Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Objective Morality
To me this extreme whittling down or extreme building up of what it means to be objective is detrimental to the point where the term is basically meaningless and isn't useful. It is objectively true that our species does better through cooperation than through conflict, and that what we describe as "good" often has a strong correlation to cooperation and dissonance with conflict. It is objectively true that our moral systems have an evolutionary basis that fits the social nature of our species. Oh, but that doesn't lead to an objectively moral system because in a universe consisting only of a single rock and no life it would not be relevant and applicable. Or, it is isn't a basis for an objective moral system because there might be some contrived context in which every action we normally judge as "good" would lead to unequivocally bad consequences. I think demanding a kind of absolute objectivity is unrealistic. We don't need infinite objectivity to describe any other finding in our universe as objective. We need finite objectivity. Having independently repeated an experiment we can conclude a finite degree of objectivity to our findings, and so with a moral system we can regard it with a finite degree of objectivity based on values we generally agree on within our species. We can conclude that if we care about human life and suffering there are objectively better and worse moral systems that indeed are contingent on value statements but are contingent on value statements that correspond to reality and the nature of our species.

Likewise, objectivity is made too much of by the theistic camp in trying to make a case for God. If there is any objectivity in morality then the objectivity must infinite, and only a god could be the source of infinite objectivity. Of course this misses the point that no moral objectivity is infinite, and that finite circumstances can lead to finite degrees of objectivity.

So the whole argument is moot as far as I can tell. Moral systems exist that have finite degrees of objectivity, and are ultimately contingent upon the reality we find ourselves in. Our morality is neither entirely subjective or infinitely objective. It doesn't form a basis for belief in a deity, nor does it exclude resolving many if not most moral problems in a way that is objectively optimal and appropriate given our shared values.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
03-04-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Agreed.


........

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, 08:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 07:45 AM)Banjo Wrote:  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.
Morality is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. We are programmed by evolution to see some behavior as right and some behavior as wrong. "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/ This is not my "opinion" it is an established objective fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 08:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It is objectively true that our species does better through cooperation than through conflict, and that what we describe as "good" often has a strong correlation to cooperation and dissonance with conflict. It is objectively true that our moral systems have an evolutionary basis that fits the social nature of our species. Oh, but that doesn't lead to an objectively moral system because in a universe consisting only of a single rock and no life it would not be relevant and applicable.
It applies of course to wherever organisms live in communities. A vampire bat might share food with a starving or sick roost mate, not because of any conscious moral decision but because the objective neutral process of evolution has hard-wired this behavior into their brain. An "objectively moral system" is one that simply starts from the objective morality of evolution as it evolved social organisms and elaborates on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Artie- most human brains, through the use of our hard wired eyes can distinguish some of the colors in the full spectrum of light. We still have to label those differences. In some gang communities red is good blue is bad. In others blue is good red is bad.

Imagine someone from blue killing a red. The red community is angry and upset because they lost someone precious and special from their group.

The next day another blue kills another red. This time the red community nods to the blue and thanks him. In this case the red in question was raping women, but the reds had a law that prevented them from directly killing one of their own.

Both acts by a blue on a red are murder but one is determined to be a bad act and the other a good act. It is the subjective circumstances invloved in an act that we make distinctions of good or bad.

Also we are not hard wired to know the cultural actions that exist in other communities. These must be learned.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
03-04-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Things are not as black and white as you suppose. Human beings are more complex than simply being hard wired. If not, all morality would be the same. Clearly it is not. Different groups favour different forms of morality.

You say killing = bad. Another says killing another = good. The "other" could be an enemy, a competitor. Humans kill enemies and consider it good. Lions do the same. The killing of competitors is found all throughout nature.

As I said, this is where apologists fail when trying to use objective morality as a proof for the exietence of god. It does not work and they fail.

This is where you guys have lost it. You are attempting to use a failed hypothosis to prove a truth that does not exist. As a result your arguments are circular and you are going nowhere.

Go back and read the thread. It is like watching a dog chase it's tail.

(03-04-2014 08:23 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 07:45 AM)Banjo Wrote:  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.
Morality is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. We are programmed by evolution to see some behavior as right and some behavior as wrong. "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/ This is not my "opinion" it is an established objective fact.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
03-04-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 08:41 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 08:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It is objectively true that our species does better through cooperation than through conflict, and that what we describe as "good" often has a strong correlation to cooperation and dissonance with conflict. It is objectively true that our moral systems have an evolutionary basis that fits the social nature of our species. Oh, but that doesn't lead to an objectively moral system because in a universe consisting only of a single rock and no life it would not be relevant and applicable.
It applies of course to wherever organisms live in communities. A vampire bat might share food with a starving or sick roost mate, not because of any conscious moral decision but because the objective neutral process of evolution has hard-wired this behavior into their brain. An "objectively moral system" is one that simply starts from the objective morality of evolution as it evolved social organisms and elaborates on it.

If you are going to look into the animal kingdom for supporting your case, we must take in account the lion that kills the offspring of a rival pride in order to ensure his pride and genes prosper. It is hard wired in male lions to do this. Us humans looking at this and feeling that it is brutal and immoral does not matter one bit. I understand your point of view and where you are going with your arguments, but you are attempting to prove something that just is not there "objectively".

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
03-04-2014, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 11:54 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 06:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What happens when well-being and survival are at odds? Therein lies the problem... Facepalm
Example?

Do you have no imagination? Can you not contemplate something yourself without being spoon fed? Not only that, but is your reading comprehension totally shit or what? If you were paying attention, you'd notice that I had already talked about one already; suicide. When someone views their death as an improvement of their well-being; their survival instinct is at odds with their perceived well-being. If continued survival and progress towards well-being are both objectively good, is suicide objectively good or bad?



(03-04-2014 06:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

See above dumbass...



(03-04-2014 06:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

Once again, you are misusing 'objectively' fucktard. We do not all know 'objectively' 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". While I generally agree with the sentiment, it is not an objective 'fact', nor do we all 'know' it.

And yes, you do need facts to prove something 'objectively', as that is the whole goddamn point of being 'objectively' verifiable. You don't have a fucking clue... Facepalm



(03-04-2014 06:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

How does it diminish the survival of the victim? I'm asking just about rape, not any possible violence in addition to the rape; as it is possible to perform a rape on someone who is comatose or passed out without the use of excessive force. In addition who's well-being is objectively more important, the victim's or the rapists? See, you can't even answer the question...



(03-04-2014 06:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 05:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Missing the point fucktard. Having hard-wired preferences does NOT make them objective, nor does that make the morality built upon them objective. Fucking hell, do you read anything I actually wrote?

Oh right, you don't have a fucking clue what 'objective' actually means, silly me... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2014, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2014 12:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 08:23 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 07:45 AM)Banjo Wrote:  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.
Morality is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. We are programmed by evolution to see some behavior as right and some behavior as wrong. "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/ This is not my "opinion" it is an established objective fact.

Nothing is "bred in the bone". What may promote survival in certain circumstances may be learned, and in some cases is passed on genetically. None of it has anything to do with any gods. It's all explained by nature, and the needs of the group, in certain situations. Rats have empathy. Is THAT "morality" ?

There are all kinds of situations where the "taking of life" is considered as moral. What is an acceptable situation to "murder" someone is entirely situational. Your over-simplifications do not serve you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-04-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-04-2014 07:38 AM)Artie Wrote:  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.
Is it quite possible that you have conflated two ideas here?
1. The idea that a person or action is dangerous e.g. a murderer and murder.
2. The idea that an action is wrong e.g. murder.

If we can describe an action as being dangerous (one that puts our own life and the lives of people that we personally care about at risk). Then wouldn't it be less mysterious to simply claim that the action is dangerous, that it is personally dangerous and probably dangerous for anyone that lives within society. Couldn't we then mutually agree to outlaw the action because of the danger it presents rather than to ascribe a mystical sense of "immoral" to it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: