Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 12:30 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 12:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If something is factually true then it would be true regardless of situations such as time periods or culture. Do you disagree and if so why?
Can you stop procrastinating and simply quote some sources defining "objective" and "objective morality" as you define them here!? "It is black and white, either an action is right or wrong under all contingencies. Culture and Time would not affect it, if something is Objectively Immoral it would be universally agreed upon."

If something is factually true then it would be true regardless of situations such as time periods or culture. Do you disagree and if so why?

Answer the question.

(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
05-04-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:33 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:13 AM)Baruch Wrote:  The Americas is a good example - the Spanish, Portuguese, British and other conquerors virtually eliminated the indigenous American Indians bringing a very different culture. Likewise with the Australia example. Nothing in evolution necessitates each separate groups must cooperate and treat each other with dignity - on the contrary it is competition between groups which has created technology, sophisticated political systems, economic and other forms of social development.
Likewise anthropologically competition between groups such as hunter gatherers and agrarians societies also led to fighting and competition for resources leading to further developments in farming, defense, crop rotation, food storage, more complex political systems and eventually to empire building. Then different Empires fight each other leading to further developments in military technologies, civil engineering projects to consolidate the Empires strength and advanced economic, education & political systems - and even time for philosophizing once the Empire has enough resources & not require people to spend all day hunting and gathering but time to contemplate (eg The Greek empires didnt just pop into existence but went through the above process - some of it savage eg conquest of the Persian Empires to expand Hellenism to the East) .
I'm not quite sure where you are going with this... are you trying to say that living by the Golden Rule and "you shall not murder" actually is detrimental to progress and that instead of helping each other we should be conquering and killing each other because that leads to empire building?

I dont think you get it Artie.

Cooperation AND competition.

If we all kill each other we go extinct.
However there are in-groups and out-groups and often competition between these has led to progress. Likewise with other animals. Eg Chimps cooperate within their own groups but attack other groups, kill the Alpha males and take the females. In the Long run this becomes an arms race and leads to stronger individual groups.

BUT

This has nothing to do with morality which cannot be inferred from an evolutionary process of natural selection. This is a fallacy to infer moral rules from natural selection.(naturalistic fallacy)
Evolution & specifically natural selection are necessary for morality (eg capacity to have empathy is evolved) but not sufficient and a seriously bad mistake to infer "social Darwinism" from "biological Darwinism"......as we all know from Nazi'sm and the abominations of other cases in the 20th century.
Eg evolution makes some people short sighted, so we should also make sure we have short sighted people in the same ratio. Evolution kills off some of our populations to disease so we should do the same......this is just silly and dangerous.

Our capacity to reason means we can break free from natural selection in a way never possible from the past - the greatest example is from medicine which goes directly against selection pressures from millions of years of evolution. eg someone born with type 1 insulin would almost certainly be selected opu quite quickly but with the discovery of insulin can lead normal lives.

In moral reasoning, exactly like medicine we can decide on the best rules to create for thriving, flourishing, prosperity, happiness or whatever goal.

Natural selection doesnt give a shit if your happy - but we can make rules to assist becoming happier just like making medicine to be healthier. Again, natural selection doesn't give a shit if you get cancer after you have replicated and can no longer look after your offspring, natural selection has no agency and doesnt care if you want to do a world tour at the age of 80yrs old and live an extra 10 year or end up with serious disease - you have passed your genes, looked after offspring and thats it. However we as humans with a rational capacity might care and want to do the world tour, so take some medicine to kill a bacterial infection and avoid early death as an example. Likewise you may not want children as a life goal even though you have potential for good quality offspring - that is up to you to decide.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
05-04-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-04-2014 07:38 PM)Baruch Wrote:  ...and thats the point, if all moral laws disappeared we would still put our lives on the line to defend property........AND RECREATE ALL THE LAWS AGAIN !!!
If we were to destroy the laws and rebuild them based on necessity regarding safe and stable society rather than to enforce moral beliefs then we would get most of the same laws back. But there are a few which would not come back e.g.:
gay
prostitution
polygomy
incest
nudity
Low class drugs
Heresy
abortion

Basically society would be more tolerant and diverse.
How do I know this?
Because in many countries these things are legal and yet society is safe and stable.

(04-04-2014 07:38 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Hence moral laws have an objective basis and are necessary in the strong sense of the term.
Moral laws are unnecessary, society can function better without them. Moral laws are akin to theocracy, for all theocracy is, is a flavour of morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 02:40 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:59 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 10:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've literally tried explaining that to him across a half a dozen posts already. He is willfully ignorant and chooses to continuously misuses terms (like 'objective') without defining them himself and refuses to acknowledge it when others define them for him.

He's either a troll or a fucktard. As of right now, he's acting too stupidly to tell.
And yet again your only contribution are insults.

And yet, you refuse to say anything that warrants otherwise, ya' fucktard. I can't be held accountable for the fact that you lack the basic comprehension to understand what is being presented to you.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: Objective Morality
The Nazis lost the war because they invaded Russia and declared war on America.

Those morals did not die out. The war consitutes extenuating circumstances.

Plus many people today still hold those moral views.

Seriously Artie, you linked an article that disagrees with your premise. What is going on here? Are you arguing just to annoy everyone? My question regarding trolling was serious. At first I took you seriously but I think you are going too far here. Seriously, the article agreed with us, not you. I read it thinking "what is wrong wih this guy?" And I usually give the benefit of the doubt.

(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.

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, 02:57 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 12:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If something is factually true then it would be true regardless of situations such as time periods or culture. Do you disagree and if so why?

Answer the question.
I take this as proof that you can't provide any official definitions of "objective" and "objective morality" corresponding with your claim that "It is black and white, either an action is right or wrong under all contingencies. Culture and Time would not affect it, if something is Objectively Immoral it would be universally agreed upon." On the contrary, the definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions" and doesn't require to be "universally agreed upon." If a person agreed or not, that would be his opinion. And the definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions." As in nothing to do with being "universally agreed upon."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:57 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 05:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.

Your opinion. Therefore subjective.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
05-04-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [quote='Artie' pid='540052' dateline='1396717161']And yet again your only contribution are insults.
Quote:And yet, you refuse to say anything that warrants otherwise, ya' fucktard. I can't be held accountable for the fact that you lack the basic comprehension to understand what is being presented to you.
And yet again your only contribution are insults.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:57 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 12:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If something is factually true then it would be true regardless of situations such as time periods or culture. Do you disagree and if so why?

Answer the question.
I take this as proof that you can't provide any official definitions of "objective" and "objective morality" corresponding with your claim that "It is black and white, either an action is right or wrong under all contingencies. Culture and Time would not affect it, if something is Objectively Immoral it would be universally agreed upon." On the contrary, the definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions" and doesn't require to be "universally agreed upon." If a person agreed or not, that would be his opinion. And the definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions." As in nothing to do with being "universally agreed upon."

Gravity is a fact, it is true regardless of time or culture. It exists separately from humanity. You claim morality is the same as gravity so I again ask you, If something is factually true then it would be true regardless of situations such as time periods or culture. Do you disagree and if so why?

(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, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 03:15 PM by Banjo.)
RE: Objective Morality
Ok. I just woke up and am a bit cloudy. I responded to anoher vacuous question. I have now read every other post that followed.

Artie my dear, you're trolling. This is just my opinion but I believe I am correct. In your last response to me you claim I did not address your point. But Artie it was non sensical. There is a saying I believe to be true. I would not mention it but now I consider you a troll. Here it is:

A fool has more questions than a professor has answers.

And with that I leave others to deal with your trolling. By the way, you are very good at it. I honestly thought you were sincere.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: