality of ancient Rome differs to Rome today.

Every time I hear an idiot like William Lane Craig argue for objective morality I want to laugh. He must prove his god exists. Trying to cut across that responsibility simply wont cut it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 06:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 04:22 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 03:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Problem: All you've done is pit one of your proposed 'objective' standards (survival) against another (well-being), without justifying why one is 'objectively' better than the other.
Are you kidding? Smile I'm not pitting them against each other. Well-being leads to survival because people who feel well want to survive, people who don't feel well jump off bridges.

You're missing the point, and not actually arguing against what I said. Suicide is a non-sequiter (although once again, if your well-being leads you to kill yourself, is it objectively wrong considering that survival and well-being are now at odds?). Remember again that we're contemplating supposedly objective moral evaluations. What happens when well-being and survival are at odds? Therein lies the problem... Facepalm



(03-04-2014 04:22 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 03:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Both the rapist and the victim will gain survival benefit from their genes being passed on, and while the act is a violation of the victim's well-being, that's offset by the rapist's fulfillment of their desire, is it not?
You are very good at arguing from a sociopath point of view. Being a child born and bred with love in a stable family and society obviously is better for the well-being and survival for all than being an unwanted child born out of violence without love and with unstable family relations. So the first option is morally good because it leads to enhanced chances of well-being and survival for all whereas the rape option doesn't because it leads to less chances of well-being and survival for all. Hence rape immoral.

It's called playing Devil's Advocate... Facepalm

But you are not making your judgement on just your objective valuation of survival and well-being (of which you have yet to answer which is objectively superior when the two inevitably oppose each other). You are looking at the consequences of the actions and taking them into account, but Consequentialism is not Objective Morality.



(03-04-2014 04:22 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 03:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Outside of any other subjective considerations (which you didn't mention in your first post, but only brought up after the fact), why is rape objectively bad if we're only concerned with survival and well-being? When does group survival trump individual survival for moral objectivity?
Did you for a second consider the well-being of the rape victim when you wrote "why is rape objectively bad if we're only concerned with survival and well-being?"?

I did. They both gain from potentially passing on their genes (assuming this is hetersexual rape involving coitus). The victim is potentially traumatized but the rapist is satiating a psychological need as well; from the rapist's point of view the action is improving their well-being.

Once again, this is called playing Devil's Advocate. So without taking anything else into account (consequences, societal norms, etc.), what is there in this scenario that would make rape immoral given that both survival and well-being are our objective moral guidelines? Does the rapist gain objectively less well-being than the victim loses? If so, how can you objectively measure that? I'm looking for an answer and justification within the parameters of the question, which you so far have opted to just squirm out of.


(03-04-2014 04:38 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 03:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative;
Or evolution. Simple really. If people in societies helped each other they had a better chance of survival than if they murdered each other. Obviously. So we evolved with a brain hard-wired to help each other instead of murdering each other. Obviously. There are only a few hundred thousand murderers out of a world population of seven billion. QED.

If your morality is subject to what is successful from an evolutionary standpoint, then your morality is subjective; because it is based upon (i.e. subject to) evolutionary success.

You don't have a fucking clue what you mean when you use the word 'objective' then, thanks for clearing that up... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 07:11 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What happens when well-being and survival are at odds? Therein lies the problem... Facepalm
Example?
Quote:But you are not making your judgement on just your objective valuation of survival and well-being (of which you have yet to answer which is objectively superior when the two inevitably oppose each other).
Example?
Quote:I did. They both gain from potentially passing on their genes (assuming this is hetersexual rape involving coitus). The victim is potentially traumatized but the rapist is satiating a psychological need as well; from the rapist's point of view the action is improving their well-being.
Yes, from the rapist sociopath point of view but objectively we all understand that having children in a stable loving family and relationship and stable society enhances the well-being and chances of survival for the children and everybody, don't we? We don't need some statistics to prove that objectively to us, do we?
Quote:Once again, this is called playing Devil's Advocate. So without taking anything else into account (consequences, societal norms, etc.), what is there in this scenario that would make rape immoral given that both survival and well-being are our objective moral guidelines?
Rape is immoral because it diminishes chances of survival and well-being for the victim, child and everybody. What else do you mean?
Quote:If your morality is subject to what is successful from an evolutionary standpoint, then your morality is subjective; because it is based upon (i.e. subject to) evolutionary success.
I came out with two arms and two legs which was not the result of any subjective preference on my part. My brain was objectively hard-wired with morality by evolution and seeing some things as good and some things as bad is a result of this hard-wiring not any subjective preference on my part. If you disagree, simply list some moral things that don't enhance well-being and survival for as many as possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: Objective Morality
You guys are losing me.

I read the demand: " simply list some moral things that don't enhance well-being and survival for as many as possible" and I wonder from which group of morals are these to be drawn?

I can think of many morals that do not enhance a society. For example, a tribal leader in Afghanistan recently shot his young wife in the head by way of divorse. He was morally correct according to the morals of his belief system.

Moral growth is evolutionary and will be refined over time. Sadly this evolution is held back by followers of ancient religious systems who believe growth and change is immoral.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 07:22 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I can think of many morals that do not enhance a society. For example, a tribal leader in Afghanistan recently shot his young wife in the head by way of divorse. He was morally correct according to the morals of his belief system.
But since evolution hard-wired people to see murder as immoral such behavior is objectively immoral regardless his belief system and would be punished in any society abiding by evolutionary objective morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 07:38 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 07:22 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I can think of many morals that do not enhance a society. For example, a tribal leader in Afghanistan recently shot his young wife in the head by way of divorse. He was morally correct according to the morals of his belief system.
But since evolution hard-wired people to see murder as immoral such behavior is objectively immoral regardless his belief system and would be punished in any society abiding by evolutionary objective morals.

Opinion is not fact. You have offered an opinion only. There is no universal objective morality. This is proven by your disagreement with the tribal leader.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: