Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 08:05 AM
RE: Objective Morality
@Full Circle

If you don't get my point and can infer the answers to your questions from my latest post here they are as clear as I can make them.

Q: What can be objectively said of the actions performed by Tribe 1 in this scenario?

A: That since those actions lead to less well-being and chances of survival for all they are objectively immoral.

Q: Was the kidnapping justified?

A: No for the same reasons.

Q: Was the killing justified?

A: No for the same reasons.

Q: Were the actions of Tribe 1 immoral?

A: Yes because other actions would lead to better chances of well-being and survival for all including themselves.

Q Were the actions of Tribe 1 psychopathic?

Yes because other actions would lead to better chances of well-being and survival for all including themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 07:03 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(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.

On the contrary - I dont think the nazi morals were "different" but still shared the same universal fundamental principles hence why so much work was done to use propaganda and pseudo-science as an example to equivocate jews and other non desirable non-aryans with rats & cockroaches.
I have seen the nazi propaganda video's such as "The Eternal Jew" and they used photography from deliberately made humiliating jewish slums and sewage & dirt infested with cockroaches and rats and kept equivocating both. Then they showed some sporty blue eyes aryans looking really healthy and again made the contrast.
The whole idea here was redefining human and non-human and then creating a moral system to justify killing the non human (or sub-humans) who are defined as blacks, jews and other non aryan sub humans such as eastern Europeans in contrast to the blue eyed healthy muscular "aryans"
This is not relativism or a different moral system but the same moral system with WRONG FACTS !
If the Nazi's really were relativist then no propaganda or pseudo-science is necessary to redefine the target group - show a movie with a really healthy, socially contributing jew who looks identical to any Aryan (yes there are blue eyed blond jews) and say all is the same but we want to kill the jews regardless of what they believe (even if they are secular or Nazi sympathizers) Redefining the facts using blatantly false ideas was essential to the Nazi project otherwise it would be virtually impossible to carry out with any moral justification.

So moral disagreements are sometimes due to the wrong facts not principles. Most people agree it is permissible to kill rats & cockroaches - and hence if the propaganda is believed then it justifies killing any "equivalents" be it jews, eastern Europeans or blacks. Once you critique the facts eg skin colour is scientifically more about eumelanin or melanin in the skin than related to some subhuman species then the moral system can no longer justify murdering blacks or treating them differently to whites (like wise with jewish noses or skull shapes or other features of a minority group used as pseudo-science to redefine the groups human status)

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, 08:31 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:05 AM)Artie Wrote:  @Full Circle

If you don't get my point and can infer the answers to your questions from my latest post here they are as clear as I can make them.

Q: What can be objectively said of the actions performed by Tribe 1 in this scenario?

A: That since those actions lead to less well-being and chances of survival for all they are objectively immoral.

Q: Was the kidnapping justified?

A: No for the same reasons.

Q: Was the killing justified?

A: No for the same reasons.

Q: Were the actions of Tribe 1 immoral?

A: Yes because other actions would lead to better chances of well-being and survival for all including themselves.

Q Were the actions of Tribe 1 psychopathic?

Yes because other actions would lead to better chances of well-being and survival for all including themselves.

Artie - it is not that simple. Tribe 2 might be a primitive backward undeveloped tribe and tribe 1 may end up bringing overall greater benefit to all if they rape & pillage tribe 2, use their women to make more babies who grow up in tribe 2 culture and take the resources from tribe 1 to further develop tribe 2 making it flourish even more into a greater tribe 2 state - even using some tribe 1 slaves.

...and this is not far fetched, its basically what happened when Europe conquered the Aborigines and today Australia is a thriving western democracy not a neolithic hunter gatherer society. In terms of the amount of overall benefit and survival it seems tribe 2 is right to conquer tribe 1 based on the type of utilitarianism your justifying.

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
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
05-04-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:21 AM)Baruch Wrote:  The whole idea here was redefining human and non-human and then creating a moral system to justify killing the non human (or sub-humans) who are defined as blacks, jews and other non aryan sub humans such as eastern Europeans in contrast to the blue eyed healthy muscular "aryans"
This is not relativism or a different moral system but the same moral system with WRONG FACTS !
The evolutionary objectively evolved morality selects for people helping each other instead of people hurting each other. The nazis hurt other people, so the allies helped each other according to evolutionary morals and defeated the nazis. Evolutionary objective morals win. The nazis may have invented their own subjective moral system, but it didn't do them much good did it since they were defeated by the application of universal objective morals by people helping each other defeat them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:32 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:21 AM)Baruch Wrote:  The whole idea here was redefining human and non-human and then creating a moral system to justify killing the non human (or sub-humans) who are defined as blacks, jews and other non aryan sub humans such as eastern Europeans in contrast to the blue eyed healthy muscular "aryans"
This is not relativism or a different moral system but the same moral system with WRONG FACTS !
The evolutionary objectively evolved morality selects for people helping each other instead of people hurting each other. The nazis hurt other people, so the allies helped each other according to evolutionary morals and defeated the nazis. Evolutionary objective morals win. The nazis may have invented their own subjective moral system, but it didn't do them much good did it since they were defeated by the application of universal objective morals by people helping each other defeat them.

Where are you getting this idea from? Because it is entirely incorrect. Natural Selection has favored Group Altruism as a ESS, but to non-group members it favors overt hostility. Your own species is always your biggest competitor in a region and eliminating a competitor increases your groups chances for survival. Also you seem to be very confused about your terms. If someone can choose to disregard Objective morals for their own subjective ones then they are not Objective now are they?

Is killing people wrong, yes or no. Objective morality would have a concrete answer for this.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
05-04-2014, 08:44 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 07:20 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(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?

Artie, on the contrary - the most successful surviving empires which have influenced the world to this day did so by rape, murder and pillage.

Western Europe is a legacy from the Greek-Roman conquests during the
Hellenistic era....and they did plenty raping murdering & pillaging.

Likewise the Islamic Empires created a super state all the way from Indonesia to Morocco - and much of this was expansionist murder, rape & pillage, eventually creating a golden Era around the 10th to 12 century with a surviving legacy today.

Likewise Christianity took over the Roman imperialism and used murder as a tool for rapid expansion and flourishing growth expanding into the Americas and see what we have today all the way from Canada to Chile.
So...if tribe 2 wants to survive and maximize well being then it needs to conquer any less developed tribe 1 cultures and either convert them, kill them or rape and educate the offspring into tribe 2 cultures.

I can go on...China's imperial Empires also used rape, murder and pillage and today the legacy is one of the most powerful countries in the world - this could not have happened had China's imperial past not existed. Warfare has literally created the modern world's economic, social, scientific and political systems in some shape or form.

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, 08:45 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:31 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Artie - it is not that simple. Tribe 2 might be a primitive backward undeveloped tribe and tribe 1 may end up bringing overall greater benefit to all if they rape & pillage tribe 2, use their women to make more babies who grow up in tribe 2 culture and take the resources from tribe 1 to further develop tribe 2 making it flourish even more into a greater tribe 2 state - even using some tribe 1 slaves.

...and this is not far fetched, its basically what happened when Europe conquered the Aborigines and today Australia is a thriving western democracy not a neolithic hunter gatherer society. In terms of the amount of overall benefit and survival it seems tribe 2 is right to conquer tribe 1 based on the type of utilitarianism your justifying.
Except of course that we don't know how much better the conditions could have been in Australia for everybody including the Aborigines if they hadn't been "conquered" in the first place but treated with dignity and respect. How many problems and criticism hasn't Australia faced because of this? Instead of "conquering" but following evolutionary evolved morals such as the Golden Rule all these problems and criticism could have been avoided.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:32 AM)Artie Wrote:  The evolutionary objectively evolved morality selects for people helping each other instead of people hurting each other. The nazis hurt other people, so the allies helped each other according to evolutionary morals and defeated the nazis. Evolutionary objective morals win. The nazis may have invented their own subjective moral system, but it didn't do them much good did it since they were defeated by the application of universal objective morals by people helping each other defeat them.

Where are you getting this idea from? Because it is entirely incorrect. Natural Selection has favored Group Altruism as a ESS, but to non-group members it favors overt hostility. Your own species is always your biggest competitor in a region and eliminating a competitor increases your groups chances for survival. Also you seem to be very confused about your terms. If someone can choose to disregard Objective morals for their own subjective ones then they are not Objective now are they?

Is killing people wrong, yes or no. Objective morality would have a concrete answer for this.

This is true - evolution produces a balance between cooperation within a group and competition between groups with possible aggression leading to destruction of the weaker group or an arms race if the groups have similar strength.
My previous post sums this up historically with the great Empires getting their strength by conquering weaker groups (be it imperialism from Roman, Chinese, Islamic or Christian "in groups")
As for the Nazis:
Firstly there is the redefining facts issue not moral relativism which I dealt with in a previous post i.e redefining some members of the group as an out group such as calling jews or blacks sub-human. This is NOT relativism.

Secondly about allies cooperating and defeating the Nazis is incidental. Evolution does not dictate if the Nazi's will win or lose but bad strategies do - eg what is the Nazi's developed the nuclear bomb first ? True that expelling Jewish scientists like Einstein and other colleagues was counter productive but the WW2 could have turned out differently. (eg Germans develop nukes, there was no bad winter in the Russian invasion and Moscow was nuked leading to the fall of Russia and Americans don't get involved out of nuke fears, eventually leading to the fall of UK......as an example)

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, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 09:02 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Where are you getting this idea from? Because it is entirely incorrect. Natural Selection has favored Group Altruism as a ESS, but to non-group members it favors overt hostility. Your own species is always your biggest competitor in a region and eliminating a competitor increases your groups chances for survival.
My groups chances of survival increases if we can turn our enemies and competitors into our friends and cooperate with them instead of eliminating them. When we have turned our enemies and competitors into our friends we have eliminated the threat and greatly enhanced all our chances of well-being and survival.
Quote:Also you seem to be very confused about your terms. If someone can choose to disregard Objective morals for their own subjective ones then they are not Objective now are they?
If someone chooses to subjectively believe that 2+2=5 why would it not be an objective fact that 2+2=4 and that believing 2+2=5 is "immoral"?
Quote:Is killing people wrong, yes or no. Objective morality would have a concrete answer for this.
Depends on the circumstances of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:57 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Is killing people wrong, yes or no. Objective morality would have a concrete answer for this.
Depends on the circumstances of course.

The rest of what you said was either deliberate misunderstanding of terms or intellectual dishonesty but this is conceding the point. If an action is only right or wrong under correct circumstances (and those circumstances vary from person to person) that is by definition
NOT OBJECTIVE


Thanks for playing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: