Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 01:38 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I was thinking of responding to the rest of the posts individually, but I see that Baruch has done a better job of explaining than I could.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 01:43 AM
RE: Objective Morality
then there is reason to construct a world moral code, and reason to make sure that it is observed

Now go back several pages to where I said human beings frame moral codes to support objectives.

Humans no longer operate by instinct alone Artie. Humans are more complex than that. Your author agrees with me.

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
05-04-2014, 01:51 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 02:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:32 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 11:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  @Artie

Imagine the following scenario:

A small, isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle has just lost it's last breeding female, let's call them Tribe 1.
The closest tribe is a rival clan, Tribe 2, that competes with them for food. These two tribes have gone to war with one another many times.

Tribe 1 knows that without breeding females they are doomed and their genes will not be passed on.
They mount an offensive and manage to kidnap a few young women from Tribe 2. They kill several of the young men protecting them during the raid.

The men from Tribe 1 rape the captured women immediately upon their triumphant return to their village.

Q: What can be objectively said of the actions performed by Tribe 1 in this scenario?
Q: Was the kidnapping justified?
Q: Was the killing justified?
Q: Were the actions of Tribe 1 immoral?
Q Were the actions of Tribe 1 psychopathic?

ps When answering this question just stick to the "facts" of the story, don't add or subtract anything, don't suppose any other external criteria.
I won't add or subtract anything to this story. I will tell a different story about two other tribes in the same situation. These tribes decided to join together for the common good instead of warring with each other. And now these people from my original two tribes flourish and produce lots of children as one tribe while your tribes continue to fight and kill members of each others tribes. Which approach do you think would be more successful evolutionary wise?

Translation: I refuse to answer your specific question because it's too hard and would paint my own position in a bad light, so let me make something up instead and pretend like I answered your question when all I really did was dodge it. Because thinking is hard! Dodgy


(04-04-2014 03:10 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 10:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You don't have any clue how to approach a discussion with even a modicum of scientific rationality and objectivity.
You write about morality yet you can't write a paragraph without insulting the person you talk to. I give up this conversation and simply leave you with this: "An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development." http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm

And you cannot answer any of my questions with a single straight answer, and so you retain the title of 'fucktard'. Thumbsup

Also, your excuse is a non sequiter.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 01:54 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:43 AM)Banjo Wrote:  then there is reason to construct a world moral code, and reason to make sure that it is observed
We already have a collection of "world moral codes" objectively "constructed" by evolution such as "you shall not murder" and the Golden Rule etc etc and we already make sure these are observed through the use of justice systems etc. The more people understand how and why we evolved these moral codes and why it's in our interest to live by them the better the world will be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:00 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-04-2014 08:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 02:16 PM)Artie Wrote:  Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Morality is the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong".Please learn the difference between "taking of life" or "killing" and "murder".

Fail. That's precisely the point. YOU have failed to tell us what the difference is. They are actually the SAME thing. Under SOME circumstances SOME humans find the taking of life to be moral. Other find in the SAME circumstance taking life is immoral. Thus there is no "objective morality" OR they always would all agree, all the time. It's really not THAT difficult, dear.

Technically just because people disagree on the definitions it doesn't mean there is no objective morality - that's a non sequitur.
People may disagree on a historical date an event happened - it does not mean it didn't happen, just some people might be wrong or a complex area requires some specialist training which in principle people can agree on some aspects.

I mentioned in my post about property & theft. Yes there are disagreements about how property is defined and what constitutes theft within cultures and groups - but again it doesn't follow just because there may be some disagreements that the whole enterprise must be scrapped & is not existent

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:14 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:54 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 01:43 AM)Banjo Wrote:  then there is reason to construct a world moral code, and reason to make sure that it is observed
We already have a collection of "world moral codes" objectively "constructed" by evolution such as "you shall not murder" and the Golden Rule etc etc and we already make sure these are observed through the use of justice systems etc. The more people understand how and why we evolved these moral codes and why it's in our interest to live by them the better the world will be.

Artie - we do this already so whats your point ???

You also have to be careful about how a universal system is imposed because historically this has ended up in some of the worst disasters both from the religious and secular irrational political systems.
Religion is obvious and dont need to talk about - some people think God gave them a moral absolute code and they go about imposing it on others and end up with abuse, war, torture and killing all those who disagree with Gods alleged revelations.
As for some secular systems, many start with good intentions to create a perfect moral system which leads to a utalitarian utopia in the future but end up as savage totalitarian dictatorships to achieve this "social reform" eg in some communist plans to create utopian societies via a moral universal code.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 03:36 AM by Baruch.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:38 AM)Artie Wrote:  I was thinking of responding to the rest of the posts individually, but I see that Baruch has done a better job of explaining than I could.

Any moral absolutes existing external to human minds & goals does not make sense.
However morality can have a degree of objectivity as I mentioned in previous post based on similar goals for flourishing.

A simple example would be to compare a moral code to rules for running traffic on the roads. There are no external traffic codes outside of human consciousness, however by necessity similar rules will emerge as the most effective ways to regulate traffic for example using traffic lights. There may be disagreements in some areas eg should we build another traffic light for pedestrians or a bridge for them - but essentially there are intrinsic limitations otherwise the goal of getting from A to B would be impossible without crashing (we assume this is the main social goal - for transport).
Same with moral laws which for the most part have the functions of allowing society to thrive/well being/flourish.

.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:47 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I am unconvinced that theft involves moral values. As an example let's look at lions. A lion makes a kill. It then eats it's fill but much of the carcass is left. The lion sleeps nearby in the shade. Some hyenas come along to steal the carcass and the lion awakes and chases off the hyenas.

Does the lion consider moral implications or is it just defending what it owns? Humans act the same way and then create moral codes to frame this behavior.

I am no expert and wont pretend to be, but I see a large grey area where people wre telling me it is black and white.

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
05-04-2014, 03:14 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:14 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Artie - we do this already so whats your point ???
The point was that Banjo said and I quote: "then there is reason to construct a world moral code" but world moral codes have already been "constructed" by evolution and all we can do is just elaborate on them and live by them.
Quote:You also have to be careful about how a universal system is imposed because historically this has ended up in some of the worst disasters both from the religious and secular irrational political systems.
Because they were irrational and went against the evolutionary developed rational moral codes such as "you shall not murder" and the Golden Rule.
Quote:Religion is obvious and dont need to talk about - some people think God gave them a moral absolute code and they go about imposing it on others and end up with abuse, war, torture and killing all those who disagree with Gods alleged revelations.
Religion evolved because if you incorporate evolutionary developed morals such as "you shall not murder" and the Golden Rule (Jesus is alleged to have said "Do to others what you want them to do to you") into religion and if the result is that more Christians live by these rules than not, this religion and these religious people would be evolutionarily selected for.
Quote:As for some secular systems, many start with good intentions to create a perfect moral system which leads to a utalitarian utopia in the future but end up as savage totalitarian dictatorships to achieve this "social reform" eg in some communist plans to create utopian societies via a moral universal code.
The evolved universal moral codes are hard wired in our brains and if there is something wrong with the brain due to injury or disease we may lose the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agPUoKB8eEk You don't "create" a universal moral code, you just build on the ones in most of our brains already.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 03:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 03:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Objective Morality
Universally Preferable Behavior: Rational Proof of Secular Ethics
(a free pdf)
It is not utilitarian, utilitarianism is consequence-based. In principle, morality can not be derived from consequences.
It is not a product of evolution, all such codes are just methods of managing violence.


the thread Drinking Beverage

We do not need hierarchical moral rules, where the supreme ruler is absent from these rules, be it God or the government. All we need is a reciprocal network of universal rules with exceptions for objective biological differences. This is the morality of internet and free market. Voting and worshiping are primitive barbaric rituals of appeasing our supreme lords and masters and invoking their violence upon our enemies. What about no violence?
Yeah, it's a much more sophisticated and well-grounded version of the golden rule. Even Jesus violated his rule, he said, judge not, lest ye be judged - and then in Revelations he's supposed to come and judge everyone, living and dead. My grandmother did not find not find that even remotely ironical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: