Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:28 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Any moral absolutes existing external to human minds & goals doen not make sense.
A vampire bat shares its food with a starving or sick roost mate. Humans call this moral behavior if humans do it. If there were no humans on the planet to call it moral when humans do it, what does it matter to the behavior of the vampire bat? Are you saying that the behavior of the vampire bat is neither moral nor immoral because there are no humans there to pronounce it moral or immoral? I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean.
Quote: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.
I agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 03:47 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:47 AM)Banjo Wrote:  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.

Humans have a much more advanced conceptual cognitive capacity and language compared to lions.
If the lion has a court system the rules would be "let me arrest and eat that fucking hyena, he just stole my food"

Animals do have concepts of territorial ownership and rules for cooperation to regulate competition - especially apes.
Bonobo's just fuck each other to make the peace and compensate for "theft" - but jokes aside there is a reciprocal and complex social interaction going on which are rule based.
Chimps do respect "ownership" of items and not always take a tool away from even a lower ranking member - I think this behavior is a pre-moral underpinning and all that remains is a more advanced conceptual language to keep track of items and who they belong to. Once you have writing then there is a further leap into moral complexity about who owns what property and what rights they have.

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, 04:02 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:28 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Any moral absolutes existing external to human minds & goals doen not make sense.
A vampire bat shares its food with a starving or sick roost mate. Humans call this moral behavior if humans do it. If there were no humans on the planet to call it moral when humans do it, what does it matter to the behavior of the vampire bat? Are you saying that the behavior of the vampire bat is neither moral nor immoral because there are no humans there to pronounce it moral or immoral?

It may be a proto-moral or pre-moral underpinning because vampire bats don't have the conceptual capacity & language of humans to articulate moral codes.
A good source to study this relationship would be:
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton Science Library)
Frans de Waal

[Image: 41BE6-iRc4L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-stic..._OU02_.jpg]

Some will call the vampire bat analogy to be amoral - however it fits very well with the idea that morality is an emergent phenomena and has objective components.
I used the traffic example - there must be objective rules to regulate traffic and hence morality would be a set of regulatory rules which are necessary for our flourishing - hardly a new idea but backed up from anthropology, evolutionary biology and rational based philosophies that can be traced to philosophers such as Aristotle (and many since)

I can also add that the objective/subjective dichotomy is far too simplistic - in many ways moral sentiments have some similarities to colour perception. It could be that a psychopath is like someone who is colour blind and cannot fit into a moral community just like the colour blind person has neurological limitations making them not perceive a colour painting in the same way as fully sighted person. Colour perception is neither only subjective or objective but has both components.

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, 04:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Luminon - Universally Preferable Behavior or types of desirism or ethical egoism do have consequentialist components and related to a branch of utilitarianism. Yes, these are not Bentham or Mill 'classic' utilitarians - but still a form of utilitarianism.
Also the Universally Preferable Behavior fits very well into the threads I posted comparing morality to traffic codes and having some rational & objective characteristics. (except for people with objective neurological/biological differences)
...again the analogy still holds with the traffic, consider whilst driving if your brakes didnt work and could not stop at traffic lights. Perhaps some people do have neurological damage or deviance making them "morally impaired".

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, 04:26 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:00 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 08:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

Actually it's not "technically" a non-sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
It the SAME exact circumstances are defined by two DIFFERENT terms, it's a failure (actually a perverse refusal in this case) to recognize what the definition is, in the first place.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2014, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 04:47 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:11 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Luminon - Universally Preferable Behavior or types of desirism or ethical egoism do have consequentialist components and related to a branch of utilitarianism. Yes, these are not Bentham or Mill 'classic' utilitarians - but still a form of utilitarianism.
Also the Universally Preferable Behavior fits very well into the threads I posted comparing morality to traffic codes and having some rational & objective characteristics. (except for people with objective neurological/biological differences)
...again the analogy still holds with the traffic, consider whilst driving if your brakes didnt work and could not stop at traffic lights. Perhaps some people do have neurological damage or deviance making them "morally impaired".
I wouldn't say UPB is desirism at all. Its universality is the point, the symmetry, the reciprocity. It's not obvious from the name, but if you'd read into it deeper, the prime directive of UPB is "no unchosen positive obligations". Molyneux rejects consequentialism and utilitarianism. He says often that moral rules can not be derived from anything that physically exists, they must be derived from rational principles, not from culture, evolution or physics. Some people say they derive morality from physics. I say, physics isn't value-neutral, it's value-specific, it's science-specific, physics-specific, it has nothing to do with morality. Utilitarianism, or whatever brings more pleasure, is rejected as well. Pleasure is not truth! If dentists gave us only morphine but did not drill our teeth which is unpleasant, they would not be good dentists. You could argue that we look forward to the pleasure of future use of our teeth, but in fact nobody thinks that way. And anyway that is a future retrospective speculation, which is just nonsense. The only things we know in the present are the principles, such as that it is universally preferable to have and act upon a state of the art scientific information, regardless of how it feels.

People often put forward positive obligations for others.
- They usurp the right to make rules, to define obligations
- They derive devastating moral consequences from not upholding these obligations (moral argument is extremely powerful)
- They except themselves from these obligations and consequences, thus acting in a corrupt way.
- They often ignore objective biological differences. (blaming children for example, while completely withholding responsibility from adult parents)

UPB is needed to expose and reject these corrupt practices, on which culture is based. Desires or preferences are not the point, they are simply one of things that UPB can be applied to, things that we deal with very often.
I don't think this is comparable with traffic code, because traffic or other machines have no moral dimension. People under compulsion or with brain damage have conversely less moral responsibility, as it corresponds to their objective condition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 04:51 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 04:59 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(04-04-2014 08:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.
So if we can find a person who thinks that 2+2=5 it proves that it is not objectively correct that 2+2=4 because for 2+2 to be 4 all would have to agree about that all the time? Or is it more likely that those people who think 2+2=5 simply can't count? For something to be objective doesn't require that all agree all the time. On the contrary, if something is objectively right it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 05:21 AM
RE: Objective Morality
My point exactly Baruch.


(05-04-2014 03:47 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 02:47 AM)Banjo Wrote:  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.

Humans have a much more advanced conceptual cognitive capacity and language compared to lions.
If the lion has a court system the rules would be "let me arrest and eat that fucking hyena, he just stole my food"

Animals do have concepts of territorial ownership and rules for cooperation to regulate competition - especially apes.
Bonobo's just fuck each other to make the peace and compensate for "theft" - but jokes aside there is a reciprocal and complex social interaction going on which are rule based.
Chimps do respect "ownership" of items and not always take a tool away from even a lower ranking member - I think this behavior is a pre-moral underpinning and all that remains is a more advanced conceptual language to keep track of items and who they belong to. Once you have writing then there is a further leap into moral complexity about who owns what property and what rights they have.

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, 05:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Artie I am beginning to think you are having us on. That this is some weird form of trolling. Am I correct?


(05-04-2014 04:51 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 08:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.
So if we can find a person who thinks that 2+2=5 it proves that it is not objectively correct that 2+2=4 because for 2+2 to be 4 all would have to agree about that all the time? Or is it more likely that those people who think 2+2=5 simply can't count? For something to be objective doesn't require that all agree all the time. On the contrary, if something is objectively right it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree.

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, 05:25 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:51 AM)Artie Wrote:  For something to be objective doesn't require that all agree all the time. On the contrary, if something is objectively right it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree.

How do you tell whose morals are objectively correct then?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: