Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 05:33 AM
RE: Objective Morality
There is no correct Artie. It is all subjective. That is why secular human morals differ from Islamic morals and Nazi morals and Buddhist morals etc etc etc.

The earth is a big rock floating in orbit around one of many suns. We are part of a group of other groups pooping all over it.

Mankinds great legacy, sewerage.

Big Grin


(05-04-2014 05:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(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?

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, 06:50 AM
RE: Objective Morality
@Artie,

Ignoring my questions doesn't make them go away. I really would like to know what you're answers are to the questions I posed regarding the scenario I described.

I think you're not answering because it perfectly refutes your premise of Objective Morality and shows that all morality is Subjective. If my little scenario isn't to your liking then let's discuss one of the following historical events.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocau...dren_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_Sea

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
05-04-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 05:23 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Artie I am beginning to think you are having us on. That this is some weird form of trolling. Am I correct?
You don't actually address the point below. The very definition of "objective" is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." " based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings". So if a person is of the opinion that 2+2=5 it still is objectively right that 2+2=4.
(05-04-2014 04:51 AM)Artie Wrote:  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, 06:57 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 05:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(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?
If in doubt just go by the Golden Rule and you would be objectively correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 02:00 AM)Baruch Wrote:  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.

Not so fast. It is not clear if the moral disagreements are ever in exactly the same circumstances when defining the terms such as murder, killing or taking a life etc (or property is the examples I used.)
Different cultures may define murder differently but the circumstances (historical influences, predispositions, philosophies or whatever are different) eg a christian philosophizing about just war theory, a totalitarian secular dictator, secular humanist, Islamic Jihadist or Jain complaining we are murdering all the animals and advocating pacifism & veganism.

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, 07:01 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:50 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @Artie,

Ignoring my questions doesn't make them go away. I really would like to know what you're answers are to the questions I posed regarding the scenario I described.

I think you're not answering because it perfectly refutes your premise of Objective Morality and shows that all morality is Subjective. If my little scenario isn't to your liking then let's discuss one of the following historical events.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocau...dren_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_Sea





Or how about the events at Memorial Hospital in New Orleans back in 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-de...morial-826

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 05:33 AM)Banjo Wrote:  There is no correct Artie. It is all subjective. That is why secular human morals differ from Islamic morals and Nazi morals and Buddhist morals etc etc etc.
Except that Nazi subjective morals were so at odds with evolutionary objective morals that they didn't survive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Luminon - I did not mean traffic have a moral dimension !!!
I mean the rules we use as a traffic code for DRIVERS be it taxi's, cars or bicycles & pedestrians !!!!! We can compare these traffic rules which as social cooperative rules to a moral code such as not stealing or murdering each other.

Your right about the consequences & "pleasure /happiness" issue - it is necessary for morality but not sufficient. Rational conceptual frameworks make it both necessary & sufficient and UPB does do this but also has necessary utilitarian aspects - just not alone (just UPB is not classic Mill/Bentham utilitarianism).

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, 07:20 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:50 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @Artie,

Ignoring my questions doesn't make them go away. I really would like to know what you're answers are to the questions I posed regarding the scenario I described.

I think you're not answering because it perfectly refutes your premise of Objective Morality and shows that all morality is Subjective.
Smile Maybe you didn't understand my point? Evolution is about the survival of populations. If your two tribes (populations) continue to rape and kill each other and two other tribes cooperate and help each other instead they will have a better chance of survival. Hence helping moral, raping and killing immoral. The automatic objective process of evolution via natural selection sees to it that those who help each other survive better than those who don't.

Quote: If my little scenario isn't to your liking then let's discuss one of the following historical events.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocau...dren_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_Sea
Sure. What about them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 08:08 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 07:07 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Luminon - I did not mean traffic have a moral dimension !!!
I mean the rules we use as a traffic code for DRIVERS be it taxi's, cars or bicycles & pedestrians !!!!! We can compare these traffic rules which as social cooperative rules to a moral code such as not stealing or murdering each other.
The way you describe social cooperative rules, you can not put them together with moral code (stealing, murdering). You just can't mix together social conventions and actions that preserve person's integrity (life, property). Integrity is inherently a moral category, it has to do with definition of what is human.
If the conventions are not derived from the universal first principles, they have no moral dimension and thus they are not obligatory. At best, they are guidelines for our convenience, at worst, they are lies, propaganda and hindrances to true morality.

So the comparison doesn't hold. Traffic rules can differ, people can drive on left side or right side, or backwards, FFS. But this can be really misused to claim that it is possible to have various sets of morals which are equally good. That is not what morality or universality is really about. I'm not against conventions, but I'm all for people using conventions, not conventions using people.

If I should translate that to the metaphor of traffic, then universal morality has to do with defining what is a car and what is it meant for and if any present traffic rules are adequate for the task. The purpose is getting to the destination, not killing pedestrians or playing demolition derby or to drive backwards. The purpose is inherent in the question, "what is a car?" answered by the design, function, content and destination of the car. All specific implementations of traffic rules have to be subordinated to this answer. Philosophy absolutely requires us to get our hierarchy of values or priorities right.
Correspondingly, three basic universal questions in moral philosophy are, what is human? What is freedom? Is human free? (philosophers have answered these questions, but they are not the point now)

(05-04-2014 07:07 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Your right about the consequences & "pleasure /happiness" issue - it is necessary for morality but not sufficient. Rational conceptual frameworks make it both necessary & sufficient and UPB does do this but also has necessary utilitarian aspects - just not alone (just UPB is not classic Mill/Bentham utilitarianism).
In that case, if this post still isn't clear to you (and I have tried to put it very clearly), you have to explain what do you mean by utilitarianism. The way people use utilitarianism nowadays, everything can be "explained" as utilitarianism. And as you know, explanations that explain everything, explain nothing.
You may reject the simple pleasure/pain utilitarianism, that's good. But you can not claim that something is utilitarianism, because it has utilitarian aspects. Utilitarianism says nothing about what the utility is - and if it says that anything may be of utility, then it is meaningless.
Reason or rationality itself is by definition utilitarian, because it is an instrument, it can be applied only within a framework that defines the utility. An instrument like reason can not be moral or immoral, everything depends on what scale is it applied, because morality has everything to do with the hierarchy of values, where on top are the most universal, most abstract values, applicable on mass scale. Rational conceptual frameworks are NOT sufficient, the only sufficient framework is THE highest one of all - philosophy, nothing less.

Thanks to philosophy and its moral application, this framework for reason is universal. Thus universality is the whole point of objective reasonable morality, not utilitarian reason for the sake of itself.
You are correct, all the elements are present in the moral order, but you've got to get the priorities right, you have to place the universality of morality highest and its rational implementations lower, subordinated to it. The rest will be fixed by paying heed to details like objective biological differences. This is the objective, universal morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: