Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  The Nazis lost the war because they invaded Russia and declared war on America.
Groups of people helping each other have a better chance of survival and beating back aggressors so that behavior would be selected for. Groups of people, several countries, helped each other and beat back Nazi Germany so those countries that helped each other survived and Nazi Germany didn't. Evolution in action favoring helping behavior and discouraging the opposite behavior.
Quote: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.
So what exactly is the problem? Be short and concise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:05 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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?
I will answer when you have found a source that officially defines "objective" and "objective morality" the way you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 06:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:59 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 04:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I'm not talking about the *view* of the act, but the act itself. If many people can see or do the SAME ACT, and the SAME ACT, (taking a life) can be viewed in countless ways, and with varying degrees of culpability, ((from none, (taking a life in war), to something itself deserving a "death sentence"), to claim there is something "objectively" wrong about it, is preposterous.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

Not all moral laws are akin to theocracy except the theocratic ones !
I said nothing to justify any Divine law theory.
There are many moral systems such as Aristotelianism or universal preference theories or others which are quite compatible with a democratic or a rational society.

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, 03:45 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:24 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 03:05 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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?
I will answer when you have found a source that officially defines "objective" and "objective morality" the way you do.

Ah so the courtiers reply. It is my definition and I explained it entirely. You gave your definition and now we can work to align the two. Just because anyone else or no one else
defines Objective morality (which btw has a very nebulous definition which is why you had to go to a dictionary to define each word separately not in combination) The exact way I do I am clear on my meaning and asked for your own. Now if you are done avoiding the actual issue answer the question.

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, 03:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Mainly @ Luminon:
I agree with you Luminon to an extent - I have also delved into Stefan Molyneux, Libertarianism and objectivism - and we are pretty much in agreement. What I meant by utalitarianism as a necessary part for a moral code is the hierarchy of values isn't a free floating arm chair philosophers concept - something akin to Kantian Deontology. The hierarchy of values depends on utilitarian principles that some values lead to greater capacity for maximizing human potential or as objectivism or Aristotelianism puts it "becoming what man should become as his maximum essence - a rational animal" - not just follow lower values leading to addictions, blindness, futility and lack of flourishing. Yes this does presuppose some teleology that humans should flourish and live to become virtuous citizens and maximize their potential which is rational. However I cannot see what forces someone to live up to this teleology making it "mandatory" or nomological. What is someone does want to eat until they are obese and sit in from of the armchair masturbating all day to porn ? Are you going to send the army and arrest them for "not living to their full potential" ????????????

So, yes I agree - I would much prefer a rational society with people maximizing their potential and living to the highest values, but I don't want the thought police coming along to check my virtue or a totalitarian Platonist dictator managing my life.

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, 04:05 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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)

I will stick to the traffic metaphor. It is more than "just a convention" because using transport systems do have obligatory universal principles. Yes one country can drive on the left and another on the right - thats no big deal. However the same country CANNOT do both !!!! - that's a contradiction and DOES have obligatory universal power like a moral code. Yes it is arbitrary which side of the road is first chosen but not convention once a side of the road is chosen in a certain country - people MUST follow this rule or they will crash and its rational to have a police force to enforce this rule - so next time you go on a motorway I suggest sticking to the side of the road enforced in your country.

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, 04:10 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ah so the courtiers reply. It is my definition and I explained it entirely.
But you see, I can't use your personal definition, one that only exists in your head.
Quote:You gave your definition
I gave the official definitions. Unless you also use the official correct definitions we can't get anywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 01:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

Stevil - you are right to an extent.
The above cases have historical contingencies why they came about and if we have the full historical record and redesigned a moral code to avoid historical mistakes and ignorance then we would avoid some of the cases in your list. Eg Heresy is immoral if there is a single theocracy & universal God were all other religious systems are objectively false. Because there is no God or single correct religion then "heresy" cannot be immoral or for that matter mean anything coherent. Heresy would be equivalent to political dissidents or traitors in meaning.

We can go through the list and analyze what the historical contingencies are, epistemological barriers or limitations and rationally work out whether they are morally favorable or not rather than blindly follow any social rule.
Eg for Gays we know MUCH more about biology and the fact there are innate biological reasons why people are gay - so it is quite reasonable to redefine gays as acceptable choices rather than some intrinsic disease or defective soul that needs eliminating or forcing to change (which is futile as we scientifically know that "changing gays" is not effective and just aggravates psychological & physical trauma.) ....and this is exactly what happened in psychology and DSM guides when gays were removed as some psychological disease due to better epistemological & medical understanding.

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 PM
RE: Objective Morality
Short and concise. Hmmmmm.

You're trolling.

Either that or:

a. You are completely ignorant of history.
b. You constantly contradict yourself. Seemingly with the purpose of frustrating others.
c. You do not appear to know where you are even coming from.
d. This entire exercise is a waste of time because of a b and c.

And you're trolling. I don't say that lightly.

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: